Thr: Studies in Matbtmatkal Thinking aod Leanttna: &:ries Alan SdtoeDfdd, Advisory Editor CarpenlerlFennema/Rombetg: IWtiOMI Numben: An Inlegrarion ofReuarch CobbIBauersfeld: 1M Emergenu oJMathemo.tical Meaning: Intuac/ion in Class room Cultures
Rombetg!FennemaICarpenler: uuion ojFunctions
Schoenfeld: MathemaJical
Integra/ing Research
on
the Graphical Represen
The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom Cultures
Edited by
Paul Cobb Vanderbilt University Heinrich Bauersfeld University of Bielefeld
u;A
LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATFS, PUBLISHERS I99S HlDsd.� New Jersey Hove. UK
Copy....1995 .. 0 by Lawrma Erlbaum Awri ..... Inc. AU riPts taerYecI. No pan of this book may be repro
dllCed in any fDl'Tll, by pboI05lal. microform. n:tricvaI $)'Skill, Of any other IDWIS, wilM\l the prior ....mien permission oflhe publisher.
UWR:IICC Erlbaum Aanri.c:s, 11K Publi5hcni 365 Hillsdak, New Jersey 0 64 1 2 .•
ICover desip by Many SaIomon.Deell
fhc, emc� of mathefOalical meanioa : inlCtXlion in cl assrom o cu.ltllfU f Wieed b y Paul Cobb, HeiDrich BauenJck1. p. cm. Includca bibliognphical R:fcR:1ICCS andiPdu. · 17 · X 28 ISBN ()'1IOS8 17 2 9 · 8 I. MIJlc� aad ruchioa. L Cobb, Paul. II. Ssfeld, H. QAIIl!6S 1995 7 3 . 27 ' 9 4 39 2 9 4 ClP BooIupub\i$bcd by I...awrcna: ErlbalmAssociac:s arc printed on acid free · IJId durability. Priotcd in the Uniced SWCl of America 109876 5 4
Contents
Preface
1
Introduction: The Coordination of Psychological and Sociolog ical Perspectives in Mathematics Education
Paul Cobb and Heinrich Bauersjeld
2
4
Studies PaulCobb
2.5
Chil dren's Talk in InquiryMathematics Classros om 131
Themati cPatlemsofInteractionaOOSociomalbemalicalNoons JorRVOiSI
6
17
Mathematical Le3t1lingand SmallGroupInteraction: Four Case
EmaYackel
5
1
The Teaching Experiment Classroom
Paul Cobb, Ema Yacul, and Tury Wood
3
Ix
163
An Emerging Practice of Teaching
Terry \\bod
203 vi;
vii!
7
CONTENTS
1be Ethnography of Argumentation GofZ Krummh�uu
229
H�inrich Bau�rsf�ld
271
AuthorIndex.
Subject Index
30J
Preface
1be collaboration thai gave rise to this book began in 1985 when the two of us shared a room at the Gordon Research Conference on Cybernetics. It was evident from our initial conversations thai we were interested in many of the same issues, including that of accounting for the messiness and complexity of mathematical learning as it occurs in classroom situations. However, it also became apparent that we approached lhese issues from differenl theoretical perspectives. Bauersfeld stressed the social and interactionaJ aspects ofmathematical activity, wherus Cobb treaJed mathematica1 development as an individual process of conceptual construc tion. In the following years, these initial converMtions broadened inlo a series of meetings that included our colleagues Gi:itz Krurnmheuer. Jijrg Voigt. Terry Wood, and Ema Yackel. These interactions were punctuated by both the exhilaration that comes from a meeting of minds and the perplexity associated with differences in perspectives and languages. Frequently, observations that either the American or Gennan group ueated as central appeared pcripheralto the olher group. II eventu ally took us 3 years 10 establish a reasonable basis for communication, and classrom o video recordings served as a primary means by which we came to understand each olbers' positions. In the course oflhese discussions. we arrived at the conclusion that psycholog ical and sociological perspectives each tell half of a good Slory. What was needed was a combined approach that takes individual students' mathematical interpreta tions seriously while simultaneously seeing their activity as necessarily socially situated. A 3year project that had as its goal the coordination of psychological and sociological perspectives was subsequently supported by the Spencer Foundation. This book reports the results of that collaboration.
ix
x
PREFACE
The book is unusual in thaI it grew out of a systematic research effort and yet reflects lhedivcrsity of the individual authors' interests. Thus, it is much more than a compendium of loosely related papers. 1be process of collaborative argumenta tions wherein we critiqued and influenced each others' analyses continued through out the project. Further, video recordings continued 10 be an invaluable 1001, and we agreed to share a single set of recordings and lTaIIscriplS made in one second grade classroom in which iru;truction was generally compatible with current American reform recommendations. Consequently, the reader encounters the same children in multiple situations as they contributed t o wholeclass discussions, anempted to solve tasks posed by an interviewer, and interacted with anOlher child during smallgroup problemsolving sessions. Further, the smallgroup and whole class episodes sometimes appear in two or more chapters. in which different aspects arc broughl lo the fore depending on the authors' purposes. A rich, complex, and multifaceted view therefore emerges of both (he students' and teacher's individual activity, and the inquiry mathematics microculture established in the classroom. At the same time, the reader's familiarity with the classroom provides a grounding for the theoretical conSln!cts developed in the individually authored chapters. The inlroductory chapter sets the stage by contrasting the combined consln!c tivist and imeraclionist approach with several othertheorelical traditions, including those ofVygorsky and Piaget. In his chapter, Cobb reports case studies offour pairs of students' smallgroup activity. Thischapterserves to introduce the reader to eight of the children who feature prominently in the subsequent chapters. The relation ship between smallgroup interactions and mathematical learning is dealt with bolb theoretically and as a pragmatic: issue that has implications for instructional improvement. In her chapter, Yackel describes how some of these same eight children varied their mathematical explanations according to the cOnlext. Her analysis therefore bears directly on the issue of situated cognition. In addition. she discusses how the classroom teacher supponed the students' attempts 10 explain their mathematical Ibinking. Wood picles up and broadens this theme in her chapter, in which she analyzes how the teacher gradually reorganized her classroom practices and developed a pedagogical approach compatible with recent refonn recommendations. Voigt's conoibution also touches on reform in Ibat he describes how the teacher influenced the students' mathematical activity and leaning without, at the same time, obliging them to use any particular solution method. In addition, he analyzes the classroom discourse to understand how the teacher and students developed the intersubjectivity necessary for mathematically coherenl discussions. In his chapter, Krummheuer discusses the related notion of mathematical argumentation. He draws on both smallgroup and wholeclass episodes to document the benefits and limitations of argumentations for conceptual, mathematical learning. Bauersfeld continues this focus in discourse in his chapter. by critiquing traditional approaches to language in mathematics and then proposing a joint conSln!ctivist and inter actionist alternative. The key issue that ties the chapters logether i s thai of relating analyses of individual students' thinking 10 analyses of classroom interactions and discourse.
PREFACE
xi
and the classroom microcuhurc. The combined constructivist and interactionist approach taken b y the authors draws on symbolic interac tionism and ethnomethodology, and thus constitutes an alternative to Vygookian and Soviet activity theory approaches. The boo k shoukf therefore be relevant to educators and psychologists interested in situated cognition and the relation between sociocultu ral processes and individua1 psychological plOcesses.ln addition. the book brings together a range of theoretica1 constructs and illustrates what they might offer regarding analyses of students' and teachers' actions in complex classroom situa tions. Further, particular chapters will be of interest to researchers who focus on more specific issues. 1bose include sma1lgroup collaboration and learning (chap. 3); the teachet's activity and growth (chaps. 4 and 6); and language, discourse, and argumentation (chaps. 4, 5, 7, and 8). I t is imponanl to note that the analyses reponed in this book grew out of a classroombased research and development project. Thus, although the primary thrust of the book is theoretiC:JI, it grew out of practice and can feed back to guide practice. The theoretical consUUCts described by the chapter authors are offered as ways of interpreting what might be going on when attempts are made to reform classroom mathemntical practices. Analyses or this type arecentral todevelopmen tal or transformational research in that they both lead to the funher developmenl of theory and feedback to infonn the revision of classroom activities. We therefore hope that this book will conuibute to reform in mathematics education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with any \'enlure of this type, we must acknowledge the help of a number of
people. We are especially grateful to the teachers and students of Tippecanoe County, Indiana, and Gary, Indiana, featured in the video recordings and our discussions. The partnership with these teachers has been enriching beyond mea sure. A special mention must be given to Graceann Merkel, the secondgrade teacher whose instructional practice is discussed in several ofthe chapc:ers. We also want 10 express our gratitude to the Spencer Foundation for its support of the analyses reported in this volume. The Foundation'S vice president. Marion M. FaJdel, and OUt program officers, Linda May Fit�gerald and Rebecca Barr. have provided encouragement at every step of the project. Alan Schoenfeld wrote a detailed and penetrating review that conuibutcd greatly to the improvement of the book. Weare also indebted 10 Cheryl Burkey for formalling the manuscript. Finally,
a special thanks must go (0 Janet Bowers for her invaluable assistance with the editing process. Paul Cobb
Heinrich Baue.rs[eld
1 Introduction: The Coordination of Psychological and Sociological Perspectives in Mathematics Education Paul Cobb Vanderbilt University
Heinrich Bauersfeld University of Bielefeld
The three American and three German contributors lothis volume each explore the coordination of cognitive and sociologica1 perspectives in mathematics education. Collectively. the contributions are diverse and yct have an overarching coherence:. The diversity reflects differences both in the authors' theoretical backgrounds and in their interests and concerns. Thus, the issues addressed cover the gamut from smallgroup interactions [0 students' development of ways of Janguaging in the mathematics classroom. The coherence reflects the close collaboration of the authors, their use of the same set of video recordings and transcripts, and their compatible epistemological commitments. Each of the authors refers to the basic tenets of both constructivism and social inleractionisrn. Thus, they draw on von Glasersfeld's (1987) characterization ofstudents as active creators of their ways of mathematicaJ knowing. and on the imeractionist view that learning involves the o culture. Further. interactive constitution of mathematical meanings in a (classrom) the authors assume that this culture is brought fonh jointly (by the teacher and students), and that the process of negotiating meanings mediates between cognition and culture (Bauersfeld. Krummheuer. & Voigt, 1988). The importance of sociological perspectives has long been acknowledged in a variety of disciplines. However. the emergence of this viewpoint in European mathematics education research is a �Iatively recent development (Balacheff. 1
2
COBB AND BAUEASFELD
1986; Bauersfeld, 1980; Bishop, 1985; Brousseau, 1984). Further, this interpretive stance has only come to the fore in the United States in lhe last few years. As recently as 1988. Eisenhart educators "are accuslOmed to assuming thatlhe development of cognitive skills is central to human development. (and1 that these skills appear in a regular sequence regardless of context or content" (p. 101). The growing trend to go beyond purely cognitive analyses i s indicated by an increasing number of texts that question an exclusive focus on the individual learner (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, 1991: Lave. 1988: Newman, Griffin, & Cole. 1989; Nunes, Schliemann, & Camber, 1993; Saxe. 1991). The analyses presented in lhis volume contribute 10 this trend while advancing an alternative position that draws more on symbolic
interactionism (Blumer. 1969)and ethnometlxxlology (Mehan & Wood, 1975) than on the work of Vygotsky and Soviet activity theorists. We can best clarify the motivations for undertaking the collaborative research
reported in this volume by first considering what il ought 10 mean to know and do mathematics in school, and then by outlining current sociological approaches to mathematical activity.
SCHOOL MATHEMATICS AND INQUIRY MATHEMATICS The findings of numerous empirical studies indicate that, in thesettingof traditional U.S. textbook·based teaching. many students develop conceptions that deviate significantly from those that the teacher intends. Frequently. these conceptions are such thai students associale a sequence of symbol manipulations with various notational configurations (Thompson, 1994). Concomitantly. analyses of the social interactions in these classrooms indicate that the construction of such concepts enables students to appear mathematically competent (Gregg, 1993; McNeal, 1992; Schoenfeld. 1987: Yang, 1993). In Much and Shweder's (1978) lenns. the mathe matical proctices established in these classrooms appear to have the quality of instructions to be followed (Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & McNeal, 1992).ln other words, the classroom discourse is such that symbol·manipulation acts do not carry the significance of acting mentally on mathematical objects. Further, because there is nothing beyond the symbols 10 which the leacher and students publicly refer, a mathematical explanation involves reciting a sequence of steps for manipulating symbols. Mathematics as it is constituted in these classrooms, therefore, appears to be a largely selfcomained activity that is not directly related to students' outof·school activities (Cobb. 1987; Confrey, 1990). These classroom mathematical practices can be contrasted with those consti· tuted in inquiry classroom s. where a radically different microculture has been established and in which the teacher and students together constitute a community of validators (8ussi, 1991: Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef, 1989; Human, Murray. & Olivier, 1989; Lampert, 1990). The standards of argumentation
1.
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAl PERSPECTIVES
3
established in an inquiry classroom are such lhallhe teacher and students typically challenge explanations thai merely describe the manipulation of symbols. Further, acceptable explanations appear 10 carry lhe significance of acting on takenas shared mathemaLical objects (Cobb cl aI 1992). Consequently, from the observer's perspective. the teacher and students seem 10 be acting in a takenasshared .•
malhematicaJ reality, and to be elaborating thai reality in lhe course ofthcir ongoing negotiations of mathematical meanings. We follow Richards (1991) in calling these two types of classroom microcul lures the school mathematics and the inquiry mathematics microcuhures. Davis and Hersh (1981) succinctly captured the distinction between them when they noted thaI "Mathematicians know they are studying an objective reality. To an outsider. they seem 10 be engaged in an esoteric communication with themselves and a small group of friends" (pp. 4344). 1lJe public discourse of traditional school mathematics in which explanations involve specifying instructions for manipulat ing symbols appears to have the characteristics of an esoteric communication. In contrast, the public discourse in an inquiry mathematics classroom is such that the teacher and students appear to act as Platonisl.'i who are communicating about a mathematical reality that they experience as objective (Hawkins, 1985). The contributors to this volume all value mathematical activity of this latter type and seek to account for it by coordinating sociological and psychological perspectives. When they take a sociological perspective, they talk of takenasshared mathemat ical objects and describe them as social accomplishments that emerge via a process of interactive constitution. When they take a psychological perspective, they talk of experientially real mathematical objects and describe them as personal construc tions that emerge via a process of active conceptual selforganization.
LEARNING MATHEMATICS AND SOCIAL INTERACTION Two general theoretical positions on the relationship between social processes and psychological development can be identified in the current literature. These posi tions frequently appear 10 be in direcl opposition in that one gives priority to social and cultural processes, and the olher to the individual autOflomous lc:amer (Voigt, 1992). 1be two positions might therefore be tenned collectillism and individualism, respectively. The collectivist position is exemplified by theories developed both in the Vygotskian tradition and in the sociolinguistic tradition. In both cases, mathe matical learning is viewed primarily as a process of acculturation. Vygotskian theories, which are currently popular in the United States, locate learning
in
copanicipation in social practices. Sociolinguistic theories, which arc currently more prominent in the United Kingdom: characterize mathematical leaming as an initialion into the social tradition of doing mathematics in school. Both types of theories can be contrnsted with individualistic theories, which treat mathematical learning almos! exclusively
as
a process of active individual construction. This
4
COBB AND BAUEASFELD
position is exemplified by neoPiagctian theories, which view social interaction as a source of cognitive conflicts that facilitate autonomous cognitive devclopmenl
The Vygotskian and Activity Theory Tradition Theorists who work in this tradition tend to assume from the outset that cognitive processes are subsumed by social and culruraJ processes. Empirical suppon forthis position comes from paradigmatic studies such as those ofCarrahec, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985), Lave (1988), Saxe (1991). and Scribner (1984), which demonstrate that an individual's arithmetical activity is profoundly influenced by his or her participation in encompassing cullUraI practices such as completing worksheet s in .school, shopping in a supennarket. selling candy on the stree t. and packing crates in a dairy. These findings are consistent with and add credence to the claim that mathematics as it is rc:aJizcd in the microc:uluU"cs of school mathe matics and inquiry mathematics constiWles two different forms of activity. Further, the findings support the view that mathematical practices are negotiau:d and institutionalized by members of communities. In making the assumption that priority should be given 10 social and cullural processes, theorists working in lhis tradition adhere to Vygotsky's (1979) conten tion !hat "'I"e social dimension of consciousness is primary in facl and time. The individual dimension of consciousness is derivative and secondary" (p. 30). From this, it follows that ''Thought (cognition) must not be �duced to a subjectively psychological process" (Davydov, 1988, p. 16). Instead, thought should be viewed as "something essentially 'on the surface: as something located .. . on the borderline between the organism and the outside world. For thought...has a life only in an environment of socially constituted meanings" (Bakhurst, 1988, p. 38). Consequently. the individual in social action is taken as the basic unit of analysis (Minick. 1989). The primary issue to be addres sed in this tradition is, then, that of explaining how panicipation in social interactions and culturally organized activ ities influences psychological development. This issue has been fonnulated in a variety of different ways. For example, Vygotsky (1978) emphasized both social interaction with more knowledgeable others in the zone of proximal development and the use of culturally developed sign systems as psychological tools fCX' thinking. In contrast, Leont'ev (1981) argued that thought de\'e1ops from practical, objectoriented activity or labor. Several U.S. theorists have elaborated constructs developed by Vygotsky and his students, and speak of cognitive apprenticeship (Brown et al., 1989; Rogoff. 1990), legitimate peripheraJ panicipation (Forman, 1992; Lave & Wenger. 1991), or the negotiation of meaning in the consll'UClion zone (Newman et aI., 1989). In each of these contemporary accounts, learning is located in coparticipation in cultural practices. As a consequence. educational recommendations usually focus on the kinds of social engagements that increasingly enable siudents to participate in the activities of the expert rather than on the cognitive processes and conceptual structures involved (Hanks, 1991).
PSYCHOLOGICAl AND SOCiOlOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
1.
5
activity developed within this lJ'adilion might both An analysis of classrom o locate it within a broader activity system that takes account of the function of schooling as a socia1 institution and auends to lhe immediate interactions between the: teacher and students (Axel. 1992). This dual focus is explicit in lave and Wenger's (199I) claim that their "concept of legitimate peripheral participation provides a framework for bringing logethertheories of situated activity and lheories about the production and repnxluction of the social order" (p. 47). In general, the individual's participation in culturally organized practices and facetoface infer actions carries the explanatory burden in accounts of cognitive development proposed from this perspective. Thus, the centrol concern is to delineate the social and cultural basis of personaJ experience. Theories developed within this tradition clearly make an imponantcontribution, panicularly in accounting for the regeneration of the traditional practices of mathematics instruction. llley.therefore. ha\>e much to offer in an era of refonn in mathematics education that is concerned with the restructuring of the school and takes the issue of ethnic and cultural diversity seriously. However. it can be argued that they arc: theories ofthe conditions for the possibility of learning (Krummheuer. 1992). Forexample.l.ave and Wenger(I99I). who took arelatively radical position by attempting 10 avoid any reference to individual psychological processes. said that "A learning curriculum unfolds in opportlUl;ties for engagement in practice" (p. 93. ilaJics added). Consistent with this formulation. they noted that their analysis of various examples of apprenticeship in tenns of legitimate peripheral participa tion accounts for the occurrence of learning or failure to learn. In contrast. the contributors 10 this volume seek to understand both what students learn and the processes by which Ihey do so as they participate in a learning curriculum. and to relate these analyses of learning to the processes by which both the curriculum and lhe encompassing classroom microculture arc: interactively constituted. As a con sequence, theories developed within the Vygolskian and activity theory tradition ate
not entirely appropriate 10 the contributors' particular research goals.
The Sociolinguistic Tradition Walkerdine (1988) and Solomon (1989) are. perhaps. the IWO most influential proponents of this second collectivist tradition. These theorists, like those working in the Vygotskian tradition, give priority 10 social and cultural processes. Further, both groups of theorists stress the imponance of copanicipalion in cultural prac· tices. However, whereas Vygotskian theorists contend that qualitative changes in students' thinking occur as they participate in these practices, Walkerdine and Solomon rejected the view that mathematical development involves the construc tion of increasingly sophisticated systems of thought. In developing their alterna tive position, Walkerdine dn:: w on French poslStructuralism, whereas Solomon was heavily i nnuenced by. among others, the later Wiltgenstein. Despite this difference, both argued that the activity of doing mathematics in school should be viewed as panicipation in a social or discursive practice. Thus, as Solomon put iI, "Under
6
COBB AND BAUERSFELD
standing is intrinsically social; knowing about numbers entails knowing how and when lOuse and respond 10 nwnbersaccording 10 Iheconlcxt in which they appear"
(1989, p. 7). Learning mathematics i n school is, lhen, a process of initiation into a pregiycn discursive practice and occurs when students act in accord with the nonnative rules that consuMe that practice. Walken:linc and Solomon made several important contributions while develop ing their positions. For example. their characterization of traditional school math ematics as a discursive practice adds credibility 10 the contention thai school mathematics and inquiry mathematics constitute two distinct classroom microcul· lures.
Further, Walkerdine in particular illustr.l.ted the imponancc of considering
language and conventional sign systems when accounting for mathematical devel opment. In the course of her argument, she explicitly rejected the dualist notion thai signifiers refer to or represent features of a preexisting reality, and instead proposed thai the function of language is mutual orientation and regulation (cf. Bauersfeld. chap. 8, this volume; Maturana, 1978). 1bese insights acknowledged, Walkerdine's and Solomon's characterization of mathematical activity is at odds with that advanced by the contributors to this volume. For Solomon, i t i s an activity in which students learn to act in accord with situated mathematical rules or insuuctions. Walkerdine. for her part. explicitly argued that the purpose of doing mathem:lIics in school is to produce formal Sllltements that do not signify anything beyond themselves. In these accounts, there i s no place for what Davis and Hersh (1981) took to be the key feature of mathematical activitythe creation and mental manipulation of abslraCt madJe.. matieal objects (cf. Schoenfeld, 1991). It woold, therefore, seem that Walkerdine's and Solomon's work is tied to the school mathematics microculture. Within the confines of this microculture, their claim that cognitive analyses are irrelevant to accoonts of mathematical learning has some merit. It is frequently impossible to infer the mathematical conception5 of any individual student when analyzing video recordings and transcripts of traditional school mathematics lessons (Cobb et al., 1992). However, the claimed irrelevance of cognitive analyses and the contention that doing mathematics involves acting in accord with situated instructions both $Cern questionable when inquiry mathematics is considered. Theories of mathemat ical lcaming developed within the sociolinguistic tradition do not, therefore, appear 10 be of direct relevance to the research interests of the contributors of this volume.
The NeoPiagetian Tradition PerretClermont, Doise, and their collaborators attempted to extend Piagelian theory by investigating the role that social interaction plays in individual cognitive development (e.g., Doise & Mugny, 1979; Doise, Mugny, & PerrelClermont,
1975; PerretClennont, 1980: PerretClermonl, Perrel, & Bell, 1989). As part of their rationale, they noted that Piagel, in his earlier writings, stressed thai social interaction i s necessary for the development of logic, renectivity. and selfaware ness. In an innovative series of studies, they documented the processes by which
1.
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCiOlOGiCAl PERSPECTIVES
7
interpersonal conflicts between learners give rise to individual cognitive conflicts. As learners slrive to resolve these conflicts, lhey reorganize their activity and construct increasingly sophisticated systems of thought. fo contrast to both Vygotskian and sodolinguistic theories, individualistic
theories such as those developed in the n�Piagetian tradition bring the psycho logical perspective to the fore. 1be focus is on the individual. autonomous learner as he or she participates in social interactions. Analyses developed in the neo Piagclian tradition have been extensively critiqUed by theorists who attribute a stronger role 10 social and cultural processes. Thus, Solomon (1989) noted thai the role of social interaction in individual development is limited to that of providing a catalyst for development via interpersonal conflict. ro her view, this almost exclusive focus on the constructive activity of individual learners gives rise 10 severaJ difficulties. She argued thai il is unreasonable 10 assume thaI students' conceptual reorganizations will nc:cessaril y constitute a step in their mathematical enculturation. Students could resolve a cognitive conflict in a variety of different ways, only some of which are compatible with the takenasshared mathematical practices of the wider community. Solomon's basic point here was that the development oflhe ability 10 participate in such practices cannot be accoumed for by autonomous developmem unless students are attributed foreknowledge of appropriate resolutions to cognitive conflicts. More generally, she contended that the influence of social processes is not limited 10 the process of learning but instead extends to its productsincreas ingly sophisticated mathematical ways of knowing, Thus, she argued that students' interpretation of an event as an interpersonal conflict is innuenced by the classroom practices in which they participate, For Solomon, both whal counts as a problem and as an acceptable solution in the classroom are social lhrough and through. The contributors 10 lhis volume accept the central points of Solomon's critique, but question the implication that analyses of individual students' cognitive activity arc irrelevant to accounts of mathematical leaming in school,
COGNITIVE AND SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES The analyses reported in the following chapters seek to Inmsccnd the apparent
opposition between collectivism and individualism by coordinating sociological analyses of the microculture established by me classroom community with cogni tive analyses of individual studenlS' constructive activities. In this regard, there is full agreement with Saxe and Bennudez's (1992) statement thaI: An understanding of the mathemalical environments that emerge in children's every
day activilies requirt:s the coordination of two analytic perspectives. 1be firsl is a constructivist treatment of childrt:n's mathematics: Children's mathematical environ ments cannot be understood apan from children's own cognizing activilies... , The
8
COBB ANDBAUERSFELD ...Chikln:n's second penpectivederives f ro m sociocultural treatments ofcogni tion . n of mathc:malical goals and subgoab i s interwoven with the socially organized activilies in which they are partidpants. (pp. 23)
con suuct io
This coordination does not. however, produce a
seamless
theoretical framework.
Instead, the resulting orientation is analogous to Heisenberg's uncertainlY princi ple. When the focus is o n the individual. the social fades into the background, and vice versa. Further, the emphasis given to one per.;pectivc or the other depends on the issues and purposes at hand. Thus. in the view advanced in lhis volume, there
i s no simple unification of the perspectives. The epistemological basis for the psychological perspective elaborated in the following chapters has been developed by von Glasersfeld (1989b). It incorporates both the Piagetian notions of assimilation and accommodation, and the cybernetic concept of viability. The term knowledge was used by von Glascrsfeld (1992) in "Piaget's adopUllional sense to �fer 10 those sensorymolor and COllCepl:Ual oper· ations that have proved viable in the knower's experience" (p. 380). Further, he dispensed with traditional correspondence theories of truth and instead proposed an account that relates truth to the effective or viable organization of activity:
''Truths are replaced by viable mOOdsand viability is always relative to a chosen goal" (p. 384). In this model, perturbations that the cogniting subject generales relative to a purpose or goal are posited as the driving force of development. As a consequence, learning is characterized as a process of selforganization in which the subject reorganizes his or her activity in order to eliminate perturbations (von Glasersfeld, 1989b). As von Glasenfeld noted, his instrumentalist approach to knowledge is generally consistent with the views of contemporary neopragmatist philosophers such as Bernstein (1983), Putnam (1987), and Rorty (1978). Although von Glasersfeld (1992) defined learning as selforganization, he acknowledged that this constructive activity occurs as the cognizing individual interacts with other members of a community. Thus, he elaborated that knowl�ge refers
to
"conceprua1 structures that epistemic agents, given the range of present
experience within their tradition of thought and language, consider viable" (p.381). Further, von Glasersfdd (1989a) contended thai "the most frequent source of perturbatio ns for the developing cognitive subject is interaction with others" (p. 136). The interactionisl perspective developed by Bauersfeld and his colleagues (Bauersfeld, 1980; Bauersfeld, Krummheuer, & Voigt, 1988) complements von Glasersfeld' s cognitive focus by viewing communication as a process of mutua! adaptation wherein individuals negotiate meanings by continually modifying their interpretations. However, whereas von Glasersfeld tended to focus on individuals' construction of their ways of knowing, the German group emphasized that: The descriptive 1'T'IeaI15 and the models used in lhese $ubjective cOnstru!;:tiolU an: not
arbitrary or retrievable from unlimiled bond$ of culrure and Janguase, through the inu:nubjectivity of socially shared knowledge among the members of social groups. and through the regu lations of their related interactions. (Bauenfeld, 1988, p. 39)
1.
PSYCHOLOOICAL AND SOCIOLOOICAL PERSPECTIVES
9
Further. they contended that "Learning is characterized by the subjective reeon slruction of societal means and models through negotiation of meaning in socia] interaction" (Bauersfeld. 1988, p.39), In accounting for this process of subjective reconstruction, 8auenfeld and his colleagues focused on lhe teacher's and students' interactive constiwtion of the classroom microculture. Thus, in their view: Participating in the p..,x::cucs ora mathemalk:s classroom is participating in 3 culture
of mathema1iring. The many skills, which an obseo'er can identify and will take as the main performance of the culture. (onn the jlioceduraJsurface only. 1l1C5C are the bricks of the buikling, btu the design of the house of malbemalizing is processed on another level. As it is with culUlre,lhe core o f what is learned through participation is wlwl 10 do wbat and how 10 do iL . . . The core pan of school mathematics enculturation comes inlo effect on the metalevel and is "learned" indirectly. (Bauenfeld. chap. 8, lhis volume) This discussion of indirect learning clarifies thai the occurrence of perturbations is not limited to lOOs e occasions when participants in an interaction believe thaI communication has broken down and explicit1y negotiate meanings. Instead, for the Gennan group, communication is a process of often impi;Cit negotiations in wh;ch subtle shifts and slides of meaning frequent1yoccur outside!he participants' awareness. Newman et aI. (1989), speaking within !he Vygotskian and activity theory tradition, made a similar a teacher and a student. ''The interactive process of change depends on ... the fact rnat there are two different interpretations utterances themselves serve to change the interpretations" should be noted that Newman et al. used Leonl'ev's (1981) sociohistorical meta phor of awropriation to define negotiation as a process of mutual appropriation in which the teacher and students continually coopt or use each othcf"s' contributions. In contrast, Baucrsfcld and his colleagues used an interactionist mctllphor when they characterized negotiation as a process of mUluai adaptation in the course of which the participants interactively constitute obligations for their activity (Voigt.. 1985). It can also be noted that in Newman et aI.'s account, the teacher i s said to appropriate students' actions into the wider system of mathematical practices that he or she understands. 1bc Gennan group, however, took as its primary point of reference the local classroom mi croculture rather than the mathematical practices institutionalized by wider society. This focus reflects an interest in the process by which the teacher and students constitute the classroom microculture and mathe matical practices in the course of their interactions. Further, whereas Vygotskian theorists give priority to social and cultural process, analyses conducted from the intcractionist perspective propose that individual students' mathematical activity and the classroom microculture are reflexively related (Cobb, 1989; Voigt, 1992). In this view, individual students are secn as actively contributing to the develop ment of both classrom o mathematical practices and the encompassing microcul ture, and these both enable and constrain their individual mathematic al activities. This notion of reflexivity, which is developed in several of the chapters, implies
10
COBB AND
that neither an individual student's mathematical activity nor the classroom micro culture can be adequalCly accounted for without considering the other.
OVERVIEW OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS The contributions to this volume were developed in the course of asyear collaborati\'e
research
project. Allhe outset of the project, the authors agreed to
share a single set of video recordings and transcripts of small group activities and whole class discussions made in one U.S. secondgrade classroom during the
19861987 school year. The recordings were ideally suited
10
the goals of the
project because me teacher had succeeded in guiding the development of an inquiry mathematics microcullure in her classroom (Cobb, Yackel. & Wood, 1989). The authors were each free 10 pursue their own research interests when analyzing the recording and transcripts. However, theoretical conslrUClS and empirical analyses were critiqued during weeklong meetings held approximalciy once every 9 months throughout the project. This empirically grounded approach to theory development might be called collaborarive argumenlOlion. The chapters are ordered such thai me first lakes the strongest cognitive perspective and is concerned with individual learnn i g last chapter brings the sociological perspective to the fore and focuses on the relationship between languaging and the classroom micro::ultute. This diversity reflects the researchers' differing theoretical assumptions and focuses. The contri butions can therefore be seen to mirror the present situation in mathematics education in which there is II plurality of theoretical models and constructs ramer than a generally accepted overarching meory (and both inleractionists and con structivists question whemer mere will ever be one). As a consequence, the contributions exemplify a plurid m i ability when analyzing various aspc:ctsof mathematical activity in classroms. o In his chapter, Cobb presents longitudinal case studies of four pairs of second grade students' smallgroup activity. Theoretically, me issue that motivated the case studies was that of clarifying the relationship between students' situated conceptual capabilities and their smallgroup interactions. The view that emerged in the course of the analysis was that of a reflexive relationship between students' mathematical aclivity and the social relationships they established. On the one hand, the students' cognitive capabilities appeared to constrain the possible forms their smallgroup interaction could take. On the other hand, the relalionships the children actually established constrained the types of learning opportunities thaI arose, and thus influenced their construction of increasingly sophisticated mathematical ways of knowing. These developing mathematical capabilities, in tum. constrained the ways in which their smallgroup relationships could evolve, and so on. Pragmatically, the case studies were conducted to clarify the extent to which smallgroup collaborative activity facilitates students' mathematical leaming. issue was addressed by relating the types of interaction in which the children
1.
PSYCHOlOGiCAL AND SOClOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
11
engaged to the occurrence af leami ng opportunities. Two aspects of students' social relationships appear 10 be crucial for productive smallgroup aClivity in an inquiry mathematics classroom. The first is the establishment of a lakenasshared basis for mathematical communication, and the second is engagemenl in interactions that involve genuine mathematicaJ argumentation. As these crileria indicate, internc tions in which one student explains his or her thinking do not nc:ttslsari y give rise to learning opportunities for either student. Instead, it seems essential to consider tbe types of interaction in which students panicipate when assessing the role mal particular activities such asexpJaining can play in �ir mathematical deve]opmc:nl. In her chapter. Yackel analyzes lhe ways i n which children talk about andexplain their mruhemalical lhinking in various social situations. The analysis indicates that there were no systematic differences between the students' explanations i n small f rences group sessions and in wholeclass discussions. However, qualitative dife students' explanations became apparent when the analysis focused on their inter pretations of social events, rather than on classroom social arrangements. As an illustration, Yackel accounts for students' explanations to the same task when spealcing to the partner, the teacher, and to a researc her during smallgroup activity, and during the subsequent wholeclass discussion, by delineating the student's obligations and expectations in the immediate situation. This relationship between the quality of an explanation and the social situation in which it is developed is reflexive. A student participates in the interactive constitution of the local social situation in the very act of explaining, and that situation constrains the nature of the explanation. A second issue addressed by Yackel concerns the teacher's role in supporting students' allempts to explain their solutions. The analysis focuses on bolh the ways in which the leacher facilitated the establishmenl of situations for explanation, and the ways in which she intervened to help students develop an understanding of what constitutes an acceptable mathematical explanation in an inquiry mathematics classroom. At a more genern1level, the analysis of students" explanations exempli fIeS how a sociological perspective can be used to clarify an activity, such as explaining, that is usually characterized almost exclusively in cogniti\'e tenns, The overriding interest that motivates Voigt's contribution is to understand how intersubjectivilY is established in inquiry mathematics classrooms, The standard answer, that mathematical thinking involves conceptual necessities, is rejected because (elementary school) students have not yet become members of a mathe matical community. The investigation focuses on the teacher's and students' interactions within the classroom microculture while drawing on a cognitive constructivist perspective that takes individual students' subjectivity seriously. In Ihe course of the analysis, Voigt demonstrates the viabililY of an interactionisl approach in which the teacher and students are seen 10 mutually influence each other's activity in classroom situations. He elaborates this approach by arguing that the objects and tasks of classroom discourse seem to be ambiguous. The teacher and students develop a takenasshared understanding of these objects and events as they negotiate mathematical meanings, As a consequence of this achievement of intersubjectivity, the teacher and students experience their discourse as being
12
COBB AND BAUERSFELD
thematicaUy coherent Voigt contends that the mathematical themes that emerge depend on their individual contributions and their negotiation of mathematical meaning. and yet cannot be explained in ICnns of the thoughts of one person alone. 1be relationshipbetween mathematical themes and individual contributions thue fore appears lobe reflexive in nature. As a funhcrpoint, Voigt reconstJUcts thematic o mathematical patterns of internction thai contribute to the stability of classrom discourse. A ccnlral conjecture that emerges from the analysis is thai Sludents' participation in the constitution of thematic patterns of interaction and in the evolution of themes supports their construction of increasingly sophisticated con·
ceptual operntions. Voigt clarifies the theoretical constructs developed to account for the achieve ment ofintersubjectivi!y by applying them to specific classroom episodes. In doing so, he also demonstrates mal the teacher did not attempt 10 specify pre
1.
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
13
tation and conducts a microelhnographicaJ reconstruction classroom processes thai are subsumed under the notion of argumentation. These include arguing, explaining, justi(ying. ilIustl1lling, exemplifying, and analogizing. Krummheuercharacterizes argumentation as a primarily social process in which cooperating individuals try to adjust their intentions and interpretations by verbally presenting rationales for their actions. Krummheuer notes that participation in this negotiatory aspect of argumentation is frequently assumed to have a strong positive influence on students' conceptual development in mathematics. This widely held assumption
can,
in (act, be viewed as a social construction accomplished by the
community of educators and learners in schools. As such. it is a feature of tile "folk psychology" of classroom learning in Bruner's (1983) sense. Krumrnheuer argues that. theoretically, the relationship between engaging in argumentation and learning is reflexive. Siudents' active involvement in a. process of argumentation influences their individual learning and. conversely, their cogni tive capabilities influence both the course and outcome of a process of argumenta tion. This reflexive relationship is elaborated in greater detail by both drawing on Ihcconcepl offorrRal thai Bruner (1983) introduced in his studies of early language acquisition. and by considering COT\Structs rela!ed to rhetoric and argumenlation. Against this background. the limitation of argumentation for conccpwal. mathe matical learning in regular classroom settings is discussed. In panicular, Krummheuer observes that conceptual mathematical learning has as much to do with the development of an everydaylanguage platfonn for indicating differences in individual interpretations as it does with the establishment of different formally valid mathematical argumentations. Learning therefore appears to be indirectly related 10 interactions within a classroom culture of argumentiring. In his chapter, Baucrsfcld offers a theoretical reflection for anaJyses rela!ed to language. He explores language games in the mathematics classroom. He observes that investigations of language in mathematics education rypically treat it as an objective entityas a given body of societal knowledgeand study eithtt the structure or the use of this "body of knowledge." Bauenfeld develops an alternative approach to language by drawing on intcractionist and constructivist perspectives,
and by building on recent theoretical developments. In doing
so.
he argues that
linguistic processes can be viewed as an accomplishment of language games that special to each classrom. o and in which the teacher and students negotiate takenasshared meanings and signs. This theoretical orientation. together with a are
brief summary of the processes by which students develop "Ianguaging" in the mathematics classroom. constitute a basis for analyzing and interpreting videotapes
and transcripts of inquiry mathematics classrooms. The specific issues addressed concern the genetic relationship between language games and the classroom microcultufC, and the treatment of individual differences. This joint interactionist and constructivist approach to languaging is used TO reinterpret several difficulties in the mathematics classroom that stem from illusions of objectively given math ematical realities, from the assumption that a person can unproblematically rcprc.. sent or embody his or her mathematical knowing for someone else, and from the pnctice of teaching mathematics directly.
14
COBB AND BAUERSFELD
REFERENCES Axel, E. (1992). One devdopmr:ntal line in EoIropea.a .:tivity
dlCOla. �tfufy N€M.'Jkuu of 1M
l.dxxruory ofComparotM HIU'IIUII Cogllitimt.. U{I). &17. BaId1Ul$(, D. (1988). Activily, COIlKiDUSllCSS. U1d romrralllicatioo. Qlllmtrfy N�wslmtr of,he IAbora lury ofCOIII(HVam', HIUfWI CogN/ion. 10, 3139. BabdEff. N. (1986). Cognitive versus alllllMlul anaIyu5 of problem solving bdwvior. For 1M
uanUf18 ofMaWMilIia. 6(3). 1012. Bauersrcld. H. (l980). Hidden dimensions in the socalled rulity of a m.lIIhcmaties classroom. Em.c:atlOltDI SIUdUJ ill M<JIMtMlics, IJ, 2l4L BalEl'$feld. H. (t988).lnru.:tim. cou:tuetioII and knowledee: AIlenwive perspectives for nwhenw ics educaion. In T. Cooney /It D. Grouws(Eds.). EJftctiw m4Wlfttltiu 'cacm", (pp. 2946). Reston. VA: NaiouJ Council ofTeadlers of Matbemalics ud 14WftDC1: EtlNlim AsMK::iaes. Bau.:nfcld, H.., Knunmhr:ucr. G., .t. \!oil', J. (1988), Intetactioo&I theoly of \c:amine and leaChing rnalhcrJgtics and related
miaodhnographical studa,
In H. G. Sleiner Ii. A. Vermandel (Eds.),
FrNlldatiOllS oM /Mthodology oftk discipli� ofmolMtfWia ttU.auiOtl (pp. 174188). Anfwo::rp: PnxeediDp of!be TME eonft:reD<,%. Bcmsll:in, R. J. (1983)./kyond objrCfhurfl ONJ l't/am'ulII: ScitllCt. hrrJVMutiu. WId praxis. Phila delphia: Univcnily ofPmnsylvania�. BidJop. A. (198S). The social coll$U\Ktion of
meaningA
5ipirlCalll tlevelopmenl for rn;atbenwics
edowion7 For W uanrlllg ofMatMmaJics, 5(1). 2428. Blwncr, H. (1969). Spnbolk /lIltrIlCIiOllisnt: Ptrsptctr.·u WId _/hod. En,lewood Oiffs, NJ: PrrnIice Hall. UCti n of Brousseau, G. (1984). The cl"llCial role of the didaaical conuaa in lhe analy5i$ and cOllSUo situations in I�hin, and le;arninll rnahemalics. In H. G. Sieiner (Ed..). T�ory of mwiltmulia tducatw.. (Occa siollal paper 54. pp. 110119). Bielefeld, Germany. I.nstitul fUr OidUtik tier Mathematik.
Brown.. J. S . Colli!\$. A., &. DuillHi. P. (1989). Silualed cognilion and the culture oneMllina:. &ls
RUtlUC�r, 18(1),3242. Brunn", J. S. (1983). Child; /alt· Uamiltg 10 lISt /wtgluJgt. Oxford, Englald: Odord Universily rs. Bussi. M. B. (l99I, July). Social inl£rat1ion and malhcmatical tnowledge. In
F. Furiflllbetti (Ed.).
Pnx:udillgs of 1M Fi/tu"," COIIftrrncr ofllot IlWmtuimllll Groltp fot"lM Pzyclloloty ofMQIIlt1rtdI ia &i¥ctJtiOll (pp. 1 16). Genoa, Italy. Program ColMlilkc of the 15th PME Confacnce. 
Carpcntu. T.
P� �nel1l&, E., Pmnon, P. L. 0\iatJg, C_ &. Loc:f, M. (1989). U,inll knowledge of
childm"s �matia Ihinking in cbssn:m :lo
leaChing: An �J;peri�nw $Iud)'. "JlltriClUl &AleQ
Ilona! Rtuatdr JourNll, 26, 4\l\l532. .. Brilislt CaiTab:r, T. N., Carnhe:r, D. W., &. Schliemann.. A. D. (19llS).M.�ipiln:C:u ..d Khoob
Jorunol oflJnItlopJlltllluJ Psychology, J, 2129. Cobb, P. (1987). An inYeSlipion ofyoun, dlildren's academic arillunelic COIIleJ;ts. /!dJ.carioIWI Srlldiu U.MQIMIntJliCI, IS, 109124. Cobb, P. (1989). E.lpmc;nlw, cognilive and
thropoIogical pc:npectives in
..
INIlrlMlia �ion.
FIN Iflt varning ofMo/MlI'Iatiel, 9(2), 3242. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Ykkel, E., &. McN�, B. (1992). �rislics of dusroom malhcmaliC'S lra:iitionll: An inleractional analysis. A.mtric
Davi.!., P. J., &: Hersh, R. (19&1). TIw II'Ia/MII'Ia/U:uJ �rUnc�. Boston: Houghton Mimin.
1.
PSYCHOLOOICAL. AND SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
15
Davydov, V. v. (1988). Probkms ofdcvdopnw:ntallUChin, (Part I). Siwill EdllCaIi()II, 30(8), 697. DoiIIe. w.o &; Mugay. G. (19'79), IDdividual :I roIlcai"" �tU 0( ocnmtions in copilie do'elopmellt. &mptun IfHIntaI ofPsycl,ology. 9. 10S108. Doisc. W.. Mllp),. G .t. I'nmclern!oat, A. N. (1975), Social illleraC!ion uod the dcvdop,lCIl 0( cosnilin .,.iorui. &ropnm 10ll1'1lll1 t!Social PsyclwWgy, S, 367383. Ei!letlhatt, M. A. (1988). � etJmo&rapttic: �b .nditioa MIl IIAIhcJIIIIK:s �MIn r=atd!.. JolU1lllJ/or ikflRrJrrll In MutMlIIIlIia &b
in MOlNnw.tiCl &fIOCQlion, 22. 170218.
GIqIl, J. (199), April). 1M Ulluactrn CONliN/ion ofCOl'IIfW.kfIU ill 1MICItool maWlItIlIics ,rudiliort. Papa" prnmICd • the annual meeting of thc American Educllmal RCKarch Associllion. AUanI.a. HaDb. W. F. (1991), �ord. to 1. Lave &; E. Wenger, Sitvaud InlmillJl: utitimmt ptripMrol ponicipariotl (pp. 1326). Curbridgl:. England: Cambrid� Univasity Plus. Hawkins, D. (198.5). �ed&e of PI.&Ionism. For tile u"",u., ofMalMfrlQlics .5(2), 2{:i, Hu!'IWI. P. G Morray, J. C, .t. Olivier. A. I. (1989). A tM1MnwriCJ cwricullimfor 1Mjli/dor prinwry phase. SlcUUlbosdI. Soudl Af'liQ: Uni�nity of SlcUCllbosd\, Resoeatth Ullit for Mathematics •
.•
&I" .... riOll .
Knlrrmhaier. O. {I992).uTrlrn mil "fOf1ll(Jf�; £l"",",le rintT iIIltrlWimtistucltenurNMorir [tum' ing with Mformal$"; Elements of an inLeI';!C!iOllUt lumina theofyJ. Weillhem. Gemwly; Deutscher SlIIdien Veriq. lam� M. (1990). WbeII the problem is rIOt the q..oeuIOII and the solation is DOl the mswu: Mllhc:matie.tl knowinl and kaChina. Americ.... EJiwcruionuJ ReStatrlt JOlinIlll, 17. 2963. Lav� J. (19M). Cognition ill proctir;e; M"1Id. mQlhelflOlics
Lavc. J &; Wcqer. E. (1991). Si_nJ lell""ng; ug/nnwlt periplttral pwtiripwitM. Calmridse. .•
England; Cambridee Ullivenity Pre$$ t.co..'r;v, A. N. (1981). C'!RklYet i tal'tuno [Man and cultuteJ.ln A. N. Leont'ev. Problemy ,uz.yiliia pJikJrW [ProbkIt1l of the dc:Yelopuent of mindl (4th ed pp. 410435). Moscow; M05kovstop .
.•
Univenilda. M..urana, H. R. (1978). Biology of Wlgw&e: The cpistcrmioJy of lUIity. In G. A. Miller &; E. l.auIellberr: (&Is.), P�ItnIoD and bUJlo" if ID11glU3lt
McNeal. B. (1992. AuSUSl). Mrulttmotlrol /eurning in II lutb(lOt baud cluRroom. Paper pmiC'lIIcd .. the International Congress 011 Mlthematical EdIIeation. Qutbec Cil)', Can.ta. Mehan. H., &. Wood. It. (197S). TM trality oftlluttnMlltodoloty. New YOIt: Wiley. Millict, N. (19S9). L S. �fOlS.ty WId Suo;tf (Kfi\'ity fMOfJ: Pusptcm'u un lhe rdlltioll$hip bt"'·ttn miNi and Jocitty (litcrac:ies Institute. Special MOllOgniph Series No. I). Newton. MA: &I�ional Developmml eelller, Inc.
MIlCh. N. c., &. S�. R. A. (1918). SpcMin& of rules: The ..alysis of (Ulrum in brcEh. Ntw D/rtttioMfflr CItiUl �Iof""t"" 2. 1939. NewlI\III, D .. Griffin. P.. &. Cole. M. (1989). TIw. cOllStrwnion tpM: WorthIgfor cogttittvt cbgt ill �1tDoI. Cambridce. En&1and: Cambridge Univcrsity rm... Nune5. T.. Schliemann. A. D., &; Carnhcr. D. W. (1993). Sfrttl matlttrrwics � xhool m4lhentllI/cS. New Ym; Cambrid� UoiYenity Pras. PcnctOmnont. A. N. (\980). Socilll InJtrrJCliOtt and COlmfl..., Acadc:m.it Preu. Pcnct.acnr.oc.. A.. N., PerJd, J. E, &. Bdl, N. (1989. Febnmr)'). 1JJt sucial c_nOll oj_aning and co"u� acmity in t/e1llmWry school cltildrrn. Paper presented. the ConfcmlDl' on Socially S�d Cogoition. Univenily of Pitl$burih. Pinsbwth, PA. Pwwn. H. (1987). 1M _yjuces ojrroUJIfI. laSaU� IL: Open Coun.
16
COBB AND BAUERSFELO
Itic:Uds. 1. (1991). Malhc:ma6o;aI di5C"K'inni. In E. voa Glascnrdd (Ed.). flqdlcgl COtlStnlCtivU", ill � �(/fl (pp. 1352). DuodoecJl, NerbabDdI:: KhIwet. ROSOff. B. (1990). ApptrlUicuJlip ill 1hiII!Uv: CAlpiJive /kw/optrIAI bt wcitJl cortlUl. Oxford,
EnsI,NI, Oxford Univcniry�. Rony. R. (1978). P/ti/owplryUlld f1w MirrorofllClhw. Ptioc:etofI, NJ: PriAcdofI UAivaUty Pft::ss. Sue. O. B. (1991), o.� UNi cogtlirWe /kw/oplrluu; St¥diu in �", IUtlkrslllNlit!t.
.... Erlb.un AI' .... ;.= HiDldale. NJ: u,w" Sue, O. 8.. .t. BennucIe1.T.II992. Aupd). EtM"nt1mGtlttflllllicGl ClnlilmIMNS ill cJliJdmt:r1flI'IU. Paper ptaCtIlcd .. the lnlematiouJ Conpss 011 Mathellllllical &iualioa. Qutbec CiIy. Canada. Sehonfeld, A. H. (1987), WJI.f'. all the fuss IbouI metKOpilioa? In A. H. Scboeafcld (Ed..). Copiliw #�rt« QN/ mtIlltemtllia uIMauion (pp. 189216). Hillsdale, NJ: .... � � Associales SdIomIdd. A. H. (1991). On ma/znlllia;. lCnsemKin,: An infomal mack on the unfOftUllalC divorce of fmnal mel infonnal malhelIlllia. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Ptrkillli, a: J. W. Sepl (Eds.). .. hk, NJ: Lawretll:e EriNum Associ"". llIjomtlll traumillg f1tId tducOliotl(Jlp. 31134). HjU Saibllcf. S. (19&4). StDdyiaa worki", iolclligellCC.l. D 8. RopIff k J. Lave (EdIi.), E.eryday cognitiOlf.: lu tM.\'dopmml ill sociul ClIII/'W (pp. 9WJ. Cambridge, MA: H.uvatd Uniwtsity Pleu. Soiomoa, Y. (19119). 1M JNfJCfiu of�1fIi.WCI. i..oIMIon: RouUed.,. lboonpson. P. W. (1994). lmap:s of nle aad openliooaIlIIMknwIdia& orw fllDClanrotal �ID of eak:uI... &/HctlliONJl Srudiu ill MtIIltemmiu, 26(2). 229274Voip. I. (1985). ParIemJ .wi routiIIes in classroom ilUflction. R«�f't(MS 01 Didactiqw: du MOJlwtltOliquu. 6, 69118. Voip. J. (1992. AuSUSl). NtgorialiOll of_Iw_� IMitt Psyclto/oD' 17.33S. Wllkcrdinc, V. (1988). 1M IOIQIt"Y offPtuOtI.· Cogllilivt oo'dopmttrltJlld1Mproductiotl ofrmiOMIity. I...oodoa: RwtJedce. Yang, M. T.l.. (Im.April). A cmsH.uturollln·tStitOJiOtl illlO lilt tkvt/opmtlll ofploct Wllw: C01lCtpfS ..... It the: annualltl:C:Mg ofthe Amc:ric.MI S1'I(""� in T"" (1IId lilt Ullittd Stous. Papa pi'P, �b A.ssociatiDD. Allin!&.
2 The Teaching Experiment Classroom Paul Cobb
Vanderbilt University Ema Yackel Purdue University Calumet
Terry Wood Purdue University
As noted in the introductory chapter, the contributors agreed to pursue their research interests by analyzing a single set of classroom video recordings and transcripts. These recordings covered both the smallgroup and wholeclass por tions of all lessons involving arithmetica1 activities thai were conducted in one secondgrade classroom during a IOweek period. The recordings were made in the counc: of a yearlong classroom teaching experiment conducted during the 19861987 school year by Cobb, Yackel, and Wood (hencefonh known as the American researchers). As origina11y conceived. this experiment was viewed as a natural extension of the oneonone consuuctivist teaching experiment developed by Steffe and his colleagues (Cobb & Steffe. 1983: Steffe, 1983). The decision to o was based on two considera conduct the experiment in a secondgrade classrom tions. rll'St, prior research indicated that the traditionaJ American practice of
leaching standard algorilbms for adding and subtracting mullidigit numbers was detrimcntaJ to students' subsequent learning. A majority of the students appeared to construct relatively immature, syntactically based conceptions of placevalue numeration and to develop instrumental beliefil about mathematics in school. Second. conceptual models of chil�n's arittunetical learning developed by Steffe and his colleagues (Cobb & Wheatley. 1988; Steffe, Cobb, & von Glasc:rfeld. 1988;
Steffe. von Glaserfeld. Richards. &: Cobb, 1983) could be used both to analyze
17
COBB, YACKEL WOOD
18
individual children's mathematical activiry and 10 guide lhe devclopmenl of instructional activities. At the outset. the teaching experiment was in fact planned to run for only 3 or 4 months and to focus exclusively on arithmetical concepts. However, the collab
orating teacher, who was responsible for all classroom instruction. insisted thai it would be impossible to return to textbookbased instruction for the remainder of the school year. AI her urging, the American researchers agreed to clttend the experiment and to develop instructional activities thaI addressed all orlhe cooper ating school district's objectives for secondgrade mathematics. The specific insb'UCtionaJ activities
used in the classroom were developed,
modified. and. in some cases, abandoned while the experimenl was in progress. To
aid Ihis process. IwO video cameras were used to record every mathematics lesson for thecntire school year. Eghl of the students faced the cameras when they worked in pairs, thus making it possible 10 record approximately half of each of the four pairs' mathematical activity throughout the school year. Additional data sources consisted of videorecorded individual interviews conducted with all the students al the beginning, middle, and end of the school year; copies of all the students' written work; and field nOies. Initial analyses of these data focused on the quality of the smdents' mathematical activity and learning. These: analyses, together with the classroom teacher's observations, guided the development of the inslructiOlial activities.
INSTRUCfIONALACfIVITIES '!be overall goal when developing the instructional activities was to facilitate the
stooenls' construction of increasingly sophisticated conceptual operations. In the case of placevalue numeration, for example. the focus was on conceptual opera tions
that enable students to create and coordinate arithmetical units of different
ranks. With regard to geometry, the relevant conceptual operations make it possible for students to mentally manipulate spatial images. In general. the instructional activities reflect the cognitive constructivist view that mathematical leaming is a process in which students reorganize their activity to resolve situations that they find problematic (Confrey, 1990; Thompson, 1985; von Glasersfe1d. 1984). As a consequence, all instructional activities (including those involving arithmetical computation and numeration) were designed 10 be potentially problematic 10 students with a wide range of conceptual possibilities (Cobb, Wood, & Yackel, 1991). In addition, the instructional activities were designed 10 suppon concepwal
and procedural developments simultaneously (Cobb. Yackel, & Wood, 1989; Silver, 1986). The American researchers argued, for example. that a situation in which a student's current oomputaliona1 pnx:oJures prove inadcquale can give rise 10 a problem, the resolution of which involves the construction of conccpcuaJ knowledge. In this approa ch 10 instructional development. il i s the students' inferred expe riential realities rather than fennal mathematics thaI constiruted the starting point
2.
THE TEACHING EXPERIMENT CLASSROOM
19
for developing instructional activities (freffers, 1987). Consequently, wherever possible, researchbascd modds of children's mathematical leaming were used to guide the development process. This proved to be particularly feasible for arithme tic, where models developed by Steffe et aI. (1983, 1988) were used to anticipate both what might be problematic for studenlS when they interpreted specific activities, and what mathematical constructions they might make to resolve these problems. However, in some areas of secondgrade mathematics in which research on children's learning was not very extensive, the American researchers relied on inlUitions derived from theirown prior experiencesofinteracting with young children. Because the analyses reported in this volume a1l deal with lessons in which arithmetical activities were used, only this area of the curriculum is outJined in the following synopsis. The arithmetical activities used al the beginning of the year were designed to facilitate lite constructions of thinking strategies (Cobb & Merkel, 1989) and increasingly sophisticated concepts of addition and sublraction. This focus on thinking strategies was justifiable in cognitive tenns, because almost all of the beginning second graders in Ihe panicipating school district could couni abstract units of one (Steffe ct ai., 1983, 1988). The inslrUctional activities included IOframe activities adapted from Wirtz (1977), and "What's My Rule'!' and " War" card games (Kamii, 1985) in both IOframe and numeral fonnats. SIO!), problems. balance tasks with singledigil numbers (sec Fig. 2.1). and horizontal symbolic sentences sequenced 10 encourage srudents 10 usc a previously calculated result to solve a subsequent task were also used. When the IeaChcr used these activities during a 7wcck period from the beginning of September to the end of October, she attempted to guide !he developmenl of a thinkingslnllCgy orientation, in which students were encouraged 10 use known sums or differences to solve unknown problems. Subsequent instructional activities weredesigncd to encouragetbedevelopmcnt of solutions that involve composite wholenumber units (numerical units Ihc:m selves comp.»ed of ones). lbesc activities, which were used during an J Iweek period until late December, included a variety of hundreds board and money activities, the "'What's My RuleT wholeclass activity, and a wholeclass activity conducted on an overhead projector with tenbars and individuaJ ones. In addition, sequenced story problems, balance tasks with doubledigit numbers (see Fig. 2.1), and horizontal sentences with increasingly large lWodigit numbers were used. The sequenced story problems included the various problem types identified by re searchbased classification schemes (e.g., Carpenter & MOSCf", 1984). 1bc inslrUctional activities used in the latter half of the school year were designed 10 give students further opportunities to construct increasingly sophisti cated concepts of 10 while completing tasks involving the addition and subtraction of Iwodigit numbers. Many of these activities included sequences of missingad dend, missingminuend, and missingsubtrahend tasks presented in both horizontal and venica! column fannat and an activity called "FourinaRow," which was designed 10 encourage both computational estimation and the conslruction of algorithms. In an additional task fonnat called "strips and squares." pictured collections of strips of 10 squares and individual squares were used to present 3 range of arithmetical tasks (sec Fig 2.2). Multiplicative and divisional situations
20
COBB YACKEL. WOOD ,
'"'0 I
g
1221I0
�71
Q
00 I
/910 I
g
A
7'"
..
[.,
..
..
1..:
G!I n
.,
/". FlG. 2.1. Sample balJJK:c tlCtivity sheets for thillkiDg SlrlIICPs in one· aDd lWodigil 'dilion aod svbItKtion.
were also introduced and elaborated throughout the second half aCme school year
.
This interweaving of add itive, subttactive. multiplicative. and divisional situations
reflected the contention that chli dren's
concepts of 10 and of multiplicative units can be accoumcd for by the progressive construction of a single sequence of conceptual operations (Steffe, 1989; Steffe &
Cobb, 1984).
CLASSROOM ORGANI7ATlON The instructional activities were used in two types of classroom organizations. In
the first, the students typically wo£ked in pairs to solve instructional activities. A
2.
21
THE TEACHING EXPERIMENT CLASSROOM
variety of manipulative materials (e.g unifix cubes. hundreds boards, plastic coins) were made available. bot it was primarily the students' responsibility to decide if the use of a particular manipulative might help them solve their mathe matics problems. 'The teacher. for her part. observed and interacted with the children as they engaged in mathematical activity in pairs. After the students had worked together for perhaps 20 minutes. the teacher led a wholeclass discussion of the students' interpretations and solutions. In the second type of classroom organization. the instructional activities were used solely in a wholeclass setting. The teacher typically tried to initiate these activities by posing questions. often using an overhead projector and manipulative materials. In both types of classroom organiution, the teacher attempted to facilitate discourse in which interpretations and solutions were accepted because they could be explained and justified in terms of actions on mathematicaJ objeclS. In addition to the complete absence of individ o differed from ual paperandpencil seatwork, the leaching experiment classrom .•
1.
How many do you hlIv�
to�dd to
00 000 OO°to .... ke8J7 .
�'" l�fI.
How many�... the...
brpn with?
AG. 2.2. Sample stripsand·squateS ICtivily lh«t.
to
COBB, YACKEl. WOOD
22
traditional classrooms in terms of assesm s ent. The studc:nlS' written work was not graded and, further. the teacher did not explicitly evaluate their contributions to discussions. Instead. the teacher developed a form of practice in which she framed connicls between interpretations, solutions, and answers as problems that needed to be resolved.
SOCIAL NORMS As has been noted. the cognitive goals forthe teaching experiment were formulated
in terms of the construction of increasingly sophisticaled concepruaJ operations. Three additional goa1s explicilly aniculated at the outset of the experiment ad dressed aspects of the "hidden curriculum." 1besc: concerned the development of intellectual and social autonomy (Kamii. 1985). relational beliefs about mathemat ics (Skemp. 1976). and task in�'Olvemenl rather than ego involvement as a form of motivation (Nicholls, 1983). Early in the course of the teaching experiment, it became apparent that the teacher's expectations for the studenlS were i n conflict with the students' beliefs about their own role, the teacher's role, and the nature of malhematical activity. Presumably, the students had developed these beliers as a consequence of their instructional experiences in traditional fustgrade classrooms. Largely o n her own, the teacher initiated the development of classroom social norms that were compatible with the aforementioned three project goals (Cobb, Yackel, &
Wood. 1989).
.
The social norms for smallgroup activity that became explicit topics or conver sation included persisting to solve personally challenging problems, explaining persona] solutions to the panner, listening to and trying to make sense or the panner's explanation, attempting to achieve consensus about an answer, and, ideally, a solution process in situations in which a conflict between interpretations or solutions
has become apparent. Social nonns ror wholeclass discussions in
cluded explaining and justifying solutions, trying to make sense of explanations given by others, indicating agreement and disagreement, and questioning a1tema tives in situations in which a conflict between interpretations or solutions has become apparent. It should be stressed thai the teacher did nO( simply list these norms as rules Of principles to be followed: instead, she capitalized on specific incidents in which students' activity either instantiated or transgressed a social norm by using them as occasions to discuss her expectations. In the process, mOSt or lhe students appeared to develop the view thai mathematics is an activity i n which they were obliged 10 resolve problematic situations by constructing person ally meaningful solutions, and that they should justify these solutions in terms of actions on mathematical objects. Thus, in terminology develOped after the leaching experiment was completed, the teacher's allempt to guide the devel opment of an inquiry mathematics microculture seemed to be largely success ful.
2.
23
THE TEACHING EXPERIMENT CLASSROOM
THE DATA 11le c lassrom o video recordings selected for analysis cover the lessons involving
arithmetical activities that were conducted between January 13 and March 23. 1987. Transcripts of all wholeclass episodes and of Iwo of the four student pairs' smallgroup activity were developed for the convenience of the Gennan research
ers. The decision to reslrict the analyses to these lessons was made for four reasons. First, concepluaJ models of children's arithmetical learning could be used as a resource when conducting me cognitive analyses. Second. videorecorded student
interviews conducted in the week prior 10 January 13 could be used to substantiate the cognitive analyses. Third. previously completed analyses indicated that the classrom o social norms negotiated by the teacher and sludenlS were relath'ely
stable during the second half of !he school year (Cobb et al. . 1989), This was an important amsideration given that none of the pioposed analyses directly focused on
the social nonns. Fourth. the eight children whose smaIlgroup activily was videore
corded worked in the same pairs througboutlhis IOweek period. This made it easier to analyze the relationship between smallgroup activity and mathernatica.lleaming. The instructional activities and the number of times that they were used during the IOweek period were: January: Twodigit addition and subtraction balances (2). multiplication and division balances (I), sequenced twodigit addition and subtraction sentences (2), addition and subtraction story problems (I). stripsandsquares tasks (I). February: Twodigit addition and subtraction balances (I). multiplication and division baJances (I), stripsandsquares tasks (3), multiplication and division story problems (I), sequenced multiplication sentences (I), activities involving the use of play money
(6), money story problems (I).
March: Stripsandsquares tasks (2), multiplication and division sentences (I). money story problems (I), balances in which all the numbers are coin values (2). The following notational conventions are used in subsequent chaplers to desig nate balance and stripsandsquares tasks: Balance 138ks: The symool ..,. is used (0 separate the two sides of the baJance.
Thus. the first two tasks in Fig. 2.1 are nOiated as "8, 9 f " and O. f 17." Stripsandsquares tasks: The symbol "1" is used to symbolize a pictured strip. _ ,
'"
_
and ..... to symbolize a pictured square. Thus, the first task in Fig . 2.2 is notated as.
"How many do you have to add to UI:::: to make 83T
REFERENCES Carptnll:r, T. P
.•
&. MDlICr, 1.
M. (1984). The acquisition or addition and lU�ion o;OnCq>lS in grades
one through three. J0<4rfIDl/ur RUn1rcl, ill MOIMnwlia &h.cOIiOfl. IS. 179202.
COBB, YACKEl, WOOD
24
Cobb P ,
.•
& Merkel.G. (1989). Thi1IltiJtiSU\lfegieuunenmple ofle¥hi.ne:arithmdiethrough probIan
wivioi.1II P. Traffon (Ed.). Nrw di,."crioru/", tUfMnUJry IChoolmDIMIfIlllia:
1989 Yf!url>ook 0/
1M NalioNJl COIUICil uf Twdm if MtJlMlfIlllics (pp. 7081). ReslOll, VA: NaDoNJ CoullCil of
Tcacheni of M.alhe:rnaticr;, Cobb, P., & Steffe. L P. (1933). The constructivig researcher as teac:be'rand modd builder. JoiUNJlfor Rtuartlt jll MQI�tics EdllCtlrion, 14, 8�. l ings ohen. FoclI$O/I UQmMR Probltffl! Cobb, P., &. W�y, G. (\988). OIi1dlCll's ioitial undersllld in M"/Mmuria, I�), \28. Cobb, P•• Wood. T., &. Ya:kd.E. (1991). A con5lrucUvisI mpproilCh 10 scamd gl1Jderrwhemalics. In E. von GIuc�fdd (Ed.). COIufnocnrillll ..... l!IOJJremuJicr ,dileo/loll (pp. 1.57176), Dordtedlt. Netb::r lands: Kluwer. Cobb, P.. Ya:kel, E� &. Wood. T. (1989). Young children's problcm50lvina.1n D. B. McLeod &. V. M. Adams(Eds.).Aff«lund _1Ie_icaJproblcm soh'inS: A _ pmptctivt (pp. 117148). New York: SpringerVa1ag. Conf�y, 1. (1990). WhIII constructivism implies for 1cachin&. In R. B. Davis. C. A. Maher, &. N. Noddings (lids,}. Coll.lfl1ldhitr litws on 1M l(ochm, and U/lI1I;1lg of _htmalics (Journal ror Research in MUhcnwica EdI.Qlion Mono�h No_ 4, pp, 107I:m, Reston., VA: NUiorIaI Coun<:il ofT��ofMatheITllliC$.
Koamii, C (1985).
Y"""I childnn reittWIf arilhrMriC: fltlplicrlliCIIIS if PW.�f's I�'"Y' New yOO;: Teachers CoIlcre�. Nicholls, J. G. (198.3). Concepriomof ability and achievement motivation: A theory and il5 i�licatio.ns focedllCllion.ln S. G. Paris. G. M. ObcJq, &:. W. H. Sleveason(Eds,), Lmming rJIIdmoliwulDll itt 1M cltuvoom (pp. 211237). Hillsdale, NJ: Law!"e1lCe Erlbllum Associates. Silver, E. A. (1986). U,inl conc:cP(L/.a1.oo pmcedur.:ll knowledle: A focus on tcillionships. In 1. Hicbc:n (Ed.), COfICtplual cutdprotrdlUfll t;n"""kdgt; TM ctUtifmtJlMnwlicJ (pp. IIU19II) . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Ezlbaum AssocWes. S�mp. R. R. (1976). Rcbtional undamnding and inSlnnnenW undel'5Wlding. MrlJMmoJicul Ttach· in8·77.17. Steffe. L. P. (1983). The: tcac:hillJ experimelll methodology in a oonstrucUviSi �aR:h program. In M. Zweng, T. Grec:n, J. IGIJl'lrlck, H. Pollak, &:. M. S u ydam (Ed$..), ProcudilrgJ oftlKf()fjtfh /tIIU1IO linlull CengreJl "" MiJJM'll/Jlicai EduCllliot! (pp. 469471), Boston: 8irkhauser. Steffe, L. P. (19119 , Ajrl i the American EduwiODal Re$Ul'Ch Association. San Fr.tncilCO, CA. SlCffe, L. P .. &; Cobb. P. (1984). QUldru's COIISIJUCtion of mulliplicative and di�iAonai COPCCPt$. Foc/U nil uunou., Probkwu itt !tfmltt.lfIlIlia. 6(1 &:. 2). 1129. SlCffe. L P., Cobb, P., &:. von Gl.uer5feld. E (1911 8). COrISffllClioII of tuitlllMticul /fUU/littgl and JIID.ttgitJ. New York: Sprilliet·Verlag. SlelTe, L. P., v u n Gbso:rsfeld. E, Ridwds. J .• &: Cobb. P. (1983). Cllildrm 's C(llUItitt8 typts; Philosophy, theory and applkmions. New Yon.: i>raegt:t Scicnlific. Thompson. P. (l98S). Ex.pericnce. problem tolving. and luming 1TW.he.!mtic5: ConsidcrWiOllJ in dc:vt:loping mathematiaJ eurTicula.. In E A. SilveT (&1.), TtachUrg and kaming moIMmuncai pmbkm lolviltf; Mflltipk ,...:Jt/urh ptrlptCm'u (1'1'. 189236). Hillsdak, NJ: Lawn:ncc: Erlbaum Anociatel.. Trdfcn. A. (1987). Thru dintellSioru; A modtl of gouJ and tMory tXJCriptiOIl itt nwlltllllJlicr ilIsrrwcPOIITht W'ukob.:u projur. DordrechL Nclilcrl.mdl: Reidt!. von GlasersfcJd, E (1984). An introduction ro rwIiul construcIivum. In P. Wlld,wick (Ed.), The itfVe1lUd ""lily (pp. 1740). New YorIe: Nonna. Winz., R. W. (19n). MaJing fritNb ",1m ItIlIIIberJ. WashiailOll, DC: Curriculum Development Auociates.
3 Mathematical Learning and SmallGroup Interaction: Four Case Studies Paul Cobb Vanderbilt University
The initial motivation for conducting the four case swdies of smallgroup activity presented in this chapter was primarily theoretical. In concen with lhe general theme of this book. the neoPiagetian and Vygotskian perspectives were deemed to be inappropriate given the purposes of the investigation. From the neoPiagetian perspective. social interaction is treated as a catalyst for autonomous cognitive development. Thus, although social interaction is considered to stimulate individ ual cognitive development. it is not viewed as inlcgral lo either this consuuctivc: process or to its products, increasingly sophisticated mathematical conceptions. Vygotslcian perspectives, on the other hand, tend to subordinate individual cogni tion to inteTpCrsonai or social reJations. In the case of adullchild interactions, for e:wnple, it is argued that the child learns by inlemalizing mental functions thai are initially social and exist between people. In recent years, several attempts have been made to extend these arguments to smallgroup interactions between peers (Forman & Cazden, 1985; Forman & McPhail, 1993). It was against the back ground of these two competing perspectives that an approach was developed that acknowledges the imponance of both cognitive and social puxesses without subordinating one to the other. In addition to addressing this theoretical issue, the case studies touch on two pragmatic issues. The first concerns the extent to which the children engaged in inquiry mathematics when they worked together in small groups. The second issue concerns the extent to which smallgroup collaborative activity facilitates children's mathematicaJ learning. At the outset of the teaching experiment, Cobb, Yackel, and Wood's rationale for smallgroup work was primarily Piagetian and 25
26
COBS
focused on the learning opportunities that arise as children attempt to resolve conflicts in their indiyidual view points. It was only laler that the American researchers came to see thai the students' constructions have an intrinsically social aspect in that they are both constrained by the group's takenas·shar� basis for communication and contribute 10 its funher development. As a consequence, the rationale for smallgroup work was modified to take account of the learning opponunities that can arise for children as they mutually adapt to each other's activity and attempt lO establish a consensual domain for mathematical activity. The findings of several previous investigations indicate that smallgroup inter adions can give rise 10 learning opportunities that do nol typically arise in traditionaJ classroom interactions (Bames & Todd, 1977; Davidson, 1985; Good, Mulryan, & McCaslin. 1992; Noddings. 1985: Shimizu. 1993; Smith & Confrey. 1991; Webb. 1982; Yackel, Cobb, & Wood. 1991). 1be four case studies extend these analyses by relating the occurrence ofleaming opportunities to the different types of interaction in which the children engaged. As a consequence. they indicate the CAtent to wlUch the various types of interaction were productive for malhematica1leaming. In the following pages. I set the stage for the case studies by firsl locating them o microculture. I then discuss the within the broader context of the classrom methodology developed 10 analyze the video recordings and give panicular atten tion to the viability and trustwonhiness of the case studies. Here. it is nOled that the ways in which the pairs of children interacted frequently varied both within sessions and from one session to the nexl. However, their social expectations and obligations appeared to be stable once their cognitive consuuals of tasks and of each others' mathematical actions were taken into account. This made it possible to characterize the social relationships they established in an empirically grounded way. The discussion of the methodology is followed by a description of the cognitive constructs and sociological consuucts that proved to be relevant when conducting the analysis. In the case of the cognitive constructs, the focus is on the children's consuuction of increasingly sophisticated conceptions of 10. The soci ological constructs delineate various types of smallgroup interactions and address relations of authority within a group. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to the presentation of the four case studies. They are each organized to reflect the reflexivity between the children's mathemat ical activity and the smallgroup relationships they established. Thus, each case study first deals with the individua1 interviews and then with the children's smallgroup relationship before considering the learning opportunities that arose for the individual children and their mathematical leaming. Comparisons across the four case studies are made in the final section of the chapter. There, it is noted that the stability in the children's smallgroup relationships across the IOweek period covered by the data was matched by stability in each pair of children's cognitive capabilities relative to those of the partner. This suggests thai the children's cognitive capabilities and their socia1relationships may have constrained each other in the sense of limiting possibilities for change. A further issue addressed in the case studies is the occurrence of leaming opportunities as the children engaged in the various types of interaction. The
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTERACTION
27
lilat interactions in which one child routinely attempts to explain his or her thinking are not necessarily productive for either child's learning. In analysis reveals
addition, harmony in a group's relationship does not appear to be a gOCKi indicator of learning opportunities. In contrast. contentious relationships, in which the children's clIipectations for each other are in conflict, can be productive. Two features identified i n the case studies that appear to be necessary for productive relationships are the development of a takenasshared basis for mathematical
communication and the routine engagement in interactions in which neither child is an authority. Against the background of a summary and synthesis of the findings. the chapter concludes by first comparing the case study analyses to Piagctian and Vygotskian perspectives, and then by considering their pedagog ical implications.
ORIENTATION TO THE CLASSROOM Because the case studies focus only on the children's smallgroup interactions, it is important to acknowledge that the smallgroup and wholeclass phases of lessons were interdependent (Bauersfeld, 1992; Schroeder, Gooya, & un. 1993), For example, children's smallgroup activity was influenced by their realization that they would be expected to explain their interpretations and solutions in a subse quent wholeclass discussion. Conversely, their smallgroup activity served as the basis for the wholeclass discussions. The relationship between smallgroup and wholeclass activity is addressed more directly elsewhere in this book by Krummheuer's analysis of minicycles (chap. 7, this volume) and Yackel's anaIysis of explanations in these two sociaI settings (chap. 4, this volume). As their analyses indicate. the classroom microculture both constr.tined and was sustained by the smaIlgroup relationships the children developed. It
is also imponant
to note that the children's participation in the teaching
experiment was the first occasion in which they were expected to collaborate to learn. Wood and Yackel (1990) discussed how the teacher intervened during smallgroup work 10 help them develop productive relationships. The smallgroup nonns that became explicit topics of conversation included persisting to solve
personally challenging problems, explaining personal solutions to the panner, listening to and trying to make sense of the panner's explanations and attempting to achieve consensus about an answer, and, ideally, a solution process i n situations wh� a conflict between interpretations and solutions has become apparent.
Classroom observations made during the teaching experiment indicate that the teacher found it less and less necessary to intervene to guide the renegotiation of these norms as the school year progressed (d. Wood, chap. 6, this volume). By January, when the case studies commence, most of the children appeared able to resolve smallgroup social conflicts on their own and Ihus develop relationships lhat satisfied the teacher's expectations. The case studies do, of course, provide an indication of the eXlent 10 which the teacher was able to guide the development of
28
COBB
smallgroup nonns. In addiLion, these analyses allow us to consider me innuencc of !he norms on children's malhematical leaming.
DATA CORPUS In line with the analyses reponed in other chapters. the smallgroup case studies focus on the children's concep:ions of placevalue numeration and their construc tion of increasingly sophisticated computational algorithms. The initial data con sisted of video recordings of the 27 lessons conducted between January 23 and March 13 of the school year in which lhe instructional activities involved arithme tic. II should be noted thai many orthese activities were nOI explicitly designed 10 facilitate the children's development of numeration concepls. Thus, the activities included story problems. situations involving money, and tasks designed to support the development of e1ementruy conceptions of multiplication. Because two cam eras were used, it was possible to record approximately half of each pair's activity in these 27 sessions. Transcripts were subsequently developed for two of the four pairs' activity, primarily for the convenience of the Gennan members of the research group. Additional data consisted of videorecorded individual interviews
conducted with the children in January just prior to the first smallgroup session.
METHODOLOGY The Interviews Interviews as Social Events.
The American researchers' original intention
for condocting the inlerviews was to assess !he children's levels of conceplUal undersl3.nding at the midpoint in the school year. To Ihis end, a variety of tasks were used to investigate the children's placevalue conceptions and computational algorithms. At !hat time, it was assumed that inferences about the children's arithmetical interpretations could be transferred unproblematically to the class room. With hindsight, it is apparenl that such interviews are social events in which the researcher and child negotiate their expectations about the purposes of their interaction, their roles, their interpretations of the tasks, and their understanding of what counts as a legitimate solution and an adequate explanation (Mishler, 1986; Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989; Richards, 1991; Voigt. 1992). In an extreme case, the
researcher
and the child
can
have different conceptions of the nature of
mathematical activity and, thus, ''talk past each other" throughout !he interview. The researcher who conducted the interviews was aware that the child might construe the interview situation as one in which he or she was obliged to try to figureoUl what !he researcher had in mind all along (Cobb, 1986). Further, because the researcher had visited the classroom regularly and
had interacted with the
3.
LEARNING AND SMALlGROUP INTERACTION
29
children throughout the first half of the school year, he and they had already
established bases for communication. In general. the negotiation of the purpose of the interview apperued 10 proceed relatively smoothly. Further, with one exception of which the researcher was aware. his and the children's understandings about the nature and purpose of mathematical activity seemed 10 be lakenasshared. These observations do nOI. of course, invalidate the argument thai the children's interpre. tations of and solutions to tasks were influenced by their participation in the interviews as social events. Thus. even though there was every indication that the children's participation in the interviews and the smallgroup sessions were com· mensurable
(d. Lave
& Wenger.
1991). the possibility that children might have
attempted to fulfill different obligations in the two situations was explored when accounting (or apparent inconsistencies in their mathematical activity across situations. Consequently, interpretations and solutions that, from the cognitive perspective. appeared to be inconsistent constituted occasions to clarify the nature of the two silUations as social events (ef. Yackel, chap. 4, this volume). During the analysis of the interviews, frequent reference is made to the concep tual interpretations that the children seemed to make, and to the arithmeticaJ objects
are inferred to have constructed. This way of talking is a shorthand used for ease of explication. The intended meaning in each case is that, in the course of his they
or her participation in the interview, the child acted in ways that justify making
panicular cognitive attributions. The situated nature of these inferences is particu
larly apparen t in
lhose instances in which the researcher nnempted to support the
child's mathematical activity.ln several of these instances. children did in fact seem to make conceptual advances thai they would not, in all probability. have made on their own. One standard way of accounting for these advances is to use Vygotsky's construct of the "zone of proximal development." However, this notion elevates interpersonal social processes above intrapersonal cognitive processes (Cole,
1985). Thus, analyses that use this construct typically focus on the adult's role in scaffolding the child's activity. As a consequence, the treatment of both the child's
interpretations and his or her contributions to interactions is relatively limited. The zone of proximal development was therefore replaced by a construct that is more relevant to the purposes of the investigation, that of the "realm of developmental possibilities." This construct delineates the situated conceptual advances a child makes while participating in an inleraction such as that in which an adult inlervenes
to suppon his or her mathematical activity. The zone of proximal development is concerned with what the child can do with adult support, whereas the realm of
developmental possibilities addresses the way in which the child'sconceptions and interpretations evolve as he or she interacts with the adult. The latter conSlnIct, therefore, brings the cognitive perspective more to the fore and, thus, complements sociological analysis of the situations in which that development occurs.
The Interview Tasks.
TIle tasks were adapted from those developed by
Steffe and his colleagues (Steffe, Cobb, & von Glaserfeld, 1988; Steffe, von Glaselfeld, Richards, & Cobb, 1983). Although an inlerview schedule was devel·
30
COBB
oped in advance, the interviewer was free to either skip tasks or 10 pose impromptu tasks on the basis of ongoing interpretations of the child's mathematical activity. The main types of interview tasks that bear on the issues addressed in the case studies were: Counting tasks: The researcher used two small felt cloths to present addition and missing addend tasks. For example, the researt:her might tell the child that 9 squares are hidden beneath onc cloth, that there are 13 squares hidden by both cloths, and ask the child to find how many squares are hidden under the second cloth (i.e.. a wk corresponding to 9+ = 13). These tasks were originally designed by Steffe et al. (1983) 10 investigate the qualitatively distinct types of units of one thai children can create and count. 2. Thinking Strategy tasks: The researcher used plastic numerals 10 present the following sequence of horizontal sentcllCes: 9+3 = 9+ 4 = ' 9+ 5 = and 6 I.
_
_.
>
+6= 7+5= 8+4= . 3. Uncovcring tasks: The researcher first established with the child that each strip contained 1 0 squares. After presenting funher warmup tasks, he placed a _.
'

board that was completely covered by a large cloth in front of the child and gradually pulled back the cloth to reveal a collection of strips and individual squares. Each time, he asked the child how many squares lhere were in all. Two tasks of this type were posed. The cumulative sums after each uncovering for Ihe first task (Fig. 3.1 a) were: one strip (10), three squares (13). two strips (33), four squares (37), three squares (40), one strip (50). two squares (52), two strips (72). The cumulative sums after each uncovering for the second task (Fig. 3.1b) were: four squares (4), one strip (14), two strips (34), one strip and two squares (46), two strips and five squares (71). These tasks were designed to investigate the quality of the units of len thai the child could create and coun!. 4. Stripsandsquares tasks: The researcher used the stripsandsquares materi· als 10 present a variety of addition and missing addend tasks. Forexample. he might first hide a collection of two strips and nine squares beneath a cloth, and make a visible collection of three strips and nine squares. The child would then be lold that there are 68 squares in all and be asked to find how many are hidden (i.e.. a task corresponding 10 39+ =: 68). These tasks were designed 10 investigate the quality _
• • • • • • • • • •
• •
• • •
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • •
•
• • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • •
• •
• •
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • •
AG.).l•. 1lIe fU'51 unCl;>YcrinX IlISk asked dllring intcrviews.
3.
LEARNING AND $MALl.GROUP INTERACTION
• •
• • • •
• • • • • •
• • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
• •
• • • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • •
31
FlG.l.lb. The sewnd un· covering wk asked during
•
inluvieWJ.
of the units of len the child could create. In contrast 10 other taSk types, the child's solutions could involve a reliance on silUationspecific imagery in that he or she might represent the strips and squares hidden beneath the cloth. S. Number sentences: The researcher used plastic numerals 10 prest:nt the following horizontal number sentences: 16+ 9= 28+ 1 3 = 37 + 24 = and 3 9+ 53 = In doing so, he made a routine intervention if a child consistently attempted to count on by ones. In the case of 37 + 24 = for example. he first asked the child if he or she could figure oul37+20= and lhen asked if this result could help the child solve the original task. His goal in doing so was 10 investigate whether the child could cunnil his or her counting activity by conceptualizing 24 as 20 and 4 more. Like the stripsandsquaru tasks. these tasks were designed to investigate both the quality of the units of ten the child could create and the sophistication of his or her computational methods. However. in contrast to the previous tasks, nothing in the presentation of the sentences encouraged the creation of imagery that might suppon the construction of units of ten and one. 6. Worksheet tasks: The researcher asked the child to complete a facsimile of a school textbook page of twodigit addition tasks. The worksheet included four tasks thai involved the same number combinations as the horizontal sentences: _,
_,
'
_"
_,
_,
16 t'J
28 +13
37 +24
39 +53
The rationale for these tasks is based on a previous investigation that found that children who have received traditional textbookbased instruction frequently con sider that horizontal and venica! tasks involving the same numbels are separote, unrelated tasks. These children experienced no contradiction when they found that 16+9 was 25 and that 16 +9
was, say, 15 or 115 (Cobb & W heatley. 1988). Consequently. a comparison of children's solutions 10 the two sets of tasks indicates the extent to which they have
32
COBB
established academic, codified arithmetic and infonnal, countingbased arithmetic as Iwo separate contexts. This issue was ofconsiderable significance given thatlhe children in the leaching experimenlclass had been in traditional firstgrade classes and thai this was the first occasionon which they hOOsecn the venical formal during the secondgrade year. The investigation focused on whether they would auempl to recall the standard algorilhm they had previously been taught. or whether they would adapt methods they had used 10 solve other interview tasks.
The SmallGroup Sessions Initial Analyses.
As
the analyses of wholeclass discussions presented in other chapters illuslrlIte. one methodologica1 approach to the social aspect of mathematical activity is to identify interaction pauerns. Krummheuer's discussion offormalS ofargumenuuion, Voigt's specification oflhematic patterns, and Wood's delineation of patterns of interaction are all based on this approach. At the outset, it seemed reasonable to follow a similar approach when analyzing the video recordings and transcripts of the children's smallgroup activity. However, con certed attempts to identify interaction patterns of this type that held up across a number of smallgroup sessions proved unsuccessful. 11 was sometimes possible to identify patterns in two children's interactions as they solved a sequence of similar tasks in a particular session. However, the nature of the children's interac tions often proved to be markedly different in the very next session. These initial attempts to make sense of the smallgroup tapes and transcripts gave rise to an alternative approach. In particular, an exploratory analysis of one pair of children's activity across five consecutive sessions indicated that the expectations the children had for each other's activity and the obligations implicit in their own activity appeared to be consistent across situations, provided the relative sophistication of their individual mathematical interpretations was taken into account. In other words, although there were dramatic differences in the nature ofthe children's interactions both within sessions and hom one session to the next, their expectations and obligations appeared to be stable once their conslrUals of tasks and of each other's mathematical actions were considered. Further, these inferred obligations and expectations suggested a way to characterize the social relationship they established fordoing mathematics in an empirically grounded way. The viability of this approach was confinned when conducting the four case studies in that it was possible to identify cognilively situated expectations and obligatiolL'i for each ofthe four pairsofchildren lhalheld across the IOweek: period covered by the video recordings. As Ihis approach involves bothcognitive analyses of the children's individual activity and sociological analyses of their interactions, it necessarily addresses a central theoretical concern of the project: the coordination of psychological and sociological perspectives in mathematics education. For each case study, the children's January interviews and their smallgroup sessions were analyzed in chronological order.
EpisodebyEpisode Analyses.
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGROUP INTERACTION
33
Within each smallgroup session, children's attempts to solve individual tasks were treated as distinct but rclated episodes. The analysis of each of these episodes involved inferring:
I . 1be children's expectations for and obligations to the smallgroup partner. 2. The mathematical meaning the children gave to their own activity, the partner's activity, and the task al hand. 3. 1be learning opponunities thai arose for each child.
4. The conceptual reorganizations that each child made (i.e.. their mathematical learning), This general approach can be clarified by considering the first of over
100 small
group sessions thai were analyzed. Here. the two children. Ryan and Kary. solved a sequence of horizontal addition number sentences that were sequenced so they might
relate the current !aSk 10 a prior resuh and thus move beyond counting by ones. The
video recording begins midway through the session as they
are
explaining their
solutions 10 48+ 18 =_10 the teacher. They havcjUSl solved 47+ 19 =66.
1 2 3 4
Teacher:
48 plus 18.
Katy: Teacher:
That's just the same. What's just the same?
Katy:
See, if you take one from 19, put it with the 47, it makes this just the same (points to 48 + 18 = _ and 47 + 1 9 = fm).
5 Teacher:
Do you see that, Ryan? She's saying that 47 plus 19 equals 66. [She then repeats Katy's explanation in more detailJ. She said it's just the same number.
6 Katy:
Yes, cause you just take one from the 19 and add it to the 47, that makes . . .
7 Teacher:
S KaIY:
9 Teacher:
10 Ryan:
I I Teacher: 12 Ryan:
48. 48. 48, right.
I know what she's trying to say, she's trying to say take one from here (points to 19) and add it to here (points to 47). Right. 1bat would be the same answer.
1 . With regard to the nature of thcir interactions, Katy repeatedly attempted to explain how she had solved the task. Howcver, the teacher's initial intervention, "What's me sameT' might havc been crucial. Thus, the most that can be inferred is that Katy was obliged to explain her thinking in mc tcacher's presencc. Ryan, for his pan, seemed obliged to try to understand Katy's explanations, as indicated by his comment, "I know what she's trying to say." However, as was the case with
Katy, the teacher's interventions might have been critical. Her comment, "Do you. that. Ryan?" might have been made with the intention of indicating the obligations she expected him 10 fulfill.
see
34
COBB
2. With regard to the mathematical meanings the children established. Katy's use of the compensation strategy did not seem novel and was consistent with her
perl'onnance on thinkingstrategy tasks administered in the January interview. As Ryan used the compensation strategy to relate 8 + 8 16 and 9 + 7 = in his =
_
interview, it seems reasonable to infer thai he did construct a compensation relationship when he interpreted Katy's explanation.
3. Ryan had not solved the task al the beginning of the exchange and the possibility of rdating successive tasks did nol seem 10 occur 10 him. The manner in which he clarified what "she's trying to say" suggests that he eventually comprehended how Katy had related tasks. This, in tum, indicates Ihal a learning opponunity might have arisen (or him when he interpreted her explanations.
4. Ryan's final interpretation orlhe task appeared to be more sophisticated than theonehe would have made iflef! (0 his own devices. However, the eJl.lem to which he reorganized his mathematical activity is unclear. His advance might have been specific to this particular exchange or, alternatively, he might have made a major
conceptual reorganization. The viability of these alternative possibilities can only be detennined by taking account of his solutions 10 subsequent tasks.
TIle goal of the analysis was to develop a coherem accoum of Ryan and Katy's
smallgroup activity across the 10 weeks of the data corpus. The inferences made while analyzing individual episodes were, therefore, viewed as initial conjectures that could be revised in light of the children's activity in subsequent episodes. In the next episode. Katy again used the compensation stralegy, relating 49 + 17 :: _
1048 + 1 8 :: 66.. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Katy:
Easy, it's me same thing.
Ryan:
No it isn't. Oh yes it is.
Katy: Ryan: Teacher:
It's one higher. it's one higher. Let's take a look. This one's [481 one less than that number [49], so if you take one from here and add itlO here thai makes 49. There's 1 7 left
Katy:
so
it has to be the same number.
7 Ryan:
It can't be because . . .
8 Katy: 9 Teacher:
It is, Ryan.
IO Ryan:
Why can't it be? You're adding two.
I . As was the case in me first episode, Katy again seemed obliged to explain her reasoning to Ryan, at least in the teacher's presence. However, on this occasion,
Ryan did not appear to uy to make sense oCher explanation. Instead, he challenged her answer and attempted to explain how he had related me two tasks. In me first episode, there was no indication mat he had developed a solution when the teacher asked Katy
10 explain her thinking. Here. in contrast, he had solved the lask in a
way mal he believed he could justify. It mereCOfe seems reasonable to conjeclure
3.
LEARNING AND SMAll.GROUP INTERACTION
35
that in situations in which the children's independent solutions were in conflict. Kat)' was obliged to explain her reasoning to Ryan with the expectation Ihal he would attempt to make sense ofwhat she was saying. For his pan, Ryan was obliged to both challenge Katy's explanation and cltplain his solution. The extent to which either child attempted to understand the other's explanation is open 10 question. 2. Katy's interprelation of the task appears to be consistent with the inferences made when analyzing the first episode. Further, Ryan's contention that "You're adding two" clarifies the conceptual advance he made when interpreting Katy's explanation in the first episode. Perhaps he had understood how Katy had menially tmnsfonned 47 + 19 into 48 + 1 8 in the first episode without reflecting on why. (Of Katy, it followed thai the two sums would be the same. To square this conjecture with his performance in the January interview, it might be funher speCUlated thtll he could only create compensating relationships oftrus type with smaller numbers, perhaps JO or less (cf. Neuman. 1987). 3. As Ryan did not appear 10 try to make sense of Katy's explanation, there is no indication that a learning opponunilY arose for him in this episode. Further, although Katy was obliged to explain her thinking in responseto Ryan'scha1lenges. she did not seem to modify her interpretation of the task when doing so. Conse� quently, it seems unlikely that a learning opponunity arose for her. 4. The conceptual reorganization that Ryan made in the first episode has been clarified by considering the interpretations he made in the second episode. His advance appears to be highly situation�specific. II can also be noted that in the second episode Ryan did attempt to relate successive tasks, whereas in the first episode he see� unable to do so independently. Thus, he had come to the realization that the tasks could be solved in this way. As a consequence, the development of thinking strategy solutions was takenasshared by the two children.
As this brief example illustrates, the analysis involved a continual movement between particular episodes and potentially general conjectures. The general claims made about the children's small·group work over the 100week period are empiri ca1ly grounded in that they emerged while interpreting the particulars of their activity. It is interesting to note that this antllytical approach bears a striking resemblance to mathematica1 activity as characterized by Lampen (1990). Follow ing Lakatos (1976), Lampen argued mat "Mathematics develops as a process of 'conscious guessing' about relationships among quantities and shapes, with proof following a 'zigzag' path starting from conjectures and moving to the examination of premises through !he useofcounlerexamples or 'refutations'" (p. 30). In the case studies, specific instances of the children'S mathematical aclivity that confliCled with current conjectures became refutations in that mey led to an examination of suppositions and assumptions mat underpinned me conjectures. Lampen a1so observed that the zig�z.ag between conjectures and refutations involves a process of argumentation. Similarly, the process or developing the case studies involved both individual rencction and colleclive argumentation within the research group. The ana10gy between the development of mathematical knowing and the analysis of the case studies is not panicuJarly surprising once one notes, as did
36
COBB
Billig (1987). that argumentation a1mosl invariably involves a movement between the general and the particular, between conjectures and refutations. lbe analogy holds because the case studies were developed by using an interpretivisl or henneneutic approach to understand an interpretive activiry, lhat of learning mathematics. Thus, the approach used 10 develop explanations of the children's mathematical activity is consistent with the way in which children's mathematical activity is itself assumed to develop.
Analyses ofAnalyses.
The episodebycpisode analyses of the video re cordings and transcripts was in fact only the first oflhrce phases of the analysis. In the second phase, the inferences and conjectures made while viewing the record ings themselves became "data" and were (met3)analyzed 10 develop interrelated chronologies of: I. The children's obligations and expectations (i.e., their social relationships). 2. Each individual child's mathematical activil)' and learning.
In the final phase of analysis, these chronologies were further synthesized to create outlines of the wrillen case studies. It should be stressed that this delineation of phases is made retrospectively. At the oUlSet, the issue of how to go about analyzing the: relatively large data corpus in a systematic way was itself problematic. The methodology outlined previously emerged while attempting to make sense of the video recordings, and it was only with hindsight that the consistency between this approach and Glaser and Strauss' t method for constructing ethnographies became ap (1967) constant comparaive parent.
ViabiHty of the Case Studies.
Each case study presenlS a coherent account of children's individual and collective mathematical activity over a toweek period. As is the nann in qualitative research. sampleepisodes are given to illustrate general claims and assertions (Atkinson. Delamont, & Hammersley. 1988: Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). Nonetheless, a difficull)' arises in that the interpretations ofthese episodes might not seem justified if single episodes are considered in isolation. Frequently, alternative explanations can be ruled out only by referring to general features of a smallgroup's social relationship or to the child's realm of conceptual possibilities. However, the latter is corroborated by the very regularities across episodes that the sample episodes are meanl to illustrate. Thus. the interpretation of specific episodes and the delineation of general regularities are reflexively related in that each is fomulated only in relation to the other. This n i terdependellCe of the general and the panicularcan be viewed as a strength in that it acknowledges the reflexive relationship between the children's mathematical activity and the contexlS in which they 3Ctedtheir activity was both context specific and context renewing. Interpretivist approaches of tlUs type can be contrasted with alternative methods of analysis based on the assumption of a onetoone mapping between observed behavior and cognition.
3.
LEARNING AND SMALJ...QROUP INTERAC1l0N
37
II should also be noced that the case studies do not purport to reveal the true essence of the children's mathematical activity. Instead. Ihe viability of the case studies depends on the extent 10 which they are reasonable andjustifiabJe given the research intc�1 of coordinating cognitive and sociological perspectives (cf. Er ickson.
1986). 11 is therefore acknowledged thai other plausible interpretations of
lhe children's mathematical activity could be made for alternative purposes.
Several considemtions lend credence to the claim that the case studies
are
reasonable andjustifiable. Fust. lhe researcher woo developed the case studies was an observer in the classroom for approximately two thirds of the mathematics lessons throughout the school year. In addition, he frequently interacted with the four pairs of children and viewed all orlbe smallgroup video recordings while the
classroom teaching experiment was in progress. Second, an ethnographic approach was used 10 conduct an episodebyepisode constant comparative analysis. Conse
quently, assertions can be justified by backtracking through the various phases of the analysis (i.e., the chronologies, the initial interpretations and conjectures, and, if necessary, the video recordings and transcripts). It is this record of the process
ofconstructing the case studies that gives them their empirical grounding (Gale &
1992). Third, the case studies were critiqued by other researche�. Two of these colleagues h3d participated in the classroom teaching experiment and had viewed many of the video recordings. This enabled them to respond to specific
Newfield,
claims and 10 judge whether the case studies "rang true" at a more global level. Three other colleagues were familiar with neither the teaching experiment class room nOT many of the takenforgranted pr.actices of American elementary mathe matics education. Consequently, they were able to offer a variety of alternative
interpretations. Founh, sample episodes are used to illustrate assertions. Finally. some of the smallgroup episodes were analyzed by other membe� of the research group for different purposes (e.g., Krummheuer's minicycles. Voigt's thematic patterns, Yackel's smallgroup and wholeclass explanations). These independent analyses provided a means of triangulating me case studies.
THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS The following description ofthe constructs that emerged while developing Ihecase
studies can be used as a glossary 10 complement the one al the end ofme book. The
reader might wish 10 clarify the intent of the constructs that <m summarized next by referring 10 this seclion of the chapter when reading the case studies.
Cognijive Constructs The cognitive constructs address three interrelated aspects of the children's math ematical activity. 'These <m:
I. The qualiry ofthe units often and one the children created.
38
COBB
2. The process of c�ating these units. 3. The possible developmental history of and metaphors implicit in particular solUlions. Each of these three aspects is discussed in tum in the following paragraphs.
Tens and Ones.
The cognitive constructs developed 10 account for individ
ual children'$ socially situated activity are based on the work of Steffe et al. (1983. 1988). However, the approach used was pragmatic in thai no attempt was made to document the numerous finegrained distinctions reported by Steffe el al. lnstead, constructs were inuoduced and refined only when they served to clarify aspects of the chi l dren's mathematical activity that were significant given the purposes of the investigation. TIle first issue addressed when conducting the cognitive analyses was that of ascenaining whether the children could routinely create and count absttact units of one when they interpreted and solved lash. In the case of the counting tasks presented in the inlerviews, the inference that a child created abstract units was typically made if he or she counted to solve the missing addend task corresponding to 9 + = 13 (i.e., Nine squaJeS visible. Thirteen squares in all. How many are hidden beneath the cloth?) Steffe et aI. (1983) argued that the child's activity of putting up four fingers while counting '''9, 10. 1 I . 12. 13" indicates thai he or she was not merely counting fingers as perceptual items. Instead, the child is inferred 10 have solved the task by finding how many counting acts he or she perfonned, and raising fingers to record these acts. This ability to enumerate the units created while counting indicates thai they could be objects of reflection for the child. It is in this sense that the child's units of one are said to be abstnici in quality. A distinction that proved useful when interpreting solutions that involved counting by 10 was that between 10 as a numerical composite and 10 as an abstract composite unit. This distinction can be illustrated by comparing two solutions to a stripsandsquares task in which 3 strips and 4 squares are visible and the child is told that 30 squares are hidden and asked to find how many squares there are in all. One way in which children solve this task is to move their hands with all 10 fingers extended as they count "34 44, 54. 64." Steffe et aI. (1988) interpreted solutions of this sort by arguing that each of the three counting acts is a curtailment of counting 10 units of one. In other words, each counting oct signifies a composite of ten units of 1 . However, the way in which the children move all 10 fingers as they count indicates that these composites are not single entities or units. Instead, the children appear to count numerical composites of IOones. Otherchildren solve the same task by sequentially pUlling up three fingers as they count "31 41. 54. 64." For Steffe et al. (1988), the children's acts of putting up an individual finger indicated that lhe composites of 10 ones they count are single entities or units for them. Thus, the conceptual entities the child�n are inferred 10 have created are abstract composite units of ten. each of which is itself composed of 10 ones. A funher issue addressed was that of clarifying whether the children's creation of abstract units of ten involved panwhole reasoning. Consider, for example, a _
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTERACTION
39
stripsandsquares task corresponding 10 48+_ := 72 in which there are 4 strips and 8 squares visible. and 72 squares in all. Children often begin by focusing on the strips of 10 and reasoning thai because 40 and 30 are 70, there must be 3 strips of 10 under the cloth. Some ofthese children then add the 8 visible squares to the 70 and realize the answer must be less than 30. They often experience acontlict in Ihis situation in that, (rom their point of view, there appear to be both more than and fewer than 30 squares beneath the cloth. Children who are able 10 resolve this experienced contradiction appear 10 create an abstract composite unit by concep tually combining ones from the two parts (i.e., the visible and hidden collections). Forexample. a child who realizes thai 30 is too much might first reason that 40 and 20 are 60, and that 8 and 2 more are 10, making 70 in all. The child might then continue by noting thai as then: are 72 squares in all. there must be 2 more squares hidden beneath the clOlh, making 24 hidden squares in all. In !he course of this solution, the child seems simultaneously to conceptualize the strips and squares in tWO different ways: parts comprising 6 abstract units of ten and the two collections of ones, and a whole of7 abstract units of ten and 2 ones. In summary, thecognitive analysisofsolutions that involved the creation oftens differentiated between: • •
•
Numerical composites of ten. Abstract composite units of ten. Partwhole relations involving abstract units of ten and one.
In view of what has been said about the socially situated nalUre of the child�n's conceptual activity, it is, in principle, impossible to give definitive behavioral indicalorsforthe various cognitive constructs. 1ne specific solutions that have been discussed are merely intended 10 be illustrative examples. Depending on the nature of the child's ongoing activity and of the interactions in which he or she engages, different interpretations might be made when analyzing solutions similar 10 these. For example. in the course of an interaction, a child might figure out that he or she can be effective by using a tens numberword sequence to count strips and a ones numberwocd sequence to count individual squares. It is then conceivable that the child could solve the strips·andsquares task corresponding to 34 + 30 = by counting "34 ��. 54, 64" while putting up individual fingers. In such a case, each counting act signifies a strip viewed as a single thing rather Ihan a composite of 10 squares_ It was nOied when discussing the methodology that single episodes an: open to a variety of competing interpretations. This is particularly the case when conducting cognitive analyses. Alternative conjectures an: winnowed down by attempting 10 develop n consistent account of a child's socially situated cognitive activity across episodes. _
ImageSupported and ImageIndependent Units.
The cognitive con structs discussed Ihus far deal with the quality of the conceptual entities that children create while solving tasks. It also has proved imponant lo infer whether a child's creation of these entities in a particular situation was image supported Of"
40
COBB
image independent. I The tml of thesepossibilities can be illustrated by considering a child's solution to a story problem involving money that corresponds to 38 + 24 (c.g "Juan has 3St and Lucy has24¢. How much money do they have togetherT). Here, the child reasons without using materials, "38 and a dime make 48, another dime, 5859, 60. 61, 62," Assuming mal the child counted abstract composite units of len, it can be noled that lhe child's situationspecific imagery of dimes might have played a crucial role in supporting me creation of these units. Conse quently, in the absence of evidence to the conttar}'. it would be inferred that the process of creating the units was image supported. More generally. children's creation of numerical composites and abstract composite units is inferred 10 be image supported if, in interpreting a task or another's mathematica1 activity. they appear to rely on situationspecific imagery of some type. Thus. solutions to sttipsandsquares tasks were typically inferred to be image supported in Ihat lhe child's realization lIIat items were grouped in strips of 10 might have been critical. By way ofcontrast, consider a solution to the money story problem correspond ing 10 38 + 24 in which a child counts "3848, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62" either on a hundreds board or by putting up fingers. Here, Ihere is no indication lIIat the child relied on situationspecific imagery. ConsequentJy, ifthis appeared to be a routine counting solution for the child, it would be inferred Ihat his or her creation of abstract composite units was image independenl A second example is provided by the following solution to the horizonlal addition senlence 34 + 30 = : "31 1�. 54.64." Here, there is nothing particular to the task itself that might lead the child to visualize collections of 10 items when n i terpreting the numerals. Of course, it s i possible 10 train children to create figura1 images of this son and. indeed, 10 COUni in this way 10 solve a narrow range of tasks. However, in the absence of evidence indicating that this has occurred, il seems reasonable 10 infer thai the chi l d did not rely on situation.specifiC imagery when creating abstract units of ten. It would. therefore, be concluded that the ploccss ofconstructing the units Wa
_
the distinc tion belween imagesupported and imageindependenl solutions deals with the process of constructing units, that beiween collectionbased and countingbased solutions as described by Cobb and Wheatley (1988) addresses the possible developmental history ofparticular solutions. This distinction can be illustrated by considering two solutions to a missing addend task corresponding to 48 + = 72 (i.e., 4 strips and 8 squares visible; n squares in all; how many are hidden beneath the cloth?). In lhe first solution. which was discussed previously, the child begins by reasoning that 40 and 20 are 60, and that 8 and 2 are 10, making 70 in all. The child then completes the solution by noting that as there are 72 in all, 2 more squares must be hidden by the cloth, and 22 and 2 is 24. In !he absence ofevidence to the
CollectionBased and CountingBased Solutions.
Whereas
_
JI/NFry,uI usethelenn in thUcMper. rd'l'n tofigural ima&l'ry. ThiJ usage5Muldnotbc: wnfusc:d with thai ofJohnson (1987), who &rJ� thai tholl&hl is inherently ima&inistic. DOrllc:r(I99I), Presnq (1992). Sfart! (1994). ancI � (1994) discvssed the implicMions ofkJhnson's woO; fOf mathenw· ics ed� In doing 510, �y � that highly abstnta: rnalhematkal thought involves
nonfigural imagay.
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTEAACTlON
3.
41
contrary. it seems reasonable 10 infer that the child relied on situationspecific imagery to create partwhole relations involving units of tcn and one. In addition, it can be observed that the child's task was to find how many tens and ones would have to beadded to40and 8 to make 70 and 2. The metaphor implicit in the solution seems to be thai: of manipulating collections. Thiscollectionbased solution can becontrastcd with one in which achild solves the same task by counting "4858. 68, 69, 70. 71. 72" while putting up fingers and then saying that 24 squares are hilklen. In this case, the task the child solved was lhaloffinding the difference between 48 and 72. A crucial distinction between the two solutions is that the first was collection based whereas the second seemed to involve the cunailment of counting on. In general. a solution is said to be counting based if it appc� to involve the curtailment of counting by ones. In contrast. collectionsbased solutions typically involve partitioning twodigit num bers inlo a "tens part" and a "ones part" (e.g 48 conceptualized as 40 and 8). As funher clarification of collectionbased solutions, it should be noted that children often solve addition sentences such as 39 + 53 = by reasoning that 30 and 50 are SO, nine and three are 12, and SO and 12 are 92. Children who use this partitioning aJgorithm need not create either numencaJ composites of ten or abstract composite units. Instead, 30 and 50 could be unitary conceptual entities (i.e metaphorically, 30 is an unstructured composite of ones). As a funher point. it can also be observed that, in this solution. the act of partitioning a Iwodigit numeral such as 39 symbolizes the act of partitioning the signified numberthe result is 30 and 9 rather than 3 and 9. This distinction between partitioning the numeral per se and partitioning the signified number also proved to be relevant. .•
_
.•
SummaI)'.
The cognitive constructs that proved useful when conducting the case studies deal with three aspects o(the children's socially situated mathematical activity. The first aspect concerns the quality o(the conceptual entities they created when interpreting and solving tasks. Here, the central distinctions are those between ten as a numerical composite. ten as an absuact composite unit. and partwhole relations involving abstract units of len and one. lbe second aspect concerns the process of creating these entilies. and here the distinction was made between imagesupponed solutions and imageindependent solutions. The third aspect concerns the possible developmental history of particular solutions, and here countingbased solutions were contrasted with collectionbased solutions. The remaining distinction discussed is that between partitioning a twodigit numeral per se, and partitioning the number it signifies.
Sociological Constructs The analysis of the children's smallgroup imeractions focused on their obligations and expectations. and on the takenasshared mathematical meanings they estab lished. Each group's social relationship was characterized in lerms of regularities in childn:n's obligations and expectations. Additional constructs that emerged in
42
coes
the course of the analysis deal with the lypes of interactions in which the children engaged. and the relations of power and authority established in the groups. Types of Interaction.
Differences in the types of interactions in which the
children engaged influenced !he learning opponunities thai arose for them. This was the case both when the two children were still in the process of solving a task
and when one or both children had arrived at a solution. In the latter case, either onc child attempted to explain his or her thinking 10 the OIm, or the children anempted 10 resolve conflicts among their interpretations. soiUlions. and answers. The relevant distinction in these situations in which one or boIh children had already developed a solution is that between interactions that invohe univocal explanation and thosethat involve multivocal explanation. In the first ofthese types of interactions, one child judges that the panner either does not understand or ha� made a mistake. and the partner accepts this judgment. The interaction proceeds smoothly as the first child explains his or her solution and the panner attempts to make sense of the eApianalion. The tenn unj�'ocal is used 10 emphasize that the perspective ofone child dominates.
It should be noted that even in these interac
tions, explaining is a joint activity in that the panner has to play his or her pan by accepting the first child's judgment and attempting to understand the explanation. Interactions involving multivocal explanation oflen occur when a conflict has become apparent and both children insist thnt their own reasoning is valid. One
child might again assume thai the partner has made a mistake. However. in contrast to univocal interactions, the partner challenges this assumption by explicitly questioning the eAplanation. In general, multivocal interactions
are
constituted
when both children atlempl lo advance their perspectives by explicating their own thinking and challenging that of the partner. The case studies indicate that these interactions were usually productive, provided the children had established a viable basis for mathematical communication. By way of comparison. univocal interac tions frequently did not give rise 10 learning opponunities for either child. With regard to the interactions that occurred while both children were still in the process of developing solutions. the relevant distinction is that between direct and indirect collaboration. TIle children engaged in direct collaboration when they explicitly coordinated their attempts to solve a task. For example, to solve a multiplication task corresponding 10 6 x 6 =
_,
one child might count modules of
six while the partner puts up fingers to record how many modules have been counted. In general, interactions involving direct collaboration only OCCUlTed when the children made takenasshared interpretations or a lask and or each other·s mathematical activity. Interactions of this type can be contrasted with those that involve indirect collaboration. In lhose situations, one or both chi.ldren think aloud while apparently solving the task independently. Although neither child s i obliged to listen to the other. the way in which they frequently capitalize on the other's comments indicates that they are monitoring what the panner is saying and doing to some extent. From the observer's perspective. the learning opportunities that arise seem fonuitotls in thai what one child says or does happens to be significant for the other at that particular moment within the contellt of his or her ongoing
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGROUP INTERACTION
43
activity. Those occasions when indirect collaboration occurred in the C:lSe studies were frequently productive, whereas the instances of direct collaboration did nOI usua1ly give rise to learning opponunities.
Mathematical Authorityand Social Authority.
The discussion of interac lions involving univocal explanation illustrated an instance in which one child was the established mathematical authority of the group. In that situation, one child judged thai the partner eilher did not understand or had made a mistake, and the: partner accepted this judgment without question. It is important 10 stress that the notion of m:Jlhematicai authority refers to the: relationship the children have interactively constituted rather than to a single child's beliefs about his Of her own role. For example, a child might believe that he or she is the mathematically more advanced and routinely auempt 10 help the other understand. However, regardless of what the child believes, he or she is not the mathematical authority of the group unless the partner occepls the child'sjudgmenl. Thus, in this account, bOlh children participate in the interaClive constitution of one child's role as the mathemalical authority. In those instances in which such a relationship was observed, there was a clear power imbalance between the children in that one child was obliged to adapt to the other's malhematicaJ activity in order to be effective in the group. In the case studies, such relationships did not appear to be productive for either child. A second type of power imbalance can arise when one child regulates the way in which the children interacl as they do and talk about mathematics. Pow�" as the term is used here, refers to whose interpretation of a situation wins oul and becomes taken as shared. Thus, for example. il might be observed thaI two children engage in multivocal interactions only when a discussion of conflicting solutions fits with one child's personaJ agenda. The manTlCr in which the child controls the emergence of interactions of this type indicates thai he or she is the social authority of the group. In the case studies, the one instance in which a child was the established social authority of the group ga\'e rise to an inequity in learning opportunities.
ORGANIZATION OFTHE CASE STUDIES: LEARNING AND INTERACflON As stated at the outset. the primary reason for conducting the case studies was to clarify the relationship between lhe children's situated conceptual capabilities and their smallgroup interactions. The view that emerged while conducting the case studies was that the children's mathematical activity and the social relationships they established were reflexively related. On the one hand, the children's cognitive capabilities, as inferred from both the interviews and theiractivity in the classroom. appeared to constrain the possible Conns that lheir smallgroup relationship could take. Although it was possible 10 imagine thai a particular pair of children might have established a variety ofalternative relationships in othercircumstances, a wide range of possibilities did oot seem plausible. On the other hand, the relationships
44
COBB
that the pairs actually established constrained the types of leaming opponunities that arose and thus profoundly innuenced the children's construction of increas ingly sophisticated mathematical ways ofknowing. Tbcse developing mathemati cal capabilities. in turn, constrained the ways in which their smallgroup relationships could evolve. This reflexive n:lationship guided the organization of the case studies. Each case study commences withananaIysisofthechildren'sinieMews. Althoughtheinlerviews are b'eated as social situations. the primary focus is on their conceptions of 10. Next. the smallgroup relationships the children established are documented by identifying i which the chi l dren engage. ln addition, attention is given to the types of interaction n both possible power imbalances and to the extent to which the children wc:rc able to establish ;I. viable basisformalhematica1 communication. Aspanofthissocial analysis, theoc:currence of1eaming opportunities is also documented. This then provides a link to the subsequent cognitive analysis ofeach child's mathematical activity and learning during smallgroup interactions. Finally. a summary orlbe case study is given to both illustrare the reOexive relationship between individual and collective activity and to clarify the features of productive and unproductive relationships.
CASE STUDYRYAN AND KATY JANUARY 14

MARCH 23, 1987
Ryan: January Interview During his interview. Ryan routinely count«l on to solve missing addend tasks. indicating that he could create and count abStract units of one. In addition, he routinely counred by tens and ones to solve the uncovering tasks. For example, having reached 46 on the second uncovering task. he counted "56, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71" when a further 2 strips and 5 squares were uncovered. This suggests that he could create imagesupported abstract composite units or len, at least when he gave linear, countingbased meanings to number words and numerals . His solutions to the stripsandsquares tasks indicate that the creation of image supported absttact composite units was within the realm of his developmemal possibilities, al least when he established collectionbased meanings. In one task. he was shown a collection of3 strips of 10 and 9 individual squares (391, told there were 61 squares in all, and asked 10 find how many were covered. He explained his answCT of 2 tens and a 1 as follows: 1 Ryan:
Only 2 [strips of 10] under there and I [square], and then you add this nine (the visible 9 squares) to there and ifyou take that I [the 1 hidden square] and put it to here (with the 9 visible squares) that would make 10, and then those {the visible and hidden strips and squares] all added together would make 61.
LEARNING AND SMALL·GROUP INTERACTION
3.
45
The crucial feature of this 50lulion was his realization thai one of the additional tens needed 10 make 60 could be created by composing ones from the visible and screened collections. This suggests thal lhe lens wefe abstraCI composite units for him. The limitation of his solution was that the units of len and one thai he established while building up the hidden collection did nO[ seem 10 constitute a single numerical entity for him. Instead. he attempted to keep track of the additional strips and squares needed 10 make 61 by relying on figural imagery and assumed that the onc square he added to the 9 visible squares to make a unit of ten was also the I of 61. This inference is corroborated by the difficulties he experienced when solving a followup task in which he was shown 4 strips and 6 squares [46J. told there were 71 squares in all, and asked to find how many were hidden.
I Ryan: Three's under there. 2 Interviewer: How many blocks [i.e.. individuaJ squares]? 4there's only 2 bars under there. 3 Ryan: 4 Interviewer: How did you get 4? 5 Ryan: 1 counted these (the 6 visible squares] and I counted those together and then ( knew it made 10. In this case, Ryan focused on the .seven composite units of ten and seemed to lose
sight of the 71. Despite these difficulties, these two solutions indicate that the construction of abslraCt composite units of ten was within his realm of develop mental possibilities when he made collectionbased interpretations of number words and numerals. There was, however, no evidence that he could establish partwhole relations that involved abslraCt units of ten. Ryan initiaJly attempled to solve the horizontaJ addition sentences by counting on by ones. However, the interviewer imervened before he could do so for 37 + 24 = and they together interactively constituted a solution which involved finding 37 + 20 and then adding on 4. Ryan solved the next task, 39 + 53 = by partitioning both numerals: _
'
I Ryan:
5 and 3's 8 and then ( took this 9 and I took I from the 3 and add it to the 9 and 2 is left, then that's , I knew 92. . .
As he said "5" and "3" rather than "50" and "30", it is unclear whether the act of partitioning the numerals symbolized the partitioning of the numbers they signified. Nonetheless, he subsequently used the same solution method and gave similar explanations when he solved the last two tasks on the worksheet, those corresponding to 37 + 24 = and 39 + 53 = Taken together, these solutions suggest that the development of a conceptually based partitioning algorithm might have been within his realm of develop mental possibilities, _
' _
46
COBB
Katy: January Interview Kaly's pcrfonnance during the first part of me interview was very similar 10 thai of Ryan. For example. she solved the uncovering tasks by counting by lens and ones, indicating that she could create abslrnCl composite units often by relying on situationspecific imagery. Her most sophisticated solution occurred on a strips andsquares task in which 4 strips and g squares were visible (48]. she was told there were 72 squares in all, and asked 10 find out how many were hidden. 3 rows of 10 . . . I think there's 30 . If there's 72 altogether, there's only a couple underneath here, I don't know how many. Imerviewer. A couple of what? I think there's 22 underneath here. Katy: Interviewer: How did you figure thai oul? There's 8 right here8 and 2 is 10, but there's 72, so there has Katy: to be 24, 24and there's 48 right here, altogether makes 70.7 1, plus another one right undemealh here makes 72.
1 Katy: 2 3 4
S
.
.
.
Katy. like Ryan, anticipated that she could create a unit of ten by composing ones from the visible and hidden collections. Funher, as was the case with Ryan, this seemed 10 be an imagesupponed solulion. The crociaJ difference belween !he IWO children's solutions concerned the way in which they kept track as they built up the hidden collection in representation. In contrast to the difficulties that Ryan experienced, Katy reasoned "but there's 72, so there has to be 24." It would, therefore, seem that the construction of panwhole relations involving abstract units of ten and one was within the realm of her devc:lopmental possibilities. It can be noted that Ryan constlUcted a partitioning algorithm with the interviewer's suppon when he solved the horizontal sentences. In contrast, Katy used a similar algorithm to solve these tasks spontaneously, indicating that the oct of conceptually panitioning a twodigit number was relatively routine for her. With regard to the worksheet tasks. she solved each by using the standard addition algorithm and explained that she had learned this from her elder sister. However. il is not possible to infer from her explanations the extent to which the steps of this algorithm carried numerical significance for her.
Regularities in Small·Group Activity Katy and Ryan's small·group relationship was reasonobly stable and was charac terized by an unresolved tension in their expectations for each other. For example, during the sessions in January and at the beginning of February, the two children typically began a new task by engaging in independent activity. KaIY usually arrived at an answer first and then told it to Ryan almost immediately. As she explained to Ryan on January 27, "" m supposed 10 help you with these (tasks]." This unsolicited assistance generally involved attempting to complete Ryan's solution ihhejudged that it was correct. and intelT1Jpting to explain her solution if
3.
LEARNING AND $MAUGROUP INTERACTION
47
she believed that he had made a mistake. However, Ryan rarely listened to her explanations until he had solved the task himself. Funher, he voiced frustration al her inlerruptions, and sometimes uied 10 disrupt her explanations. In general. he considered that Katy's interventions infringed on his obligation 10 develop his own solutions and continually chaJlenged Ktr.ty's view of herself as the mathematical authority in the group. As a consequence, there were few if any occasions when they engaged in either direct or indirect collaboration. The tension in the children's expectations for each other frequcnlly continued after Ryan had produced an answer. Katy often assumed thai il was still her responsibility 10 explain her solution 10 him, and she also look il for granlcd that he had made a mistake when their answers were in conflict For his part. Ryan frequcnlly inlerrupted Katy's explanations by interjecting counterarguments. Katy, in tum, of'len responded by modifying her explanations to accommodate his challenges. Asan example, consider an exchange that occurred on January 21 when Ryan proposed that the answer 10 a balance task thai invoh'ed adding 8 fours was 28 and Katy thought that !he answer was 32. The children had agreed that the answer to the immediately prior task of adding 6 fours was 24. I Ryan: 2 Katy: 3 Ryan:
4 Katy: 5 Ryan: 6 Ka!y:
7 Ryan:
8 Kaly: 9 Ryan: 10 KaIY:
28. Yoo know that's 24 1the prior taskl, 25, 26, 27 . . . [lnterruptsl No, aU they're doing is adding I four (onto the previous Il15kl. This one is adding 2 fours [onto the previous task). I'll show you how I got il. I got . . . 28, see, look, that makes 16, that makes . . . (Interrupts) There's 4 fours. Pretend like you don't see them (covers 4 of the 8 fours with her hand), and then you add on. These fours, and that makes 16, (coums on 4 more fours while pointing to the boxes on the activity sheet), 32. 32. so thaI's what the number is. You didn't say it was 32. No, because I was showing you how I got it.
Katy's initial comment. "You know that's 24," indicated that she intended to explain how she had related this task to the prior one. However, a different solution lhat seemed to be the product of their joint activity emerged in the course of the exchange as they accommodated to each others' challenges. Nonetheless, from Ryan's perspective. he bad fulfilled his obligatmn of solving the task himself. It can also be noted in passing that the children's last two comments indicate that the tension in their social relationship had an eAplicitly competitive aspect. As the sample episode illustrates, Ryan and KaIY typically engaged in multiv ocal rather than univocal explanation when their solutions and answers were in dispute. The sample episode also illustrates that learning opponunities could arise for both children in the course of these interactions. In particular, learning oppor tunities could arise for Katy when Ryan was still solving a task and she monitored
48
COBB
his ongoing activity. Learning opportunities could also arise for her when she anempted to explain her solution once Ryan had solved the task and she accom modated to his shifting challenges and counterarguments. By the same loken, learning opportunities could arise for Ryan as he bied to make sense of and (annulate challcnges 10 KaIY'S explanations. Funher, the interactions involving muhivocal explanation can also be viewed as occasions for group learning in that the children frequemly elaborated their takcnasshared basis for mathematical
activity while reciprocally influencing and adapting to each others' arguments.
The comments madeearlier both characterize the socially constituted situations
in which learning opportunities tcnded to arise for Ryan and Katy and hint at the
generally productive nature oflheir social relationship withregard to mathematical learning. However. as summary statements, these comments cannol do justice to either the richness of the children's individual and joint mathematical activity, or to the diversity and unpredictability of the learning opportunities thai arose for them
during their interactions. An exchange that occurred on January 26 illustrates these points panicularly well. The children were solving the task. "How many do you add to to::: [36) to make IillI:. [53)
?'
I Ryan:
(Stans to put out bars of multilinks).
2 KaIY: 3 Ryan:
(Counts on from 3610 53 on her fingers) 17. Look, 36 (points 10 3 len·bars and 2 threebars). And how many do we have on that? (points to the picture of 53 on the activity sheet)
4 Katy: 5 Ryan:
53. So you add 2 more tens. 2 more tens and take away one of these (points 10 a threebar).
Here, as was typical, Katy solved the task first and told Ryan her answer. She then attempted to help him complete his solution, telling him
to add 2 more tens 10 the
collection of36 multilinks. Ryan usually ignored attempts ofthis sort 10 assist him. However, on this occasion, Knty's intervention made sense to him in the context of his ongoing activity and, in the very aCI of interpreting Katy's suggestion, he anticipated how he would phYSically manipulate the multilinks 10 transfonn a collection of 36 multilinks into one of 53. Her comment, therefore, gave rise 10 a learning opportunity for him in that he completed his solution by fepresenting rather than by 3ClUally manipulating multilinks. Nonetheless, his solution was highly image dependent in that "ten" seemed 10 refer to a tenbar as a physical object rather than to it as an instantiation of an abslrnCt unit. From Katy's perspective, Ryan's answer of adding 2 tens and taking away three, couched as it was in terms of physical actions, conflicted with her answer of 17. As was typical in such situations, she assumed that he was in error and attempted
to explain her solution to him. 6 KaIY:
Come here, come here, l think you're nOI getting this righl. All righi, you have this many numbers (points 10 the picture of 36) and thai milkes 36, and that makes 37, 38, 39 , 40 . . .
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGAQUP INTERACTION
49
7 Ryan: 8 Katy:
(InlcrruplS) Look. look...
9 Ryan:
Well this is 36 (points to the activity sheet). and we have to take
(Ignores him and completes her count) . .
. SO, 5I , 52, 53.
away one of lhese things (a strip of three: squares in the piclUre
of 36J. to Katy: I I Ryan: 12 Katy: 1 3 Ryan:
Oh no you don',. (Ignores her) and then we add
IOJ.
2 of these things (two strips of
Here. I'll explain it to you how I gOl the number. That's how I did it.
As this exchange illustrates. Ryan was not obliged to accept Katy's explanation when he believed thai hecouJd justify his own solution. Conversely, Katy believed that he had made a mistake and. as a consequence, was not obliged to listen to his explanation. Here, you have thai many numbers. 36,
and you add 10 more,
1 5 Ryan:
Katy, look, you have to lake away a statement is inaudible).
JO [remainder of his
16 Katy:
I'll show you how I got my number. See, you have 36, and add
1 4 Katy:
makes 46 (holds up both hands with all 10 fingers extended), 47, 48 . . . 53 (puts up 7 fingers as she counts).
10 more makes 46 (holds up both hands with all 10 fingers extended), 47. 48 . . . 53 (puts up 7 fingers as she counts). Do you agree with In
Here, Katy curtailed counting on by ones and created a numerical composite of 10 when she explained her solution forthesecond timoin holding up 10 fingers, she anticipated lhe result ofcounting to 46 by ones. Although it is not possible to explain why she reorganited her counting activity on this rather than on another occasion, the fact that Ryan was manipulating bars of 10 muhilinks and that she had
previously directed him to add on 2 tens may have been significant. In any event, the way in which she repeatedly explained her solution while fulfilling her obligation of helping Ryan gave her the opportunity solution.
10
renect on her original
An interesting aspect of lhe entire exchange is lhnt both children made concep
tual advances even though they did not appear to consciously listen to each other's explanations. Instead, learning opponunities arose when something !hat one said or did proved to be significant at that particular moment within the persona] context oftheother's ongoing activity. ApparentJy. fonuitous iearning opponunities ofthis sort occurred repeatedly when Katy and Ryan engaged in multivocal explanation. With the exception of the very last session in which they worted together, the
regularities in the children's obligations and expectations were stable throughout February and March. Thus, Katy remained obliged 10 assist Ryan, and Ryan
continued 10 try and solve tasks for himself. For example, on March 4, Katy
50
COBB
explained (0 Ryan why she had asked him what his answer was by saying, '" have 10 make you sure:'ln general, she was still obligated to check that his answers were correct. The stability of their obligations and expectations was also indicated by the continual tcnsion in their viewsoftheirrespeclivc: roles thegroup. ln this regard. open confliclS arose from time 10 lime. For example:. on both March 4 and 5, Ryan complained to the teacher when Katy solved II task quickly. presumably because he: thought that it might be difficult for him to develop his own solUlions. Nthoogh it waspossible 10 identify general regularities n i lhc:children'sobligations and cxpectations, several novelties were observed in their interactions in March. For the mostpan.these seem 10 have stemmed from Katy's attemptsIOcope wilh the tension between her own and Ryan's obligations. For example. the following exchange occurred on March 4 when they solved the number .senlence 5 x 6 =_, Katy: 2 Ryan: 3 Kat)': 4 Ryan: S Kat)': • Ryan;
5 sixes (draws 5 circles and then looks at mem). 12 and 12's 24, 24, . . . watch, Ryan, watch, watch, watch, watch, walch. What? Do you agree this 6 and 6 is 12,6 and 6 is 12, 12 and 12 makes 2424, 25, 26, . . , 30. You agree? (No response as he continues making his own drawing.) Do you agree or not? (Continues unli] he finishes his own drawing and then looks up.)
As was mecase in January, KalY produced an answer fITSt and attempted to explain her solution while Ryan continued 10 solve the task in his own way. However, Katy's approach of asking him whether he agreed with her solution instead of explaining it to him directly was novel. In making this request, she did not seem to act as a mathematical authority but instead appeared to implicitly indicate mat his judgment was of interest to her. As previously stated, Ryan typically ignored her attempts to directly explain her solution to him before he had produced an answer. This time, however, he tried 10 make sense of her explanation once he hnd drawn six (rather than five) circles and, in the process. a learning opportunity arose for him. 7
Katy:
8 Ryan: 9 Katy:
10 Ryan: 1 1 Katy; 12 Ryan: \3 Katy:
Do you agree? (Looks at his own drawing of 6 circles) 6 and 6 is 12. (Interrupts) 6 and 6 is 12, and 12 and 12 is 24, and (Interrupts) Like 12 and 12's 24, 25, 26, . . . 33, 34 (Interrupts) No, see that's 6. (Ignores her and complctes his count of 2 additional sixcs) 35, 36. You don't see lhis 6 (points to one of the circles Ryan has drawn). Walch, you're supposed to have 5 sixes, 1.2, 3,4, 5,6, you don't see this one.
The eXChange concluded with Ryan agreeing that there should only be five circles and that the answer was 30.
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTERACTION
51
Another leaming opportunity arose for Ryan on March 4 when Katy again departed from her usual routine of giving a direct explanation. On this occasion, she first solved the number sentence x 3 = 18 by making a tally mark each time she counted lhe same three fingers until she reached J 8. _
I Kat)': 2 Ryan: 3 Kat)': 4 Ryan: 5 Kat)': 6 Ryan:
7 Kat)': 8 Ryan: 9 Kat)': 10 Ryan:
I tried sixes. What's 3 plus 3?
6. What's 3 plus 31 6. What's 3 plus 31 6. What's 6 plus 6 plus 61 OK. 6 plus 6 is twclve. 13, 14, . . . 18. See. it's 6, 3 times 6. Yeah. but I'm supposed 10 do the problem Imyself'j.
Here, Kat)' reconceptualized her counting solution and, instead of ClIplaining directly, she asked Ryan a series of questions. Ryan, for his prut. seemed obliged 10 respond and. funher. appeared to pause and reflect on his sequence of responses before agreeing that the answer was six. Nonetheless, his final comment indicates that he did nOI consider that he had solved the task himself and he subsequently developed an alternative solution. It should again be acknowledged that the exchanges that occurred in these last two examples were atypical. They do, however, illusll'ate that the children's interactional competencies began to improve as they attempted to cope with the tension in their expectations for each other. In addition, the episodes illustrate the kinds of learning opportunities that could arise when they found ways to tempo rarily alleviate this tension. In both examples. Ryan attempted to make sense of solutions that were more advanced than those that he typically developed when working independenUy. Katy. for her part, had the opportunity to reconceptu alize her solutions as she attempted to explicate her thinking for Ryan. A learning opportunity of this type clearly arose for her in the second of the two examples that have been considered. It should. however, be noted that in contrast to their interactions while engaging in muhivocal explanation, the chil dren did not develop novel, joinl solutions in either of these exchanges. Further, Ryan typically believed that he had solved a task himself when he modified his thinking by making counlerarguments while engaging in multivocal explana tion. This was not the case when he responded to a sequence of questions that Katy posed. It was nol until the last session in which they worked together, on March 23, that lhe children substantially modified their obligations and thus at least tempo rarily reorganized their smallgroup relationship. In this session, the children first attempted 10 solve the balance task 10. 10, ' / 40 by using a guessandtest approach. However, Ryan then exclaimed, "It's 4, it's 4," and explained how he had related this to the previous task. 10, 10,4,4, 4.4/36. ' ' _._
52
COBB I
Katy:
2 Ryan: 3 Katy:
How can it be? 24, 28. (counts 3 modules of4 by 1), 40. (Looks surprised, then turns and points al Ryan as if amazed.) OK. if this one [the previous IaSk) makes 36, then 1 knew you'd have to add 4 onto it [because 36 plus four makes 40). Thai's how I knew. You're smart.
Katy then counted by fives to solve the next task, 10, 10, lhls result to solve the subsequent task, 10, 10, /44.
_, _. _. _
/ 40 Ryan used .
_. _. _ _ _
I Ryan:
2 Katy:
Ah ha . . . we need 4 more . . . 44 . . sixes. Yep, it works. Bet your lucky charm it works. 26. (counts on 3 modules of 6 by ones), 44 Oooks surprised), I don't gel this. .
The leaCher then joined the group as Ryan explained: 3 Ryan:
4 Kat)':
The first one I knew
[the answer 10 the previous problem] . . . just take off this [4 from the 44) and then all these [the other boxes] are the same so you add 1 more onto it. cause 37. 38, 39, 40. If it was fives it would be only 40, bUI we know we have 4 boxes and we add 1 in each box. we have 4 (more). Wait a minute, that [20 plus 12) makes 32, right, plus 12 makes 44, right,
These two solutions were the first that Ryan developed that were beyond the realm of Katy's development possibilities. Her comment, "You're sman," indicated that she was beginning to modify her view of henic:lf as a mathematical authority who was obliged to assist Ryan by explaining her solutions to him, When Ryan produced each ofthese solutions, it was she who was obliged to lislen and he who was obliged to explain. In the remainder of the session, Kat.y did nOf assume Iilat Ryan was in error when their answers were in conflict, and their expectations for each other seemed to be more compatible. Th.is change in the children's social relationship stemmed at least in pan from lheir reassessment of lheir own mathematical compe lence relative to the other. Ryan, n i fact, volunteered to lhe teacher '1 know everything just about" right before he explained the second of his solutions. 'Their prior social relationship can be seen to predicate ilS own modification in that it both enabled and constrained each child's mathematical development.
Mathematical Learning Katy. It will be recalled that during her January imerview, Kaly used the standard addition algorithm to solve the worksheet tasks presented in vertical column format, and used a partitioning algorilhm when she solved horizontal
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGROUP INTERACTION
53
nurnbet' sentences. She was not observed using the standard a1gorilhm again until February 16. Because none of the computational tasks she and Ryan attempted to solve were presented in column format, it would seem that her use of this algorithm in the interview was highly situation specific. In contrast. she used her partitioning algorithm from the outset when solving both balance tasks and number sentences. Katy's first novel solution involving tens and ones occurred in a previously discllssed episode on January 26. There, she explained she had solved a task corresponding to 36 + = 53 by saying that you have 36 "and you add 10 more makes 46 (holds up her hands with aU 10 fingers extended), 47. 48, . . . 53," This solution was an advance over thoseshe developed in her interview in that it did nol appear lO involve a reliance on situationspecific figural imagery of, say, a collec lion of hidden sttips and squaJe$. On the following day, January 27, she cunailed the solution process still further when solving a sequence of number senlences. First. she explained to Ryan that she had solved 41 + 19 = as follows: "We have 41. and then we add 10 more to make SI (holds up both hands wilh all 10 fingers extended). S2, S3, 54,. , 60." However, she then solved 31 + 19 = by reasoning, "31 plus 19 , is . , , 3 1 makes 41. 42, 43, . . . So." This time, she did nol hold up her 10 fingers, presumably because she no longer needed to create the record she would actually establish if she were 10 count on 10 ones. It would, therefore, seem thai she created image.independent abstract composite units of ten. As a further development, il was at this point in the session on January 27 that Kaly was first observed counting by lens and ones on the hundreds board. She began 10 solve 39 + 19 = by saying "39 plus 10, 39 plus 10 . . . . and then "39, 49 . ." However, on both occasions, she was interrupted by Ryan who was counting by ones on a hundreds board. Katy then took the board from him and solved the task: "39, 49, that's 10 (points on the hundreds board), 49S0, 5 I , 52, . . . 58" (counts on the board). In doing so, she seemed 10 interprel Ryan's counting solution in lerms of her prior conceptualization of 19 as 10 and 9 more, and to express this conceptualization by counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board. Solutions of this type subsequently became rouline for her when she solved missing addend and missing minuend tasks as well as addilion and subtraction tasks. Another solution that Katy produced on January 27 further substantiates the inferencethatshe could now create imageindependent composite unitsoften when she gave number words and numerals counting·based interpretations. First. she explained to Ryan that she had related 60 3 1 = 10 the previous task. 60 21 = 39, by saying, "See, you're laking away another len." When Ryan disputed this, she attempted 10 convince him by counting by ones from 39 to 29 on a hundreds board. When Ryan again challenged her answer. she further explicated her reason ing by counting on a hundreds board as follows: _
_
,
_
. .
.
_
.
.

1 Katy:
_

(Counts from 60 to SO by ones) 10, that's 10, now we have 29 more to go, (counts from 50 t040 by ones) 10, thai's 2 tens, now we nced I more ten, (counts from 40 10 30 by ones) 10, and then 1 more makes 29.
54
COBB
This explanation demonstratcs that Kat)' could monitor her activity ofcreating and counting abslJ'aC1 composile units often. at least when she used the hundreds board. An exchange that occurred with the researcher I week later on February 3 both indicates a limitation ofthe conccpru.aJ reorganization that Katy had madeand clarifies the role that the hundreds board played when she used it 10 count by lens and ones. In lhis episode, she first solved the task, "How many do you have 10 take away from 74 10 leave lli::. 135)," by routinely counting from 74 to 35 on the hundreds board, "10. 20. 30, 1, 2, 3, . . . 939," At Ihis point, a researcher intervened. I Researcher: Kat)', could you do mat problem without using the hundreds
board? We know we have Ihal number [741 and we have thai many left 2 Kat)': 135] .so if you have thai many t351. you just go up. 3 Researcher: How would you go up? Like, 3554 , 55, 65, 75, but that's too much. So you take away 4 Kat)': a one and then you'll have . 74. 5 Researcher: So how many do you ha\'c 10 add 10 35 to make 74? You have 3545, 55, 65, 75 (slaps her open hands on the desk 6 Kat)': each time she performs a counting act), then you take one away, then it's 100 much, then you lake one away and you will have . . . 74. .
. .
These two solution auempts suggest that, in the absence of the hundreds board, the abstrnct composite units of ten that she created were not objects of reOection for her. In other words. although both the counting sequences she completed during the exchange with the researchercamed the significance of incrementing by tens. she did nOi. seem able w step back and monitor herself as she incremented. By way of contrast, her final explanation of 60 31 = _ on January 27 indicated that she was aware of what she was doing when she counted by tens and ones on Ihe hundreds board. It therefore seems reasonable 10 infer that her use of the hundreds board was crucial in making this reflection possible. In particular. it appears that the hundreds board came to symbolize a number sequence for her (not merely numberword sequence) oncc she could create image.independent composite units of ten. Thus, for example. on February 2 she immediately gave 57 as her answer to 37 + 20 = _ and. to explain. simply moved a finger down two rows from 37 on a hundreds board while saying "1 know 37 plus 20 make 57." Here. the act of moving down two rows and reading the resulting numeral symbolized adding 20 for her. More generally. she seemed to give cenain regularities in the numerals on the hundreds board numerical significance (e.g.. 7. 17. 27. 37. . . signified incre menting by 10). The ability 10 see the hundreds board as being arithmetically structured in this way and to consider this structuring as selfevident was a further aspect of the conceptuaJ reorganization she had made. As a consequence, the abstract composite units she created when counting by lens and ones were simply there in the hundreds board as objects ofreflection for her. and she could therefore monitor her counting activity. 
3.
LEARNING AND SMAllGROUP INTERACTION
55
'The most sophisticated counting solution thai Kaly produced without using the hundreds board occurred on March 2. when she solved a money siory problem. She first found that the value of a collection of coins shown diagramatically was 581t. and then interpreted the task as a missing addend corresponding to 58 + _ = 99. 1 Kaly:
(Counts on her fingers) 5859, 60, 61, 62. . . . 86, 87. 8830 more
makes 8889, 90, 91, . . . 98, and that makes 40,99. so
you have 41. In contrast 10 the explanations she gave on February 3 when questioned by the researcher. Katy monitored her counting activity whi.le solving lhis task. However, al this lime she did not create composite units of ten, but instead coun!ed by ones and established numerical composites of 30 and then 40 as she went along.
II has already been noted thai Katy did nol use the standard addition aJgorilhm until February 16. indicating that it was specific 10 sirualions in which compUta tionaJ tasks were presented in vertical column fonnat. Her subsequent use of this
algorimm in an increasingly wide range of situations might also be a consequence of me conceptual reorganization that she made at the end of January and the begiMing of February.
Then,
she developed the ability to construct abstract
i ageindependent manner when she made counting composite units of ten in an m based interpretations of number words and numerals. Her inCfPased use of the
standard algorithm might indicate that she also became able to construct imagein dependent units of this type when she gave numerals collectionbased meanings.
Consider, for example, the first occasion on which she was observed using the slandard algorithm after me January interview. She explained mat she had found the sum of 5 twelves while solving a balance task by adding 36 and 24 as follows: 1 Katy:
See, you've got these 3 Ilweives] 10 make 36, and this makes 24, and that together (the 4 and the 6], that makes 10, so add the I (from lhe 10] up there, 4, 5, 6see, 1 carried.
If she could conslruct abstract composite units of ten in the absence of situation specific figural imagery, then the sum of 6 and 4 could simultaneously be 10 units of one and I unit of len. As a consequence. the numeralmanipulation acts of partitioning the 10 and carrying the 1 could symbolize conceptual actions on arithmetical objects for her. The standard algorithm, which presumably had been taught to her as a sequence of instructions for manipulating numerals, could then
become part of her computationaJ repertoire; its use would be consistent with the relational beliefs mat seemed to infonn her mathematical activity in the classroom. In summarizing Katy's mathematicaJ leaming. it should be recalled thai she and Ryan frequently engaged in multivocal explanation. Learning opportunities arose for her in these situations as she monitored and assessed Ryan's attempts to solve tasks, and as she adapted her explanations 10 accommodate his frequent challenges and counterarguments. In addition, apparently fortuitous learning opponunities arose when something that Ryan said ordid happc:ned to be pc:ninent at that moment
COBS
56
within the personal COnleJtt of herongoing activit)'. The observed changes in Katy's COmplJlationaJ methods indicated that she made a major conceptual reorganization during the lime thai she worked with Ryan. For example, the way in which she curtailed counting by ones in a variety of situations indicated that she became able locreatc abstract composite units orlen in an m i ageindependent manner when she gave number words and numerals countingbased meanings. As a consequence of lhis development. the hundreds board became numerically structured in lenns of units of ten and one for her. hs use could then fBCilitate her attempts to monitor relntiveJy sophisticated countingbased solutions. Finally, her increasing use afthe standard algorithm indicated thatshe might also have become able 10 create abstract compositc units often wilhout relying on situationspecific imagery when she gave number words and numeraJs collectionbased meanings. Ryan. 1be analysisofRyan'5 interview in January n i dicatestha1 theconstruction of an addition algorithm that involved partitioning twodigit numbers was within his realm of development possibilities. He did, in fact, construct such an algorithm as he altempced 10make sense of leafy'S partitioning solutions. ForexampJe, on January 28, he initiated ajoint solution that involved partitioning numbers. The task waspresented in a balance format and n i volved finding the sum of3 twentyones. I Ryan:
20 plus 20.
2 3 4 5 6
1>40. And then two more. Makes 42. (Starts counting from 42 on the hundreds board.) And then you have...Iook you have 3 (21s). Three 21s. 40 plus 20. that would be 60, and then you have 61 . . . (Interrupts) 61, 62. 63 . . . extra ones.
Katy: Ryan: Katy: Ryan: Katy: 7 Ryan: 8 Katy:
Ryan's comments as be and KaIY solved the next task, that of adding 4 twentyones. confirm that the 2 of 21 signified 20 for him. I Katy: 2 Ryan: 3 Katy: 4 Ryan:
21 four times . . . 4 215 . . . 2 and 2 is4, and 2 and 2 is4. and 4 ones makes 44. The 25 are 20s, don't you know that! 21. If you take away the ones, those nre 20s.
Although Ryan's panitioning solutions were initially restricted to balance tasks, he did panition numbers with increasing frequency when solving tasks of this type in the following weeks. For example, on March 23 he explained that he had solved a balance task that involved adding 3 fifteens as follows: I Ryan:
You take two [of the 155] and that makes 30, and you have 15 mon: and you add 10, that'll make 40, and then 45.
INTERACTION
57
He then explained how he had solved the next task of adding four 155. 1 Ryan:
30. lake .5 away, you have 10, and that would make SO, and then
2 3 4 5
(lntenupts) Add the 2 fives. The 2 fives together will make a Icn. And SO plus 10 will make.
Katy: Ryan: Katy: Ryan:
60.
Ryan's solulions 10 the uncovering tasks in the January interview indicated thai the consU'Uction of ten as an abstract composite unit might have been within his realm of developmental possibilities when he gave number words and numerals countingbased meanings. lbere was lillie irxlicalion thai he constructed imagein dependent units ofthis type, even though he repeatedly observed and, on occasion. attempted to contribute to solutions in which Katy counted by lens and ones. Consider. forexarnplc. lhc following exchange which occurred on January 21 when they solved 39 + 19 = _ ,
I Katy: 2 Ryan: 3 Kat)': 4 Ryan:
39 plus 10. 39 plus 10 . . . (Interrupts) 39 plus 19. 39,49 . . . (Interrupts) No. (Counts by ones on the hundreds board) 59.
Ryan seemed to make these interruptions with the intention of correcting Katy. presumably because he thought that she had read the task statement as 39 + 10 _, Both in this instance and on other occasions, the possibility thai she had created a unit of ten did not occur to him. Ryan also continued to count by ones when he used the hundreds board. On March 16. the researcher in fact asked him if a solution in which Katy counted by tens and ones on a hundreds board to solve 16 + _ = 72 was acceptable. He said. "Yes, it's all right." and actuaJly enacted her solution successfully at the second attempt. but then proceeded tocount by ones 10 soh'e subsequent tasks. In genera]. he seemed to know what Katy did in the sense that he could imitate the way she counted and, further. he realized that these counts yielded correct answers. How ever, because he could not create imageindependent composite units, he did not understand what counting by lens and ones had to do with solving the task. As a consequence. Katy's solutions did not make sense to him. A second exchange between Ryan and the researcher on March 16 suggested that he was also unable to construct imageindependent composite units often when he established collectionbased meanings. In this episode, Ryan challenged a solution in which Katy used the standard algorithm 10 add 23 and 51.
'"
I Katy: 2 Ryan:
That (two and five) makes seven, that [three and oneJ makes four, 74. But you don't always know that, you can't always do that.
58
COBB Researcher: Why
3 4
Ryan:
5
Researcher.
6 Ryan:
can', you
always do thaI?
Well, that's an easier way, but sometimes you might get mixed up and get the wrong answer.
Do you know why you get mixed up?
Because you don't know which number you
are
going to
usc.
She just picked the numbers. Ryan's comments indicate thaI the: standard algorithm had no rhyme or reason 10 it for him. It was previously suggested thaI Katy's increasing use of this algorithm occurred when she could construct abstract composite units of len in the absence of situationspecific imagery. The difficulty Ryan had in making sense of her explanaLions inmcates that he could only construct units of this type when, as in the interview, he could rely on situationspecific imagery. 'There
is one further aspect of Ryan's mathematical activity that seems worth
mentioning. Occasionally. he unexpectedly produced surprisingly sophisticated solutions. One of these cases, which occurred on March 23 when he related successive multiplication balance tasks, was already discussed. In one of these
10, 10,4.4, 4,4/36 to solve 10, 10, _, _, > _, _/40, explaining that he "lcnew you'd have to add an extra 4 onlo it" because 40 was 4 more than 36. and because the 2 lens were the same in both tasks. He developed an equaJly sophisticated solution 3 weeks earlier on March 2, when he and Katy solved a money story problem corresponding 10 58+_ = 99. Then, hegave41 as his answer solutions, he used
and explained his solution as follows: 1 Ryan:
50 and 50 make 100, and . . . 4 quaners make a dollar, but you aJready have 8, so you have to take away 9 because it's 50 but you only have 8.
Here, Ryan appeared to rely on figural imagery of coins as he related the task to
50+ 50 =
100. In particular. he seemed to first take 8 away from
the compensation stralegy [i.e.,
58 + (50

8) :: 1(0),
50 while using
and then take away an
additional one because the total was 99 rather than 100. He developed a third surprisingly sophisticated solution 3 days later on March
5 when he and Kaly solved lhe task, "54 are taken away and 36 are left. How many were there 10 begin with?" They had just agreed that 54 was lhe answer to Ihe immediately preceding task, " How many do you add 10 37 to make 91?' Katy counted 10 90 on the hundreds board, and Ryan then exclaimed: 1 Ryan:
54, 54 lin both task statements), this 1371 is J higher, Ihis (361 is I lower, we know lhis (the answer) has 10 be I lower, and we have 90, and the answer's going to be I lower, and this 190) is I lower than that [91].
2 Katy:
It has to be 90!
3 Ryan:
Yes.
3.
LEARNING AND SMAUGROUP INTERAcnON
59
These solutions to a variety of different types of tasks seem disparate al first glance. However, in each case Ryan seemed 10 explicitly coordinate numerical changes in one or more of the pans with those in the whole. This suggests thai during January and February, Ryan became able to take numerical panwhole structures as givens and act on them conceptually. This and the other constructions he made while working with Kat)' had imponanl consequences for the nature of their social relationship.
Summary The analysis afthe children's January interviews indicated thaI KalY was the more conceptually advanced of the two children. For example, she was able to routinely partition twodigit numbers but Ryan was nol. Differences in the children's con ceptual capabilities also became apparent when they worked togedler in !he classroom in January. Thus, il was nOied that Kat)' typically proposed answers first. either because a task was routine for her but not for Ryan, or because her relatively sophisticated solutions were more efficient than Ryan's. In addition, she usually prevailed when her own and Ryan's solutions were in conflict, in part because she was able to adapt her explanations in response 10 his challenges. These differences in the children's cognitive capabilities gave rise to a tension in their roles; Katy felt obliged 10 explain her solutions to Ryan, whereas he felt obliged to solve tasks himself in personally meaningful ways. A tension of this sort can clearly be coped
with in a variety of alternative ways, indicating that the relationship betwocn the children's cognitive capabilities and their social relationship was not deterministic. Rather, their individual cognitive capabilities constrained the possible fonns that
this relationship could take, and thus the learning opportunities that could arise for them as they attempted to fulfill their obligations and be effective in the classroom. The analysis of the social relationship they established indicates that they did little to modify their obligations and thus accommodate to each other's expecta tions. Instead, the tension in their obligations manifested itself in frequent conten tious exchanges. Despite, or perhaps because of, this discord, their ongoing interactions were reasonably productive in tenns of the mathematical learning opportunities thai arose. Forexamp]e, Ryan's implicit refusal loconcurwith Kaly's view of heTself as the mathematical authority in the group contributed to the emergence of interactions involving multivocal explanation in which they chal lenged each other's thinking andjustified theirown solutions by making arguments and counterarguments. Further, in these interactions Katy's assumption that she was the mathematical authority gave rise to learning opportunities for her as she attempted to explicate her thinking, and for Ryan as he inlerpreted and challenged her more sophisticated solutions.
The analysis of each child's learning indicated that they both made significant progress during the time thai they worked together. For example, Katy became able to consllUCt ten as a composite unit without relying on situationspecific imagery when she established both collectionbased and countingbased meanings. Far his
60
COBB
part. Ryan constructed a partitioning algorithm. On the one hand, these cognitive
occurred within the constraints of an evolving social relationship thai was ilSelF constrained by the children's developing capabilities. On the other hand, these developments led to modifications in that rclationship. For example, developmcnls
once Ryan constructed a partitioning algorithm Katy was no longer the one who almost invariably produced an answer first Further. Ryan's development of solu tions that were difficult for Katy to understand led her to revise her view ofherself as the mathematical authority in the group.
CASE STUDYHOLLY AND MICHAEL JANUARY I3MARCH 23, 1987 Michael: January Interview Michael's solutions 10 the couming tasks indicated thai he could create and count
abstract units of onc. When considered in isolation, several of his solutions to the uncovering and the stripsandsquares tasks
seem to indicate that he could also
create abstract composite unilS of ten by relying on situationspecific imagery. However, if the interview is viewed as a social event. il seems more plausible 10 suggest that he learned to be effective in the interview by differentiating between
the numberword sequences heshould use 10 count a collection of snips. and those he should use to count individual squares. One ofMichael's first atiemplS tocount by tens and ones occurred on the second
uncovering task when he had reached 46 and two additional strips and five squares
were uncovered. He initially counted by ones but the interviewer interrupted rum when he had one strip left to count by pointing to the strip and saying, "61 and
10
i mediately replied, "71." In this situation, the interviewer inter more." Michael m vened to investigate whether Michael could create ten as an abstract composite unit
thus cunail counting by ones. However, a holistic analysis of the entire interview suggeslS that Michael interpreted interventions of this type as assess ments that his activity was inappropriate. In this panicular case, he was able to be
and
effective when he counted the remaining strip by giving the successor of 61 in the numberword sequence 51, 61, 71. 81. Taken in isolation, several of Michael's solutions to the stripsandsquares tasks also appear 10 bequite soprusticated. Forexample. in one task in wruch 4 strips and
5 squares were visible [451. he was told that there were 65 squares in all. and asked to find how many squares were covered. He solved the task by putting up 2 fingers as he counted "55, 652 strips, and 10, 20 squares." One possible explanation is that his counting acts signified abstract composite units. Alternatively, it could be that in the course of his interactions with the interviewer he had learned 10 solve
tasks ofthis type by producing a numberword sequence thai went from the number of visible squares, 45. 10 the number of squares in all,
65. In this account of his
3.
LEARNING AND SMAllGROUP INTERACTION
61
solution, each counting act by 10 signified a strip viewed as a single entity rather
than as a composite of )0 units of one.
Michaers attempts 10 solve a p�vious task
are
consistent with this laner
explanation. Then. he had answered by stating the number of hidden strips and, during the ensuing exchange with the interviewer, could have learned to give an
answer that was acceptable to the interviewer by counting the imagined slrips, "10, 2D . . . . Further, his solution 10 a subsequent task fils with this explanation. Here, 3 strips and 5 squares 135] were visible, there were 61 squares in a1l, and Michael .
was asked to find how many were hidden. First. he produced a numberwon:!.
sequence that went from 35 to 61: ''3646, 56, 66, 65, 64, 63. 62, 61." The interviewer then asked him how many squares were hidden, and he counted the snips and squares signified by his counting acts as follows: "There's 2 strips of 10, that makes 20 squares and . . 65, that's 2 1 , 64, that's 22, and 63 that's 23 squares, ,
and 62 that's 24 squares, and 61 that's 25 squares." For him, each act of counting by one signified a square regardless of whether it was perfonned in the forward or
backward direction. It seems reasonable to conclude that, despite his intentions, the interviewer's frequent interventions on the uncovering and stripsandsquares tasks served
to suppon Michael's development of solutions that were based on
numberword regularities rather than the creation of numerical meaning. The conclusion that the consttuction of ten as an abstract composite unit was not within the realmofMichael's developmental possibilities is a1soconsistent with his solutions 10 the horizontal sentence and the wOf'ksheet lasks. In those, he either counted by ones or attempted 10 use his version of the standard algorithm. For example, he counted by ones 10 solve the first two horizontal sentences, 16 + 9 =
and 28 + 13 = but said that the next task, 37 + 24 = was '700 big." The interviewer then asked him "What's 37 plus 20r' and Michael added by columns
_
'
_
10 get 57. Thus, in this situation, the possibility of concepluaizing l 20 as 2 lens did not occur to him. lbe interviewer then asked if he could use this result to help him
solve the original task, 37 + 24 = but Michael again attempted to add by columns and thought the answer would be either 53 or 54. It would Iherefore seem that. in _.
the absence ofsupponi\'e imagery. Michael's most sophisticated counting solutions involved counting by ones.
Holly: January Interview During the flfSt pan of the interview, Holly created abstract units of one as she
counted on to solve missing addend wks. However, in contrast to Michael, she seemed to routinely create and count abstract composite units of len when solving the uncovering and stripsandsquares tasks. For example. on the second uncover ing task, the interviewer uncovered two strips and five squares after Holly had reached 46. She immediately counted by lens and ones to find how many there were now in a1t, "56, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71." Her solutions to other tasks in the interview indicate that situationspecific imagery was in fact crucial struction of abstract composite units of ten.
10 her con
62
COBB Initially. she unempted 10 solve the horizontal sentence and workshecllasks by
either counting by ones or by using her version ofthcslandard algorithm. However,
the solutions that she developed with the interviewer's support indicated that the aCI of conceptually partitioning Iwodigit numbers was within her realm ofdevel" opmental possibilities. For eumple, the interviewer intervened as she began to solve the worksheet lask corresponding to 37 + 24 ::: _ by asking her 10 first find 37 + 20 :::: _' She then used this result 10 solve the original task. Funher, she solved
the next task. 39 + 53 = _. by adding 50 to 39 to make 89, and then adding on 3 to make 92. The way in which she spontaneously modified Ihis solution method while solving the remaining two tasks adds credibility to the view thaI the act of partitioning a numeral symbolized the concepwal act of panilioning the number for her. For example, she explained that the answer to 59 + 32 :::: _ was 91 because ';First I took the 50 and the 30 and made it an SO, and then 1 took the 9 and made it 89, and then I add the 2 and had 91." She then solved 22 + 18 = _ in the same way. By way of contrast, there was no indication that numerical panitioning was within the realm of Michael's developmentaJ possibilities.
Regularities in SmallGroup Activity The smallgroup relationship that Holly and Michael established was stable for the entire time that they worked together af[cr the January interviews. Further, in contrast to Kaly and Ryan, the expectations that Michael and Holly had for each other were generally compatible.
As a consequence. their interactions were rela
tively harmonious, and conflicts about their respective roles were rare. lbe analysis of the January interviews indicated that Holly was the more
conceptually advanced of the two. In line with this conclusion, Holly was almost invariably able 10 develop a way of solving tasks when she and Michael worked together in the classroom, whereas Michael sometimes did not have a way to proceed. 1beir in[cractions in these situations indicaled thai they both look it for granted that Holly was the mathematical authority in the group. This can be illustrated by examining an exchange that occurred on January 13 as they solved a sequence of balance tasks. Just prior to the episode of interest, Holly had explained 10 Michael that she had solved the task 35 + 45 = _ by first adding 30 and 40 10 make 70, and then adding on the additional 10. Against this background, the two children attempted to solve a task that they both interpreted as 36 + 4 6 + 1 0 :: _. I Michael: 2 Holly: 3 Michael: 4 Holly:
36,46 . . . that would be 90, plus 10 more equals 100. 36,46 . . . 82 . . . add 10 more . . it's 92. .
Plus 10 more. I know, I added the 10.
Although it is not clear how Michael arrived at his intermediate answer of90, this seems to have been, at best. an educated gtJess. In the absence of multilinks or a
LEARNING AND SMALLGROUP INTERACTlON
3.
63
hundreds board, he was unable to calculate the sum of such numbers throughout the time thai he worked with Holly. As Holly's subsequent explanation will make clear, she solved this task. as she did
the previous one. by using her partitioning algorithm. The analysis of her
January interview indicated thai the conceptual act of partitioning a twodigil number was within her realm of developmental possibilities. Here, it seemed to be a routine interpretive act for her, alleasl when she solved balance tasks. Michael, however, did not have a way 10 proceed and anempted 10 fulfill hls obligation of developing a solution by accommodating to her mathematical activity. His inler· joction, " Plus 1 0 more" indicates thai he was in fact attempting to make sense of
and contribute to Holly's solution. However, this proposal connicted with Holly's solution in that she had already added 10. A power imbalance was realized in interaction as they dealt with this conflict. Holly's response. " ( know, I added the
10." indicates that she did not interpret Michael's interjection as a challenge that required her to give ajustification. Both here and in similar situations, she assumed that Michael did not understand when his interpretation was incompatible with her own. Michael, for his pan. accepted these judgments without question. thus panicipating in the interactive constitution of Holly as the mathematical authority in the group. In general. Holly was obliged to ellplain her thinking and thus help Michael understand in situations in which incompatibilities in their interpretations became apparent. For ellample. the sample episode proceeded as follows:
4 Holly:
5 6
Michael: Holly:
I'll explain. ThaI's 70 (points to the activity sheet). Plus 6 more and 6 more equals 12, plus 12 more. No, no, no, you don't understand. See, there's 70 to stan with because: there's 30 plus 40 equals 70. Add 10 more equals 80,
86 . . .
7
Michael:
8 Holly:
87, 88, 89, 90 (counts on his fingers). That's 92.
Michael's attempt to contribute to Holly's explanation again indicates that he was obliged to try and understand how she had solved the task. In anempting to accommodate to her mathematical activity, he proposed that 2 sixes be added to 70. Although this suggestion was consiSleni with the way in which she had solved the previous task. it did not fit with her final explanation to this task (i.e.. she first added 10 to 70). As before when their interpretations were in conflict, Holly assumed that Michael did not understand her solution. Michael, for his part, did not question this judgment, but instead continued to try and accommodate to Holly's mathematical activity. In doing 50, he further contributed to the establishment or Holly as the mathematical authority in the group. The sample episode concluded when Michael indicated Holly's answer.
that he agreed with
64
COBS
9 Ho)ly: JO Michael:
So it equals 92.
OK.
Holly paused before repeating her answer of 92, indicating that she might have been waiting for Michael la indicate agreement. Her activity in other episodes in whicb Michael did not indicate agreement supports this inference. The following episode both exemplifies this point and illustrates additional regularities in their interactions. The exchange occurred on March 2, when they solved a money story problem. The task statement showed a picture of coins with a total value of 37¢ and asked, "Krista has this much money. She has lSi less man Larry. How much money does Larry have?" Michael inteljected as Holly counted the pictured coins, again illustrating that he was obliged to develop a way of solving the task.
I Holly:
10, 20,25, 26
2 Michael: 3 Holly: 4 Michael:
(lnlcrrupts) 30. 30, 35, 36, 37. 37.
.
.
.
It soon became apparent that Michael thought that 37 was the answer to the task. Holly. the mathematical authority in the group, was obliged to explain herthinking and Michael was obliged 10 listen. .5
Holly; 6 Michael: 7 HoUy: 8 Michael:
No it isn't, this is Krista's money, then add 25 more for Larry 37. 3747, 57,58, 59, 60,61, 6262. This is weird.
.
In contrast to the previous episode. Michael did not indicate thai he accepted her
solution, and. in such situations, Holly was obliged to explain her thinking again.
9 Holly: 10 Michael: I I Holly: 12 Michael:
Add 10 cenlS, that makes 47. then add another 10, 57, then 58, 59, 60,61, 62. Okay, okay. Do you understand it? (nods) [Yes].
As this exchange illustrates, Holly was obliged notonly to give an explanation, but to ensure that Michael understood now she had solved the task (or at least indicale that he did). Further, allhough she had the right to decide when he did nOI understand and needed assistance, he had the right 10 decide whether or not an explanation she gave was adequate. The interactional sequence just illustrated occurred repeatedly as Michael and Holly worked together. In its three phases, (a) either Michael could not solve a task or Holly judged that he did nOI understand, (b) Holly gave an explanation, and (c)
3.
LEARNING AND $MAUGROUP INTERACTlON
65
Michael indicated acceptance or nonacceptance of her explanation. This sequence can be contrasted with certain regularities that wen:: identified in Ryan and Kaly's interactions. Recall that Ryan typically challenged KaIY'S explanations when she intervened after inferring that he had made a mistake. In doing so. Ryan was questioning Katy's view ofherselfas the mathematical authority in the group. Kaly, for her part. often adapted her explanations to accommodate to Ryan's challenges, thereby contributing 10 the emergence of interactions involving multivocal expla nation. These often contentious exchanges were potentially productive for both children in tenns of the learning opportunities thai arose. In contrast to these interactions, Holly and Michael had institutionalized their respective roles as the more and the less mathematically competent members of the group. For example. Michael did nOl. question Holly's assumptions that he did not understand. but instead attempted to accommodate to her mathematical activity. In general. whereas Ryan and Katy frequently engaged in muhivocal explanation. Holly and Michael's interactions were typically univocal. As a consequence, they did not experience the learning opportunities that arise in interactions that involve argu men! and counterargument In considering the learning opponunities thaI did arise for them. it can be noted that Holly might. on occasion, have become increasingly aware of aspects of her mathematical activity when she explained her solutions to Michael. However, she did not seem to consciously decenter and attempt to infer the possible intent of Michael's mathematical activity beforejudging that he did not understand. Instead, her own interpretation seemed to be the sole measure against which she made these
judgments. This limited her opponunities to learn by comparing and contrasting their mathematical activity. Learning opportunities could arise for Michael as he panicipated in these
interactions when he attempted to fulfill his obligation of understanding her explanations. For eumple. in the first of the two sample episodes that have been discussed. he began to anticipate cenain steps in Holly's panitioning algorithm. Thecrucial issue concerns the nature of that learning; did his attempts to panicipate in Holly's solutions involve the panitioning of numbers experienced as mathemat ical objects. or was he merely panitioning twodigit numerals? This question is addressed later, when his rnathematical leaming is analyzed in more detail. It is important to stress that although the interactional sequence previously outlined occurred with some frequency. it was typically limited to those occasions in which Michael either did not have a way to proceed, or his interpretation conflicted with Holly's and she assumed that he did not understand. Typically. Michael was not obliged to listen to Holly's explanations in other situations. As an example, consider an exchange thal occurred on January 14 when they solved the horizontal sentence 27 + 9 = Holly solved the task on her own while Michael went to gel a bag of multilink.s. She began to explain her solution to him when he _ .
returned.
I Holly:
Do you know why it's 361 Usten, 28. 29
fingers). 1 counted on my fingers. 36.
.
. 36 (counts on her .
66 2 Michael:
3 Holly:
COBB (Begins to PUI 001 collections of mullilinks.)
36, OK. Watch. 28. 29 .
.
.
36 (counts on her fingers).
Holly expected Michael 10 accept her solution. and she explained it for a second lime when he failed to do so. Again, Michael did nol respond bUI instead continued 10 try and solve lhe task by using the multilinks. AI this point, Holly began 10
observe and eventually contributed to his solution, thus accommodating his math ematical activity. This episode is representative in thai Michael was generally nO( obliged to abandon a solUlion auempt and listen to Holly's explanations unless she judged that he did nol understand. Further, the manner in which Holly gave up her anempt to explain her solution illustrates that. in general, she accepted that it was his right to solve: tasks himself when, in herjudgment. he was capable of doing so. By way of contrast. the analysis of Ryan and KaIY's smallgroup in[Cractions indicated that there was a continual tension between KaIy'S attempts 10 explain her solutions and thus assist Ryan, and Ryan's anempts to solve tasks for himself. The social relationship that Holly and Michael had established was such that Holly, the mathematical authority in the group, could only intervene if she inferred that Michael was nO( able to solve a task successfully on his own. They therefore dealt with the [Cnsion between the obligation for each to develop their own solutions and that of explaining their thinking by giving priority to the first of these two obligations. This, it should be noted, was a reciprocal arrangement in that Michael typically waited for Holly to complete her solution on the infrequent occasions that he arrived at an answer first
and Katy's smallgroup interactions also n i dicated that apparently fonuitous learning opportunities frequently arose for ooth children. These The analysis of Ryan
'Cre occasions when something that one chi l d said or did happened to be significant
....
at mat particular moment when interpreted by the odla within the personal context of his or her ongoing !rO:tivity. Learning opportunities of this kind appeared to be far less common in Michael and Holly's interactions. Michael repeatedlyobscrved Hollysolve
tasks, but her rehuively sophisticated solutions often seemed to be beyond his realm of
developmental possibilities. Recall, for example. that there was no indication from his January interview that he might construct either a partitioning algorithm or [Cn as an
abstract composite unit On occasion, he actually attempted to solve a task in the way that she might but gave up when things did not make sense in tenns of actions on mathematica1 objects. Conversely. Michael's activity was usually very routine from
Holly's point of view and. as a consequence, she rarely reoJganized her own activity when making sense of what he was doing.
As noted at the outset. Holly and Michael's social relationship was stable and
relatively harmonious when compared with that of Ryan and Katy. Thus. at first glance. their inlemctions seemed to better exemplify what is typically meant by cooperating or collaborating to learn. However, the analysis of lhe learning oppor·
tunities that arose suggests lhat this was nOI the case. The univocal inlemclions in which they panicipated seemed far less productive for their mathematical devel opment than exchanges characterized by argument and counlerargument.
3.
LEARNING AND SMAllGROUP INTERACTION
67
Mathematical Learning Holly.
Holly's solutions to numbersentence and worksheet [aSks during the Ianuary interview indicated that the construction of a partitioning algorithm was within her realm of developmental possibilities. In addition, she created abstract composite units of tcn by relying on situationspecific figural imagery when she solved the stripsandsquares tasks. It is against this background that her learning as she worked with Michael is considered. As noted in passing when discussing the children's social interactions, Holly used the partitioning algorithm routinely when she solved balance tasks on Ianuary 13. Forexample. she explained 10 Michael that she had solved a task corresponding as follows: to 35 + 45 ::
_
I Holly:
2 Michael:
I'll e"plain. See, you take the 5 off the 35 and you make i1 30. If you take the 5 off the 45 you make a 40, and that equals 70. And you do it like this. You take the 40 and the 30 and you put them together and you gel 70. like 3 plus 4 equals 7 so 40 plus 30 equals 70, and add 5 more. that equals 75, add 5 more, that equals 80. I agree.
In giving this explanation, she invoked the metaphor of acting in physical reality (e.g., "lake the 5 off," ''you put them together''). This suggests thai the act of partitioning a twcrdigit numeral symbolized the partitioning of a number experi enced as an arithmetical object for her. Holly used this algorithm in all the sessions involving balance tasks, but did not use it in any <>'her type of task. For example, on January 14, she solved 3 sequence of addition number sentences by either counting by one or using multi links. It will be recalled that Ryan's partitioning solutions were also limited to balance tasks. This suggests that both children gave different meanings to twodigit numerals when they interpreted balance tasks and, say, number sentences. Thus. it would seem that they established numbers as arithmetical objects that could be concep tually manipulated only when they inlerpreted the notation used 10 present balance lasks. In this regard, one metaphor thai was generally taken as shared by the classroom community when discussing balance tasks was thai of a number in a box. For example, the teacher and students often spoke of the goal of a balance task to be that of finding the number that went in an empty box. Holly, in fact. used this metaphor on January 13 when she explained her interpretation ofa wk to Michael: "This is a takeaway box, this is a takeaway." One characteristic of the box metaphor is that its use implies the bounding of whatever is placed inside it (Johnson, 1987). Consequently, Holly's and Ryan's interpretation of tasks in (enns ofthis takenasshared metaphor may have supported their construction ofnumbers as discrete. bounded entities composed of abstract units of one. To the extent that this was the case. their creation of relatively sophisticated arithmetical entities was
68
COBB
supported by a taskspecific convention ofintcrprctation. This conclusion docs not, of course, imply thai a takenasshared metaphor carries with it a mathematical meaning that is selfevident to the adult; as will be seen when discussing Michael's mathematica1 learning. numerals in boxes did not signify discrete arithmetical objects for him. Instead. it seems thai a metaphor such as that of a number in a box can support some students' active. imagesupported construction of arithmetical objects, but thai the mathematical significance of a metaphor is relative to a student's conceptual possibilities. With the exception of her partitioning solutions to balancing tasks, Holly's solutions when she established collectionbased numerical meanings tended to be ilinks. in contrast, she relatively unsophisticated and to involve the use of rnuh created abstract composite units often on several occasions when she established countingbased meanings. The first such solution occurred on January 26 and seemed 10 involve SilulUionspecific imagery. She gave the following explanation to a researcher after solving the stripsandsquares task, "You start with 73 and take away II:: (24]. How many are left?" I Holly:
73 take away IWO lOs, you get 53. 2 Researcher: Vh huh (Yes]. And take away I more, and take away 4 more. and you gel . . . 3 Holly: 49. In this solution, which involved the curtailment of counting, Holly seemed 10 organize the 24 she would coon! back into abstract composite units of ten. Significantly, she solved the very neltt task in which the minuend was given as a picture and the subtrahend as a numeral by counling by ones on a hundreds board. The task in question was, "You stan with 11lII: : [54] and take away 35. How many are ieft?" 1be use ofa picture to show the 24 she would count back in the first task, therefore, seemed 10 play a crucial role in supponing her construction of abstraCt composite units. In this regard. her solution was similar 10 those she produced in the January interview. One week laler. on February 2. Holly again created abstract composite units of ten when she and Michael worked with Katy (Ryan was absen! from school). During the session, Katy routinely counted by lens and ones on the hundreds board. For example, she explained her solution to a balance task corresponding to 37 + 25 as follows: = I
Katy:
(Points on the hundreds board) 25 plus 10 makes 35. plus 10 makes 45, plus 10 makes 55. 1 . 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7 . . 62. ,
As it so happened, Holly had made three collections of 10 tally marks and 7 individual marks when she interpreted Katy's solution. This enabled her to make
sense of Katy's activity ofcounting by lens and ones, and she began to solve tasks by creating and counting abstract composite units of len. For example. she subse
3.
LEARNING AND SMAlLGAOUP INTERACTION
69
quent1y explained to Michael that she had solved a balance task corresponding to 37 + 57 = _ as follows: 1
Holly:
(points on the hundreds board) I started at 57 and I counted down 10, 20, 3D, and then I coumed these I , 2. 3 . . . 7 and I came up with 94.
Although solutions of this type were clearly within the realm of her developmental possibilities. she counted exclusively by ones when she used the hundreds board to solve stripsandsquares tasks Ihe following day (February 3). It would, there fore, seem thallhe advances she made on February 2 were specific to her interac tions with Katy and that. further. her grouping or tally marks into collections of 10 might have been crucial. In panicular. these collections gave her a basis in imagery that she could use to make sense of !Caly's solutions. Imagery aJso seemed to play a role in two of the remaining �e solutions in which Holly created abSb'acl composite units while establishing countingbased numerical meanings. One ofthese solutions was described when discussing regu larities in the children's social interactions. Then. it was noted that, on March 2 Holly coonted by tens and ones to solve the money story problem, "Krista has this much money. [Picture shows coins whose total value is 37�.) She has 25C1 less than LaIT)'. How much money does LaIT)' haver' I 2 3
Holly: Michael: Holly:
3747, 57,58. 59. 60, 6 1 . 6262.
This is weird. Add 10 cents, that makes 47. then add another 10, 57. then 58, 59, 60.61,61.
4 5 6
Michael: Holly: Michael:
Okay, okay. Do you understand? (Nods) [yes).
Holly's explicit reference to coin values in her second explanation ("add 10 cents") indicates that situationspecific imagery supported her structuring of 25 into units of ten and ofone. Later in the same session, she used a hundreds board to solve the task, "ScOCt has this much money. {Picture shows coins with total value of 42¢.J He has 30¢ more than Susan. How much money does Susan haveT'To do so, she first counted the values of the pictured coins and then reasoned: I Holly:
Then take away 42,41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34 . . 1 can'tdo this. We need the hundreds board (picks one up). 42 (points on the hundreds board)12 (seems to move herfinger up a column). .
1be final occasion on which Holly created countingbased composite units of ten again involved the use of the hundreds board. On March 23. she explained that she had solved a balance IaSk corresponding to 16 + 16 + 1 6 :: _ as follows:
70
2
COBB Holly:
Listen, you start on
16 IOn the
hundreds board}, and you go
1 10, go to 26, then you go down 10 36, then you count J , 2.3 . . . 12, you count 12. count 6 more, 1.2,3,4, 5, 6, and you have 54.1 don', gct this.
down
Presumably, Holly did not "gct it"
because 54 was nO( the answer thai she had
10 solve the task. The imponant is that she attempted to cOlInt by lens and oncs. As has
produced when she previously counted by ones
feature of this solution already been observed. Holly had used the panilioning algorithm to solve balance tasks since the beginning of January. Consequently, her interpretation of J 6 as
10
and 6 was relatively routine. Thus, as was the case on thcOlher occasions when she
counled on the hundreds board by lens and ones. she established abstract composite units of tcn when she interpreted the task and then expressed them by counting. In summary. the manner in which Holly created abstract composite units when
she gave linear. countingbased meanings to number words and numerals was consistent with her perfonnance in the January interview. More generally. she did not appear to make any major conceptual advances while working with Michael
despite repeated indications that certain constructions were within her realm of developmental possibilities. In this regard. the anaJysis of the children's social interactions indicated that the learning opponunilies that arose for Holly when she and Michael engaged in univocal explanation were relatively limited. Significantly, Michael rarely challenged her explanations or requested further clarification by asking questions that would oblige her to elaborate her explanations. In contrast, Katy frequently adjusted her explanations to accommodate Ryan's challenges. It is possible that many of the solutions that Holly attempted 10 explain might have been beyond Michael's realm of developmental possibilities and that he was therefore unable to pankipate by challenging or by asking clarifying questions. In any event. a comparison of the learning opportunities that arose for Holly and for Katy indicates that the social context within which children give explanations can profoundly innuence the contribution that those experiences make to their concep tual development. There was no indication that Michael either panitioned numbers or created abstract units of len in even a highly imagedependent manner during the
Michael.
time that he worked with Holly. Forexample, his observations of Holly and. during one session. Katy counting by lens and ones on the hundreds board did not lead to a significant conceptual advance. He did, however. consciously attempt to solve tasks in this way on two occasions. lhe first of these attempts occurred on March
5 when he solved lhe lask, "How many do you add to 37 10 get 91 T' He first began to count by ones on a hundreds board but suddenly stopped, saying "I've got a faster way." He then counted ' , 2. 3 . . . 9" as he pointed on the hundreds board "
to the squares 38, 39,40, 50. 60, 70, 80, 90. and 91. Next, be counted (and pointed
10 squares): " 1 (38). 2 (39), 10 (40), 20 (SO), 30 (60), 40 (70), 50 (80), 60 (90)." Finally. he decided to check his answer by counting by ones and arrived at an answer of 54.
3.
LEARNING AND SMAlLGAOUP INTERACTION
71
Michael's goal in these solution attempts was to trace a path from 37 to 91 on the hundreds board. However, only the column "10, 20, 30 . . . .. seemed 10 be structured in terms of tcns for him. In order to learn 10 counl by lens and ones on the hundreds board while watching others, he would have 10 come 10 the realization that moving down a column from, say, 37 10 47 was a cunailment of a count of the squares 38, 39, 40 . .
. 47.
Only then could it signify an
increment of 10. Apausc or break in the rhythm of counting by ones does occur after 40 when the child moves from the end of one row 10 the beginning of the next. A difficulty arises because there are no similar pauses either before 37 or aftcr 47. Consequently, in contrasl lO the count of an intact row (e.g., 5 1 . 52 . .
. 60). there are no breaks in sensorymotor 3Ctivity that would facilitate the
isolation of a count of the squares 38, 39, 40 . . . 47
as
a discrete, conceptual
entity. It was lhisconstruction that appeared to be beyond the realm of Michael's developmental possibilities. Michael's attempts to make sense of the sophisticated collectionsbased solu tions that Holly produced seemed equally unsuccessful. It has already been noted thaI he attempted 10 participate when Holly used herpanilioning algorithm to solve balance tasks on January 13. Then. he made several interjections that indicated that
partitioning a twodigit numeral might signify the partitioning of a number as an arithmetical object for him. Forexample, the following exchange occurred as they solved a task Ihal they interpreted as 36 + 46 + JO = _ . I Holly:
I'll explain. Thai's 70.
2 Michael:
Plus 6 more and 6 more equals
12, plus 1 2 more.
Here, the partitioning of 36 and 46 into 30 and 6, and 40 and 6 respectively, was taken as shared. Michael also anticipated a step in Holly's solution when she began to explain it for a second time.
3 Holly:
No, no.
you don't understand. See, there's 70 10 SIru1 with because there's 30 plus 40 equaJs 70. Add J O more equals 80. no,
86 . . .
4 Michael: 5 Holly:
87, 88. 89, 90 . . . (Interrupts) 92.
The possibility that Michael made a major conceprual reorganization while panicipating in these exchanges seems unlikely when his solutions in subsequent episodes are taken into account. For example, 2 months later. on March 23, Holly attempted to solve a balance tlsk corresponding to 16 + 16 + 16 = _ by counting on a hundreds board by tens and ones. Michael then counted on the hundreds board by ones, but his answer conflicted with Holly's.
I Michael:
I think that I can settle this. 6 and 6 is 1 2 (auempts to count 6 more on the hundreds board}19. 19 plus 3 ones. 20. 21, 22. so the answer must be 22.
COBB
72 When Michael intetpteled Holly's count by tens
and
ones. he partitioned the
numeral 16 per se, producing a I and a 6 as the result This suggests that the accommodations he made during the exchange on January 13 might have involved noticing that she called the results of partitioning the numerlll 36 as 30 and 6 rather than 3 and
6. Although there was no
reason
why she might do this from his
perspective. he went along with it so that be could participate in the development of ajoinl solution. Thus
far, Michael's conceptual capabilities have been chatacleriz.cd almost
exclusively in negative terms. An indication ofhis developmental possibilities can, however, be inferred from an exchange that occurred on January 14. Here, Michael anempted
10 solve 47 + 19 =
_
by using muJtilinks while Holly counted on and
arrived at the answer of 66. He first made two collections, one of 4 tenbars and the ather of a lenbar and a ninebar. and then counted them to get 59. AI this point. Holly. in her role as the mathematical aulhority, intervened. I Holly:
You forgot the extra 9.
2 Michael: 3 Holly:
(Makes a ninebar.)
Not the 9. not the 9,
nOl the
9. I mean 7. That's 47 (pats the
collection of 4 tenbars).
4 Michael:
(Breaks 2 multilinks off the ninebar) 47.
Finally, they counted the multilinks and agreed that the answer was 66. They then solved severa) other wks together and, in the process, Holly initiated Michael into a mathematical practice
that was generally taken
as
shared by the classroom
communitythat of establishing collections of multilinks arranged in bars of 10 as a way ofgiving meaning to lWodigit number words and numerals. This practice seemed to make sense to Miclulel, and he routinely used the multilinks in this way
for the remainder of the school year. This. of course, does not imply that the bars of 10 multilinks signified abstract composite units for him. The difficulties he experienced in other situations in which he established collectionbased numerical meanings suggests that the composite units he established when he manipUlated
bars of the multilinks were perceptually based; counting bars 10, 20, 30 . . was a .
curtailment of the count of the individual multilinks by one. Michael's initiation into this classroom mathematical practice was the most significant advance he made while working with Holly after the January interview.
Summary The analysis of Michael's and Holly's interviews indicated that there were signif icant differences in their conceptual capabilities. These differences were clearly reflected in their social relationship in that Holly was the mathematica1 authority. In trus regard, their relationship differed from that of Ryan and Katy. There, Ryan. the less conceptually advanced of the two children in January. contested Katy's view of herself as the authority in the group. One ofthe ways in which he did this
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTERACTION
73
was by challenging Katy's thinking when she attempted to explain her solutions 10 him. AJthough Michael's failure 10 make such challenges cannot be accounted for exclusively in cognitive terms, it was noticeable thai the solutions Ryan challenged were frequently within his realm of developmental possibilities. (0 contrast, those Michael acce�ed without challenge often proved 10 be beyond his realm of developmental possibilities. Obviously this observation is somelhing of a lruism il is easier to challenge ideas that make some sense. This, of course, is nOl lO say thaI the relatively small differences in Ryan and Kat)" s conceptual possibilities when compared with those of Michael and Holly meant that Ryan was destined to challenge Katy's thinking and Michael to view Holly as a mathematical authority. Instead, the point is that, other things being equal, it was more difikult forMichael than for Ryan to challenge his partner's mathematical activity and thus contribute to the establishment of situations for multivocal explanation. 10e analysis of Ryan and Katy's social interactions indicates thai multivocal explanation can be relatively productive in terms of the learning opponunities that arise. In comparison. the univocal explanation that Michael and Holly engaged in seemed far less productive. Further. the analysis of Michael and Holly's social l y arise for relationship indicates that learning opportunities do not necessari children in smallgroup work merely because they explain their solutions loothers; it seems crucial to consider the social situations within which they develop their explanations. Situations in which it is taken as shared that the explainer is an authority appear to be much less productive than those in which the explainer attempts 10 accommodate to anticipated or actual challenges and criticisms. By the same token, the analysis ofMichael's mathematical activity indicates that learning opportunities do not necessarily arise for students in smallgroup work when they listen to another'sexplanations. This can be the case even when the explainer takes seriously his or her obigat l ion to help the listener understand. as did Holly. This case study of Michael and Holly's mathematical activity indicates thnt the differences in their developmental possibilities constrained the nalureoftheif social relationship. 1be analysis a1so indicates that the learning opportunities that arose as they worked together were relatively limited. As a consequence, neither the differences in their conceptual capabilities nor the general nature of their social relationship changed. Instead. theirconceptunl possibilities and the social relation ship they established tended to stabilize each other.
CASE STUDYANDREA AND ANDY JANUARY J3MARCH 23 Andy: January Interview Andycoontedon to solve missing addend tasks during the first part ofthe interview. indicating that he could create and count abstract units ofone. However. he did not appear to create abstract composite units often when he solved the uncovering and
74
COBS
stripsandsquares tasks. Nonetheless, learning opportunities arose for him as he interacted with the interviewer. Forexample. on the first uncovering laSk, two sbips were uncovered when he had reached 52. He counted the squares on the strips by ones and gave 71 as his answer. AI this point the interviewer intervened; I Interviewer: '2 Andy: 3 Interviewer: 4 Andy:
(points to the first strip uncovered) What's 52 and 10 more? (Counts the individual squares) 53, 54, 55 . . . 62. And another 10 (points to the second strip.) n.
Andy also curtailed counting byones with the interviewer's suppo" when he solved the second uncovering wit. Thc:n, he first counted two strips by ones after he had reached 14, giving 36 as his answer. The interviewer next uncovered a strip and two squares, asking "What's 36 and 10 moreT Andy immediately replied "46," and !hen counted lhe two squares. Finally. two strips and five squares were uncovered and, without funher promp(ing, Andy counted "49, 50, 51. 52, 53, and then another, 63, and then 73." II will be recalled that Michael made similar advances while solving the i argued that he counted strips as single emities rather uncovering tasks. There, it s than composites of 10 units ofone. Cenain of his solutions appeared to be relatively sophisticated when considered in isolation. because he learned to differentiate between the numberword sequences he should use to count strips. and those he should use to count single sqUaR:s. In contrast. thc advance Andy made appeared to involve the conslJ1Jction of numerical composites of len. For example. he was asked 10 solve a stripsandsquares task in which 3 strips and 5 squares [35] were visible, there were 75 squares in all. and he was to find how many were hidden. He coumed "3545. 55, 65. 75," each time raising and lowering both hands with all 10 fingers extended. and then moving a plastic numeral to record his counting act. He then completed his solution as follows:
I Andy:
4 more, 40. I counted 4 times 10, 10, 20, 30. 40; I counted 4 times.
Andy's 10 extended fingers seemed to signify a compositcof 10 units ofone rather than I unit of ten. As a consequence, he had to devise a relatively cumbersome way to keep track of his counting, whereas children who create abstract composite units of ten typically put up I finger to record each act of counting by ten. Andy solved a subsequent task in a similar way, but experienced difficulties when the last stripsandsquares task was presemed. In this task, 3 strips and 6 squares 1361 were visible, there were 61 squares in all , and he was asked to find how many were covered. As before, he moved his open hands and used plastic numerals to make records. He counted "3646, 56, 66" and said that "3 strips and I extra" were covered. The interviewer then removed the cover to reveal 2 strips and 5 squares, and Andy said that the task did not make sense. Thus, the possibility of creating a numerical composite often from the individual squares of the visible and screened collections did not arise for him. Andy's failure to create abstract
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTERACTION
3.
75
composite units of ten while solving the stripsandsquares tasks is consistent with the way in which he attempted 10 solve all the horizontal sentence and worksheet tasks presented by counting by ones. The interviewer did intervene 10 help him 10 but without success. Andy develop a more sophisticaJed solution to 28 + 13 = _ .
said that 28 plus 10 was 38, but then counted on by ones from 28 when the original
task was posed, giving 40 as his answer. Thus. it would seem thai neither the panitioning aJgorilhm nor the construction of abstract composite units of len were within his realm of devclopmcmaJ possibilities. However, the advances he made earlier in the interview indicate the construction of imagesupponed numerical composites of len was a developmental possibility for him.
Andrea: January Interview Andrea's solutions 10 the counting tasks were very similar to those that Andy developed and, as in his case. it is inferred that she could create and count abstracl units of onc. Her solutions to the uncovering and slripsand.squares tasks indicate lhat she, lilce Michael, learned to count strips as single entities rather than as composites of 10 ones. For example, the first stripsandsquares task presented
asked her to find how many squares were hidden given that 3 strips and 3 squares
[33} were visible, and that there were 63 squares in all. When she said that lhis was "too lough," the interviewer asked her 10 solve a similar task with 3 slrips [,3D} visible and 70 in all. I
Andrea:
[No responsel.
2 Interviewer: Okay, how many do we have here? (Points 10 the visible strips.) Just count them.
3 Andrea:
lD, 20, 30.
4 Interviewer: And there's 70 aU together.
5 6 7 8 9
40, SO, 60, 70 (putS up a finger each lime she cOunlS}4 of tens. Andrea: Interviewer. How many ones? Andrea:
I'm not sure . . .
Interviewer: (Removes the cover.) Andrea: None.
In comparison with the other interviews, the extent to which the interviewer had to intervene before she could begin to solve this relatively elementary task was quite striking. The possibility of counting imagined strips did not seem to arise for her until she had counted the visible slrips at the interviewer'sdirection. lnlerpreted within the context of her other solutions, her answer of"4 of tens" seems to mean that she had counted 4 single entities, each of which is called a ten. The inference that she counted the squares as singletons is also consistent with her response that there were no ones when the cover was removed. The interviewer next reposed the task he had asked at the outset. that in which 3 strips and 3 squares [331 were visible and lhere were 63 squares in all, This time,
COBe
76
Andrea put up fingers as she counted, "3343, 53, 633 of tens," She was then asked to solve a similar task in which 4 strips and 3 squares [43] were visible and there were 65 squares in all. Here. in contrast to the previous tasks. 43 and 6S were not in the same counlingbYlcns numberword sequence. Andrea denlt with Ihis novelty by ignoring the individual squares and counting, "4050, 6050 there's 2 tens in there and none of ones." In this case, she allempled to be effective in the interview by using a lens numberword sequence to count strips as single entities. In general. Ihere was no indication thai the construction of either numerical composites of ten or abstract composite units of ten were within her realm of developmental possibilities. Andrea solved the first two horizontal sentences presented, 16 + 9 =
_
and 28 +
13 = , by counting on by ones, bUI attempted to solve the sentences involving larger numbers by mentally placing the numerals in columns. When she anempted _
to use this approach to solve 39 + 53
'" _ .
she added the four individual digits to
arrive at an answer of 20. On the worksheet tasks. she used the standard algorithm which. she explained. had been taught to her by a sixthgrade friend. She: made just one error while using this algorithm, putting the "I" in the ones place and carrying "2" when she solved the task corresponding to 39 + 53 This and her solution '" _.
to the horizontal sentence 39 + 53 = suggest that the activity of doing arithmetic did nOI neussarily have to involve acling on actual or symbolized arithmetic objects for her, instead, il could at times be a matler of following procedural instructions. By January of the school year, she was the only child in the class who _
seemed 10 hold instrumental beliefs of this type.
Regularities in SmallGroup Activity In conlrasl lo the prior two case studies, neither Andrea nor Andy auempted to act as a mathematical authority. Further, they botb considered that it was their right to develop their own solutions. This s i illustrated by their indifference to Holly's escalaling sequence ofattempts 10 assisl them during the one session in which they worked with her on March 4. Here. the task was I Holly:
_
x
3
=
18.
6. 11 lakes 6. . . . It makes . . . it takes 3 6 times to make it, make il 3.
16 Holly:
By sixes. by sixes. . . . By sixes guys. . . . Try sixes. Sixes work.ed for me.
25 Holly:
II's sixes! It's by sixes. . . . By sixes guys! It's by sixes. . . . You don't believe me. It's by sixes.
Holly then solved the task again. writing 6 threes on a piece of scrap paper as she did so. 37 Holly:
(Standing up) By sixes. (Holds her scrap paper Oul for Andy to
.see.) Count them. (Andy is nOl looking.) Okay. (Sits down.)
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTERACTION
3.
38
Andy:
77
Yeah.. but you're probably not doing it right.
As Andy's final comment indicates. neither he norAndrea acccp'ed thai Holly had the right to intert'Upt their solution attempts. More generally. the analysis ofAndrea and Andy's inleractions indicated that lhere was an implicit agreement that neither child could begin 10 solve the next task until the other had indicated acceptance of nis or hu answer to the current task. As a consequence., they rarely established situations for either direct or n i direct collaboration when they solved tasks. In contrast 10 the other seven children whose mathematical activity is analyzed
in these case studies, Andy did nO[ always attempt to solve the assigned mathemat ical tasks. Instead. he appeared
10 have a variety of alternative agendas. some of
which were mathematica1 in nature. For example, for several weeks he made drawings to record hisand Andrea's solutions. In doing so, he typically drew a large rectangle to symbolize a ten and a small square to symbolize aone. As he explained to Ihe researcher on February 3:
1 Andy:
I only do piclUres just to remind us, because we might need one
to figure out Ihe other one, that's why I make pictures of them.
While he was working on these drawings or
arranging
them in a file he had
constructed, Andrea would rypically solve tasks on her own with his tacit approval. On other occasions, he simply decided to lake a break from the solving tasks. For example, in one instance he announced to Andrea, "I'm going to give my brain a rest." after he had spent a considerable amount of time constructing what was for
him a novel solution.
Although there did nO( seem to be a strict pattern to the occurrence of those occasions when Andy engaged in what is traditionally called
offtask behavior,
certain general tendencies thai clarify his motivations could
be
observed. For
example. it was noticeable that he rarely solved several consecutive tasks that were routine for him. Thus. he never solved a sequence of addition tasks by counting on
a hundreds board or by making and Ihen counting collections of multilinks. He did,
however, frequent1y persist in his attempts to solve personally challenging tasks.
He also tended to switch his attention from one of his olher interests to that of solving an assigned malhematical task when he noticed Ihat Andrea was having difficulty. In addition, he seemed to engage in an activity Ihat hefound intellectually stimulating when he constructed his drawings. Thus, although it would be an
exaggeration to characterize Andy as a student who constantly sought intellectual challenges. it is reasonable to say Ihat he shied away from the routine. Andrea, for her part. seemed to assume Ihat it was Andy's right to do somelhing olher than solve the assigned tasks if he so chose. They did. however, go through a ritualistic exchange once she had arrived at an answer in which she solicited Andy's agreement. and Andy. who typically did not listen to her explanation. indicated Ihat he accepted her solution. This formality completed. Andrea could then begin to solve Ihe next task. Obviously, no learning opportunities could occur in exchanges of this sort.
COBe
78
TIle potentially most productive occasions for learning occurred when their independent solutions were in conflict Here, they challenged each other's clIpla. nations, thus engaging in multivocal explanation. However, two aspects of their mathematical activity made il difficult forthem locommunicalceffectively in these situations. 1be first of Ihese aspects concerns their differing beliefs about mathe
matical activity. As was noted when analyzing Andrea's January interview. con venlional symbols did not necessarily have 10 signify anything beyond themselves for her. There were strong indications thai she continued 10 hold this belief for the entire time she worked with Andy. In contrast. there was every indication that acts of manipulating symbols had 10 carry the significance of acting on mathematical objects for Andy. The difIicullies that arose as a consequclICc of these differences in their beliefs about mathematical activity can be illustrated by considering an exchange that occurred on February 16. Andrea had solved a task that involved
adding 5 twelves by using the standard addition algorithm. She explained her solution to Andy as follows: I Andrea:
2.4, 6, 8, 10 (adds the 5 twos in the ones column). You put the "oh" there (writes "0" in the ones place), the I there (writes " 1" at the top of the tens column). 1 . 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (counts the 6 ones in the tens column). Do you agree that's 6O?
From Andy's point of view, "That's impossible."
As the exchange continued, he
repeatedly challenged Andrea's justifications, thus contributing to the establish ment of a situation for multivocal explanation. Her solution was unacceptable to him because he did not understand how 10, the sum of the ones column, could become an "00" and a I . 17 Andrea:
2, 4,6. 8, 10. Now listen. Put that "oh" there.
18 Andy: 19 Andrea:
1bc one up there.
20 Andy:
That isn't "oh."
21 Andrea:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4, 5, 6. That's not "oh." That's 10.
22 Andy: 23 Andrea;
Yeah.
24 Andy:
No. That isn't "oh" though. That's 10. 1 . 2, 3 . . . 9. 10.
25 Andrea:
Now listen.
Andrea repeatedly described the steps of the standard algorithm in a similar way in response to Andy's challenges. For her, a proceduml description of this kind constituted a mathematical justification. She therefore concluded from Andy's failure 10 accept her solution thaI he was noIlistening. On the other hand. from Andy's poinl of view, Andrea had not adequately justified why she wrote "0"
and "I."
At this point. the children had reached an impasse. Andrea therefore sought the
teacher's assistance and they both explained their interpretations of the conflict to her.
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTERACTION
79
27 Andrea:
He doesn'the doesn't gel. He doesn't get that right.
28 Andy:
(Simullaneously) I don', understand. All the twos add up to 10. She takes I away from the 10.
Andy's last statement indicates that he interpreted Andrea's action of writing a I at the top of the tens column as laking away a I from the 10. As a consequence. her solution seemed irrational to him Andrea responded to his challenge by again repeating her procedural description. .
30 Andrea:
2 plus 2. 2. 4, 6, 8, 10. I know that's 10.
31 Andy:
lt is 10.
32 Andrea:
You put the dam "oh" there. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
33 Andy:
(Simultaneously) Show me now you are doing it. I don', under stand.
Andy's comment "show me how you
are doing it" was an explicit request for
an explanation. Consistem with his January interview, it seemed beyond his realm of deveiopmentaJ possibilities to interpret Andrea's procedural descriptions in terms of actions on arithmetical objects. Conversely. Andrea was unable to do more
than specify how she manipulated numerals. From her point of view. this should
have been sufficient to legitimize her solution. As a consequence. the two childrf!n arrived at an impasse that they were unable to resolve. Their differing beliefs about what counted as a mathematical explanation made it impossible for them to communicate effectively and negotiate a takenas·sharcd interpretation ofAndrea's
solution in this situation for multi vocal explanation. Consequently. a conflict in
their interpretations that might have given rise to learning opportunities instead proved unproductive and, at times, resulted in feelings of mutual frustration. The second aspect of their mathematical activity that limited learning opportu
nities concerns their differing interpretations of particular tasks. As an illustration.
consider the following exchange thai occurred on February 3. Andy had solved the task, "How many do you take away from 74 to leave m::. !351?" by first drawing a picture for 74. He had then reasoned thai he would have to take away 4 tens and add a one 10 transform this drawing inlo one for 35. I Andy:
Lislen, lislen. You leave 30 right (points to his drawing of 74). You take away 4 1tensl from 70, and you add a one.
2 Andrea:
Thai would be 75, baby [i.e., 74 plus one]!
3 Andy:
No 3, 4 (points to the ones in his drawing). It's 4, there is already 4 [ones1 there! There is already a 4 there, see? And then you
4 Andrea: 5 Andy:
would add I . 74! So you take the 4 Itens] from 74. • Take away I ? Listen, you don't take away I , that will leave you 3 [ones) then you would have 33.
and
3.
LEARNING AND SMALlGROUP INTERACTION
89
Instead, her insight seemed 10 involve the construction of relationships between two numberword sequences (e.g. 660, 880). By constructing a procedure in which she renamed the results of partitioning numerals 20, 40, 60, SO, she was able 10 be effective when she inlCrac:led with Linda. Kathy, and other children who used the partitioning algorithm. SignificantJy, it was after this episode thai Andrea used the standard algorithm to solve an increasingly wide range of wks. As was the case with the panilioning algorithm, counting by lens and ones on the hun� board was beyond the realm of her developmentsl possibilities. The only occasion when she did anything other than count by ones on a hundreds board occurred on March 5. At thaI time, she first solved the task "How many do you have to add to 2710 make 821" by counting by ones. Later, while wailing for Andy to complete his solution. she lraced a path from 27 to 82 on the hundreds board by touching the squares 37.47, 57, 67, 77, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82. She counted as she did so and concluded, ''Okay, I think it's 11." Interestingly, during thesame session. t he researcher asked her if she knew what 62 and 10 more would make without counting. She very deliberately looked at the hundreds board before she replied. "72." In this case, she presumably knew that she would move down one row on the hundreds board if she counted 10 units of one. This, of course, is less conceptually sophisticated than creating and counting numerical composites of ten.
Summary Andrea's and Andy's perfonnances in their January interviews appeared to be similar in many respects. With the exception of the finding that the construction of numerical composites of ten was within Andy's but not Andrea's realm of devel opmental possibilities. there was no indication that one child could reason at a significantly more sophisticated level than the other. Significantly, neither seemed to regard either the self or the other as a mathematical authority in the group. As a consequence. they routinely engaged in multivocal explanation when their solu tions or answers were in conflict. The analysis of their interviews also indicated that Andrea's but not Andy's beJids appeared to be instrumental to a considerable extent. This inference was corroborated by observations made when the children worked together in the classroom; they seemed to have different understandings of what counted as an explanation and ajustification. As a consequence. they experienced great difficulty in establishing a takenasshared basis for mathematical communication. Their panicipation in interactions involving multivocal explanation was, therefore, not particularly productive in tenns of the learning opportunities that arose for them. In this regard, their interactions contrasted sharply with those of Ryan and Katy. The analysis of Andrea's mathematica1 activity in the classrom o indicated that she was unable to interpret certain tasks in ways compatible with the takenas shared interpretations of the classroom community. This funher contributed to the difficulties she and Andy had in communicating effectively. For example. Andy's novel collectionsbased solutions seemed to be beyond her realm of developmental
90
COBB
possibilities. As a consequence, learning opportunities did not arise for her when she listened to his explanations and, fUMer, the questions and challenges she raised did nOI give rise 10 learning opportunities for him. Thus, in one instance, Andy anempted 10 solve a missing addend task corresponding 1 0 27 + _ = 82 by adding bars of 10 mullilinks to a collection of 27 until he made a collection of 82. This was clearly a novel solution for him and he failed 10 find OUI how many multilinks he had added 10 reach 82. Because Andreadid nol interpret this as a missing addend task, she could not ask him how many he had added or intervene in some other way thaI might help him reflect on his mathematicaJ activity. TIle analysis of the children's interactions also indicated thal lcarning opportu nities rarely arose for eitherchild when Andreaexplained her solutions. One reason for this was lhat Andy could not interpretheruseofthc standard algorithm in terms of actions on arithmetical objects. In addition, she often carried out apparently arbitrary computations when she did not have a procedural instruction she could follow. Finally, it should be noted that the learning opportunities were further limited because Andy did not necessarily feel obliged to develop his own solutions. Not surprisingly. given the relatively few learning opportunities that arose, both children made very limited progress in the time that they worked together. Andrea used the standard algorithm in an instrumental way to solve a wider range of tasks, and Andy created numerical composites of ten in a wider variety of situations. A vicious circle seems to have arisen in that the children's inilial beliefs and concep tual capabilities resulted in the development of a social relationship that limited their opponunities for learning. Their conceptual capabilities, therefore. remained relatively stable and, as a consequence, their social relationship also changed little.
CASE STUDYJACK AND JAMIE JANUARY I3MARCH 23, 1987 Jamie: January Interview In the first pan of the interview, Jamie solved a missing addend task by counting on, thus indicating that hecould create and count abstract units of one. His solutions to the uncovering tasks demonstrated that incrementing by ten was relatively routine for him. For example, he reasoned as follows when 2 strips were uncovered after he had reached 52; "52 and 10 more would be 62, and add \0 more would be 72." For the most pan, the stripsandsquares tasks were also unproblematic for him. In the most challenging task that he was asked to solve, 3 strips and 6 squares [36] were visible, he was told that there were 61 squares in all, and asked to find how many were hidden. He first gave 24 and then 25 as his answer, explaining: 1 Jamie:
Okay, like there is 30 right here (points to the visible strips), and there's 20here (points lothe dOlh). And there's 51squares under
3.
LEARNING AND SMAUGRQUP INTERACTION
91
the cloth). and put the SonIa all of these (points to the visible strips and squares). and that makes 61 ahogether. Taken together. Jamie's solutions to the uncovering and slripsandsquares tasks indicate that he could create both countingbased and coUectionbased abstract composite: units of ten, alJeol.St when he could rely on situationspecific imagery. Further. his solution lO the final stripsandsquares laSk indicates thai the construc tion of partwhole relations involving lens and ones was within his realm of developmental possibilities. In contrast 10 the majority of the other children, Jamie used the same solution method 10 solve
both the horizontal sentences and the worksheet tasksthe
panilioning algorilhm. For example. he gave the following explanation for the worksheet task corresponding to 39 + 53:::_: 1 Jamie:
3 . . 30 plus 50i s .
80, and 9 plus 3 is 12. Put all those IOgether
and I come up with 92. In summary, i t can be noted that although Jamie could construct countingbased abstract composite units of ten, he tended to establish collectionbased rather than countingbased numerical meanings. This was the case for the stripsandsquares. number sentence. and worksheet [aSks.
Jack: January Interview lack's solutions to the counting [aSks indicated that counting abstract units of one was routine for him. Further. like Jamie. he solved the uncovering tasks by counting tens and ones without prompting. For example, 2 strips and 5 squares (251 were uncovered when he had reached 46, and he found how many squares there were now in all by counting,
"4656, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71." Taking account of his
solutions 10 other interview tasks, it appears that he counted the strips as abstract composite units of ten. The analysis of lamie's interview indicates thai he, like Kaly, created a pan whole relationship involving units of len and one when he solved the stripsand squares tasks. 8y coincidence. Jack's solutions were similar to those of Knty's partner, Ryan. For example, he reasoned as follows when solving a task in which
3 strips and 5 squares (351 were visible, there were 71 squares in all, and he was asked to find how many were hidden.
1 Jack: Four of these (strips] under there ... no. 2 Interviewer: Why not?
3 Jack:
There would be too many of those (points to the visiblesquares).
4 Interviewer: So how many strips do you think are under there? 5 Jack: 3.
6 Interviewer: Is there anything else under there?
92
COBB 7 Jack:
And 5 of these (points to the visible squares),
8 Interviewer: How many squares does thai make in all? 9 Jack: 35. like Ryan,Jack anticipated that he could create one of thelens needed to make 70 b y composing units of one from both the visible and screened collections. Also like Ryan. he had difficulty in keeping uack of the whole as he built up the hidden collection, even when the interviewer supported his solution altempl It would therefore seemlhallhe construction of a partwhole relationship involving units oflen and one was beyond his realm of developmental possibilities. In
the absence of any assistance, Jack's only reliable way of solving the
horizontal sentences was to count by ones. The interviewer, therefore. intervened when he solved 28
+
13
'" "
J Interviewer: What's 28 and 1 0 more'? 2 Jack:
It's 41.
3 Interviewer: How did you figure that out'?
'Cause 28 plus 1 0 plus 3 more would be 41.
4 Jack:
He then developed this solution method funher as he solved the remaInIng horizontal sentence and the worksheet tasks. For example, his reasoning 10 solve 39 + 53
=
I Jack.:
was: You have 53,10 more makes 63, plus IOmore73, plus 10 more 83, plus 9 . . . 92.
These solutions suggest that the imageindependent construction of abstract com posite units of ten was within Jack's realm of developmental possibilities when he established countingbased meanings. There was, however, no indication thai he could use a panitioning algorithm.
As a general point of comparison, it is also
interesting to note that Jamie est:lblished only collectionbased meanings when he solved the horizontal sentence and worksheet tasks, whereas Jack established only countingbased meanings.
Regularities in SmallGroup Activity As was the case with the other three groups. the social relationship that Jack and
Jamie established remained relatively stable during the 10 weeks that they were observed working together. Throughout this period, their solution attempts gener
a task involved a relatively routine computation for Jamie, then he proceeded without necessarily explaining his solution. and Jack had to adapt to Jamie's mathematical activity as best he could. ally followed one of three interactional scenarios. If
In contrast. Jamie took note of Jack's mathematical activity when Jack. proposed a thinking strategy solution, and in lhese situations their interactions typically
LEARNING AND SMAU..GROUP INTERACTION
3.
93
involved either indirect collaboration or multivocal explanation. FinaJly, Jamie typically invited Jack's participation when a task was problematic for him, and in these cases again they engaged in either indirect collaboration or multivocal explanation. Each of these lhree scenarios is discussed in tum. It is apparent from the previous three case studies thai the children aucmpted to o . Jamie, however. was the only one of achieve a variety of goals in the classrom the eight children who pursued a persona] agenda of attempting to complete as
many tasks as possible. This was indicated by frequent comments in which he told
how many activity sheets they had completed or indicated that they needed to hurry up. In addition. his computation methods were typically more efficient
Jack
than Jack's, and consequently he was usually the first to arrive at an answer. This was particularly the case for tasks thai involved direct addition in thai he, but nOi Jack, had consttucted a partitioning algorithm. Consequently, on those occasions when he could solve a task by perfonning what was for him a routine compulation, he Iypically neither explained his solution 10 Jack nor waited for Jack 10 complete his own solution. Instead, he usually began to solve the nexllask without checking whether Jack agreed with his answer. Jack's role was then limited to thai of contributing to and making sense of Jamie's solutions as best he could. For example, on February 2, Jamie solved a sequence of balance tasks corresponding to 24 + 39
= _,
46 + 30
= _.
25 + 36
= _,
and 36 + 2S
= _.
Jack observed and
interjected comments, but did not initiate a single solution slep. A researcher then inlervened 10 ask Jamie how he had solved Ihe last of the tasks, 55 + 34 =_.
I Researcher: (To lamie) How did you do this one? Well, 50 and 30 make ... 2 lamie: 5 and 3 make 70, 7. 3 Jack: 4 Jamie: SO. and ... and 6 more makes 86 and 5 more makes 91. 5 Researcher. Did you agree. lack?
As the exchange continued. lack allempted to explain how the task could be solved by using the partitioning algorithm. The meaning that panitioning a numeral might have had for him is discussed later in the chapter, when the analysis of his mathematical learning is presented. For the present, it suffices 10 nOle that h e continued 10 tr y and understand Jamie's efficient computational methods. The following episode provides a further illustration of the way in which Jack attempted to adapl to lamie's mathematical activity, and also exemplifies the general asymmetry in their respective roles. The episode occurred on February 16, after Jamie had used his partitioning algorithm to solve a sequence of balance tasks and S x 12 = Jackchallenged his answer corresponding to 3 x 12 =_,4 x 12 = of 3 6 1 0 the frrst task as Jamie began 10 solve the next t ask. 5 x II =_. _,
_.
I lamie:
11 plus 11 is 22.
2 lack: 3 lamie:
32. that's 32 (points to lamie's answu of 36).
22 plus 22 makes 46, no 44.
4 lack:
32. Jamie, that's 32. 32.
COBB
94 5 Jamie:
What? (writes the answer of 55 on the atliviry sheet).
1be way in which Jamie repeatedly ignored Jack's challenges was relatively typical.
Jack persiSled in his challenge and attempted to explain how he had solved the task. 6 Jack:
32. 'Cause 10 and 10 make 20, plus, and that would make, 2 twos right there would make il...
7 Jamie:
(Interrupts) Wail, 10 and 10 and 10.
8 Jack:
... Would make 24.
9 Jamie:
10; 10 and JO make 20, right?
10 Jack:
Yeah.
II Jamie:
And 2 more make 24.
12 Jack:
(Interrupts) 23, 45. 6.
At this poin! in the exchange. Jamie challenged Jack's righl lo interject in this way. 14 Jamie:
15 Jack: 16 Jamie:
I didn't even gel to explain it to you. Don't you want m e 10 explain it to you? [Begins 10 explain his solution 10 the balance task 4 x 12 =_1 12 and 12, ... lhal [4 lensJ makes 40, right? r know, I know. 42, 44, 46. 48.
Jamie then wen! on to explain
nis solutions
10
the other two tasks he had solved
while Jack listened relatively passively. In the course of this excnange. a power imbalance between Jack and Jamie was
no:aliud in two ways. On the one hand, theconnict between their answers was n::solved without discussion with Jack acceptin g that Jamie was the mathematical authority in the group. On the other hand. there was also a tension in their views abom how the conflict in !heir answers should be handled. Jack ancmp(ed to initiate an interaction involving multivocal explanation. whereas Jamie anempted to initiate an interaction involving univocal explanation. This tension was also
n::soh'ed without discussion,
with Jack accepting Jamie's interpretation ofme situation. This incident was paradig matic in that it was Jamie who usually initialed the transition from one type of 5(X:ial situation to another. He was,
therefore. the
social authority in the group in that he
controlled the way in which he and Jack interacted as they worked together. One immediate consequence of this power imbalance was that Jack's repeated attempts to initiate the renegotiation of their obligations and expectations were unsuccessful. Jamie continued to solve tasks that were routine for him as rnpidly as possible. Asn consequence. learning opponunities were limited forboth childrcn in these situations. This was obviously the case for Jamie, given that he simply perfonned a routine computation. Jack, on the other hand. seemed to be caught in something of a vicious circle, He found it difficult to paniciJXlte because his computational methods were less sophisticated than those used by Jamie. Con versely. opportunities for him to conslrUCt increasingly sophisticated computa
LEARNING AND SMAU.GAOUP INTERAcnON
3.
95
tional algorithms were relatively limited, precisely because he was often unable to contribute in these situations. The only viable way that Jack could make a contribution when a task was routine for Jamie was to propose an efficient solution that involved relating the current task 1 0 one that had been previously solved. As the following episode, which occurred on February IS, illustrates, the nature of their interactions often changed dramali· cally when Jack was able to make a proposal of this type. In this case, he suggested using 2 x 4 8 to solve 4 x 4 =
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
8
Jack: Jamie: Jack.: Jamie: Researcher: Jamie: Researcher: Jock:
=_ .
4 times 4. Four, leI's see. Twenty. What's 8 plus 8? 16.It's 4 sets of 4,8 ... 16. Why did you say "What's 8 and 8T Jack? 'Cause 4 sets, urn 4. 2 selS make 8. y".
You have 2 more sets. Like it's 2 and 2 make 4.
In this instance, it was Jamie who adapted 10 Jack's mathematical activity rather than vice versa. It can also be observed thai, in comparison with the other three groups, they did not first solve the task independently and then explain their solutions, but instead engaged in indirect collaboration. This episode is representative with regard to the learning opportunities that arose for Jamie in such situations; he was able to contribute to the development of a thinking strategy solution that was within his realm of developmental possibilities. As a consequence, he increasingly began to develop his own thinking strategy solutions. In this case, in contrast 10 tasks thaI he could solve by performing a routine computation. he typically accepted Jack's challenges and thus contributed to the emergence of interactions involving multivocal explanation. For example, 62 by on January 13,Jamie had solved a balance task corresponding to 49 + using multilinks. He then reasoned that the answer to a task corresponding 1046 + 62 would be 3 less than 13 because 46 was 3 less than 49. Jack challenged this solution by pointing out that 46 plus 10 only made 56, and Jamie revised his solution. At times, it was almost as though Jamie had his own private coach to support his construction of thinking sD"alegics. If attention now focuses on Jack rather than Jamie. it is apparent that learning opportunities could also arise for him as he monitored and challenged Jamie's solutions and panicipated in multivocal explanation. In addition, learning oppor tunities sometimes arose for him as well as for Jamie when they engaged in indirect immediately collaboration. For example. on February 18, they solved 10 x 4 after they had found 5 x 4 = 20. _
_
'"
'"
1 Jack: 2 Jamie: 3 Jack:
No, look, it's 5 more sets (of 4J. Look. Yeah. 5 more sets than 20.
_
=
96
COBe 4 Jamie:
Oh! Oh. 20 plus 20 is 40. So it's gotta. be 40.
Jamie then began to count by fours to verify the answer, and. while observing him, Jack had an insightlhat he subsequently explained 10 a researcher. 18 Rese8lCher. Why did you say 40, Jack'! 'Cause, 'cause 10 foUl$ make 40, 'cause, like urn. 'cause ... 19 Jack: 20 Jamie:
5 foun make 20.
21 Jack:
JUSl lurn it backwards.
22 Jamie: 23 Jack:
5,5 fours make, I mean ... 4 sets of 10 make 40.Just tum it around.
As can be secn, Jack's insight was the realization
was the same as that of adding 4
lens.
Jamie's calculation of the answer seemed
crucial in thai it was only after Jack heard"20 plus 20 is 40" thai he reconceptual. ized the tasks as 4 tens rather than as 20 and 5 more foun. Jack generated thinking strategy solutions far more frequently
than did the other
seven children discussed in these case studies. Itsoems reasonable lospeculate lh3t his apparent predilection for thinking stra1egy solutions was a consequence of his attempt to be effective while worIcing with Jamie.If he could participate when he proposed lhinking stnuegjes. then perhaps he, more than any ofthe othc:r children, actively looked for opportunities to relate the current task to one thai: had previously been solved.This being the case, his development of these solutions was socially siruated in that it might well not have occUlTed had he worked with someone other than Jamie. Thus far, interactions in which Jamie performed routine computations have been contrasted with those in which Jack proposed a thinking strategy solution. The remaining .scenario to be
discussed is that in which a task was problematic
for
Jamie.Often, h e first attempted to solve the task on his own and ignored Jack's altempts to make a contribution. However, when he reached an impasse. he typically invited Jack 10 panicipale. These invitations were reasonably easy to identify in thatlamie moved the activity sheet that was generally in front of himself toward Jack. For his part, Jack typically accepted these invitations, thus implicitly acknowledging that Jamie was the social authority in the group. The interactions that occuned in these situations can be illustrated by considering their attempts to solve a balance task corresponding to 36 +46:: 10 + on January 13. _
Jamie began by calculating the sum of 36 and 46, but then invited Jack to panicipate when he noticed that there was a lOon the righthand sideofthe balance, saying "We're in trouble now:' He then reasoned. '�, um ...70 (poinlStwice 10 the activity sheet) ...72." This, as it transpired, was a higb1y situationspecific solution in thaI Jamie had just added 30 and 40 to make 70.He could, therefore, take account of the ten on the other side of the balance before h e added the 2 sixes. At this point. Jack argued that the len should be added 10 82, the sum of36 and 46. I Jack:
821The sum of36 and 46].
2 Jamie:
72 (repeats his answer].
3.
LEARNING AND $MALlGROUP INTERACTION 3 lack:
92 [82 plus IOJ.
4 Jamie:
I mean 62 (72 subtract JOJ.
5 Jack:
No, look those 2, 3 and 4, are 70. So 6 and 6. 12.
6 Jamie:
70 ... that's easy. What?
7 Jack: 9 Jack:
82 [36 ond 46). 92 (points 10 the "10").
iO Jamie: I I Jack:
82 goes righllhere (points to the empty 00';). No, 92.Look. 10.
8 Jamie:
97
In this exchange, the children engaged in ind i re ct response of 82 suggests that, at this point in the episode. he interpreted the IaSk as simply that of adding
36 and 46. However, a learning opponunity arose for him
when he attempted to make sense of Jack's answer of92. 12 Jamie:
J 3 Jack: 14 Jamie:
92. I don't get it, 1 don', get it. (Moves the activity sheet in front of himself).
Where are you getting the 9? We've got to subtract 10 do this problem.
15 Jack:
To do whal?
16 Jamie:
Subtract [0 do the problem.
Presumably, Jamie inferred lhat Jack had arrived al his answer of92 by adding 10 to 82. In the process, he seemed to reconceptualize the wk as that of subtracting 10 from 82.Jack continued to argue that the 10 should be added, thus contributing to the emergence of an interaction involving multivocal explanation. The ensuing dispute was not settled until the teacher inler.'ened. lack and lamie were the only pair who engaged in indirect collaboration with any regularity. This was also the only group
in
which one child was a social
authority. from the observer's perspective. lamie seemed to express this authority in action by using lack as a resource he could calion to help him complete as many tasks as possible. Thus. he ignored Jack when a task was routine, but invited him to participate when a task was problematic, and also attempted 10 capitalize on i consequence of this lack's efficient thinlcing strategy solutions. One mmediate power imbalance was the inequality in the learning opportunities that arose for the two children. lack generally had to cope as best he could unless he could propose a thinking strategy solution or a task happened to be problematic for Jamie. In contrast, Jamie expressed his social authority by initiating interactions rise 10 learning opportunities for himself.
Mathematical Learning Jack.
Jack's solutions 10 the horizontal sentence and worksheet tasks in the
lanuary interview indicated that the cn:a.tion of abstract composite units of ten was
98
coes
in his realm of developmental possibilities when h e established countingbased meanings. However, there was no evidence that he constructed units of this type with any regularity during the smaJlgroup sessions. In Ihis regard. the analysis of their social relationship indicated that his learning opponunilics were relatively limited when compared with those that arose for Jamie, and that he frequently had t o adapt 10 Jamie's collectionsbased solutions. II was unclear from Jack's interview whether the construction of a partitioning algorithm was within the realm of his developmental possibilities. Several of the episodes that have been presented demonstrate thai he attempted to use this algorithm on several occasions. Perhaps the most sophisticated of these efforts occurred on February 19. when he and Jamie solved the task "35 are taken away and 26 are left. How many were there to begin with?" Jamie found the task problematic and evenlUaJly accepred JacK'S proposal to add 35 and 26. I Jamie:
You KnoW that 30....You know that 30 and 20 are more than
40. 2 Jack:
I know, it's 50.
3 Jamie:
No, (the answer to the task is] nO! 50.
4 Jack:
20 and 20 is 40. 20 and 30 are 50.
5 Jamie: 6 Jack:
61 is the answer. SO. what's 6 plus 51 Yes, 61.
The way in which Jack inferred how Jamie had arrived at the answer of6l suggests that the partitioning algorilhm was within his realm of developmental possibilities. Nonetheless, Jack did nol once use this algoritlun independently in the remaining weeks that he worked with Jamie. Instead, as in the sample episode, it seemed essen!ial lhat Jamie first slate part ofthe result of the partitioning (e.g. " . .. 30 and 20 ..."). This suggests that although the act of partitioning a twodigit numeral such as 35 did not symbolize the partitioning of the signified number for him, he could conceptua1ize 35 as 30 plus 5 after the event. Allhough it is nO! entirely clear why he seemed unable to make this final conceptual step. it can be nored thai Jamie rarely explained his partitioning solutions.Consequently, Jack could only infer what Jamie might have done from the relatively cryptic comments he made while solving a lask. As a further poin!. lhe sample episode was the first occasion on which Jack
attempted to use the algorithm to solve anything other than a balance taSk.He had, for example, contributed to Jamie's panitioning solution to a balance taSk as early as January 13. In this regard. recall that both Ryan's and Holly's use of this algorithm was initially restricted solely to balance tasks.In those cases, it was suggested that imagery associated with the taken·as·s� metaphor of a number in a box may have supported their conceptual constructions.This same metaphor may have also facilitated Jack's attempts to make sense of Jamie's partitioning solutions. Three of Jack's thinking strategy solutions indicate thai he could construct
abstract composite units of ten without relying on situationspecific imagery. On
LEARNING AND SMALlGROUP INTERACTION
3.
he related the number sentence 60  21
99
_'0 70  21 '" 49, arguing that it was "10 lower than 49." In addition, he used the sentence 31 + 29 60 10
January 14,
=
=
solve 31 + 19
=
on January 27, and he related a stripsandsquaJes task corre
_
sponding to 35 + _
::
8710 another corresponding to 35 + 42
=
77 on February 12.
These solutions are consistent with his construction of a relativc:\y efficient coum ingbased a1gorithm during his January interview. In that. he solved 39 + 53:::
_
by
incrementing 3 unilS of len and then adding 9 onto 53. Similarly, in using 35 + 42 =
77 10 solve 3S
+
_
=
87. he seemed 10 conceptualize: 87 a s the result of
incrementing 1 0 onto 77. These thinking strategy solutions add credibility to the speculation thai the conslruclion of len as an abstract composite unit was within his realm of developmental possibilities when he established countingbased meanings, but not when he established collectionbased meanings. Jack also developed a variety of collectionbased thinking strategy solutions.
The most sophisticated of these strategies seemed to involve taking a numerical partwhole structure as a given. For eJ;ample. in a previously documented solution. h e related 5
x4
=
20 to 1 0 x 4 = _ on February 18 by arguing that it was "5 more
sets than 20." In lhis case, 20 as a numerical whole composed of fours seemed 10 be an object of reflection for him. As a funher example, on March 5, he relaled a stripsandsquares InSk corresponding 10 _  55 = 27 ("55 are taken away and 27 are
left, How many were there 10 begin with'!') 10 a previously solved lask
cOlTCSponding to 27 + 55 = 82 ("How many do you have to add to 27to make 821") In this case, 82 as a whole composed of 27 and 55 seemed to be an object of reflection for him. Interestingly. the first of these sophisticated collectionbased solutions was not observed until February 16. Their frequenl occurrence from that point on suggests that Jack might have made a conceptual advance and could objectify numericaJ partwhole relationships. This appeared to be the only major advance that he made while working with Jamie.
Jamie.
During his interview, Jamie used the partitioning algorilhm 10 solve both
horizontal sentence and worksheet tasks. He subsequently used this algorithm routinely o .His solutions 10 the uncovering tasks to solve a wide Tilf1ge of tasks in the classrom
presenled in the inlerview indicated that he could also create abstract composile units often by relying on imagery when he established countingbased numcncal meanings. However, there was no indication that he became able 10 create countingbased units often in an imageindependent manner. His most sophisticated countingbased solution occumd on March 16. when he and Jack worked with Michael in Holly's absence.
Michael initially began 10 a>Unt by ones on a hundreds board 10 solve the task, "How many do you have to add to 38 to make 86'?'"' 1 Iamie:
No. Here. wail lei mesee it. Let me see this (lakes the hundreds board from Michael).
2 Michael:
I always counl by ones.
3 Jamie:
I don't. Okay. 38 ... 38 (points 10 lhe hundreds
4 Michael:
I can', use il thai way.
board). Okay .. I, 2. 22. 32 (counts the squares 39, 40, SO, 60).
.
100
COBB
Jamie's comments 10 Michael notwithstanding, he rarely used a hundreds board and thi s was the first occasion on which he was observed anempting to count by lens and ones. He eventually completed his solution as follows: 5 Jamie:
One, 2 (counts 39 and 40). . ThaI would be 12 (points 10 SO). .
.
12.22.32 (counts down the last column) .. . 6 Michael: 7 Jamie:
42.
8 Michael: 9 Jamie:
52. 42.
10 Michael:
52.
I I Jamie:
Wail No, wail 42. 43.44 ...48 (coums from 81 to 86).48.
42 (poims to SO),
Jamie's count by ten down the last column indicates that each complete row on the hundreds board was at least a numerical composite of len for him. As was previously noted when discussing Katy's and Michael's use of the hundreds board, the rhythm of counting by ones is necessarily inletrUpied a t the beginning and end of each row. These nalUraJ breaks or pauses in activity fllCiiilate the isolation of counting an intact row as a discrete entity.In contrast, there are no pauses that can support the isolation of counting by ones from, say, 38to 48 in the same way.The fact that Jamie did nOI counl by tens staning from 38 suggests thai he was yet 10
board in litis way.Significantly, he counted by ones on all but I of the I I occasions that he subsequently used the hundtcds board in this session.
structure the hundreds
Ironically, it might have been Jamie himself.as the social authority, who limited the opportunjti es he had to construct increasingly sophisticated countingbased units. He almost invariably gave number words and numerals oollectionsbased meanings and typically thwarted any discussion of alternative inlerprerations with Jack.. AlthoughJamie did not elaborale his routine computational methods while working with Jack, he did learn 10 construct increasingly sophisticated thinking stralegics. For example, onJanuary 21, it was only atJack's initiative that he used a balance task that in\'olved adding 3 sevens to solve one that involved adding 4 sevens. He then solved the next task. which involved adding 5 sevens, independently of the previous two solutions even though Jack proposed a thinking strategy solution. I Jack;
7 more Ithan the previous taskl.
2 Jamie:
That's 14, plus 14, equals ...
3 Jack;
What's 14 plus 141
4 Jamie:
(Simultaneously) 28.
5 Jack:
2829, 30 ... 35 (counts on his fingers). That's what's equal.
6 Jamie:
(Writes the answer.)
In contrast,Jamie used a variety of sophisticated strategies when he solved balance tasks approximately 6 weeks Ialec, on February 26. For example, he and Jack both used the result of adding 4 twentyfives 10 find the sum of 4 twentyfoun.
101
LEARNING AND SMALl.GAOUP INTERACTION
3.
) Jamie:
That makes, that makes 90 . . 6.
2 Jack:
Just take away J. 2 ...
3 Jamie:
4,4.
4 lack: 5 Jamie:
4 from thai.. lfs 96.
6 lack:
Yeah.
.
the extent to which the ir of thinking strategies had become taken as shared. In the course of his
This relatively cryptic exchange incidcnlally illustrates use
interactions with Jack. Jamie had developed what might be called a thinking strategy anilOOe and actively looked for opponunilies 10 create relationships. In the following eJl:ample. which also occurred on February 26, he explained how he had found the sum of 4 nines. 1 Jamie:
34. I mean, 36.
2 Jack:
Yeah. No. I don't know now you did it
3 Jamie:
Well. if you uh, if, you just pretend these were tens, that would make 40, take away 4 more makes 36.
4 Jack:
Yoah.
5 Researcher: Do you agree wilt! that? 6 Jamie:
That's true. Yeah.
Later in the same �ion. Jamie found the sum of 6 sixes by pretending they were fives and then adding 610 30. As these last two solutions
illustrate, Jamie's use of
thinking strategies was not limited to relating successive tasks. In this regard. his ability to develop thinking strategy solutions began to surpass that of Jack..
Summary 1bere is every indication that Jamie was
the established social authority in the
group. This power imbalance between himself and Jack manifested itself in two ways. On the one hand, it was Jamie who typically initiated
the transition from one
type of interactional situation to another. On the other hand, he defused Jack's concerted attem pts to renegotiate obligations and expectations within the group. It also appears lhat Jamie's personal agenda was to complele as many tasks as possible. If the pursuit of this goal came into conflict with the obligation of, say, helping Jack understand how a task
had been solved, the fonner goal typically
N. a consequence of this power imbalance, the relationship between Jack's andJamie'sconceptual possibilities and the nature of their social relationship was less dirtct than was the case for the other three groups. Three distinct interactional scenarios were identified in the course of the analysis. FlBt, lamie typically solved tasks that were routine for him without either prevailed.
explaining his solutions 10 Jack or waiting for Jack to complete his own solutions. Jack's role then
became that of attempting to make sense of lamie's collection·
COSS
'02
based solutions. Jamie also seemed to regard himselfas the mathematical authority when tasks were routine for him and. on those rare occasions when he acknowl· edged Jack's questions and challenges. initiated interactions involving univocal explanation. s«ond. the only occasions when Jamie look noce: ofJack's mathemat ical activity were when he proposed thinking strategy solutions. In these cases, they often engaged in either indirect collaboration or multiyocal explanation. It was noted in passing thai Jack. more !han any of the other seven children, consisten!!y attempted 10 develop lhinking strategy solutions. Given the efficacy of these solutions with respect to his n i teractions wilh Jamie. it seems
reasonable
10
speculale thai he might havedevcloped this "relating attitude" in an 3t1empt IOcope wilh the social silUation in which he found himself. Third, when a task was problematic for lamie, he typically invited Jack to participate, and they again frequently engaged in either indirect collaboration or multivocal explanation. The learning opponunities that arose for Jack in these various types of interac tion wererelati\'ely limited. 1be only major conceptual advance that he might have made was to objectify numerical partwhole relationships.lamie. for his pan. acted as though Jack was a resource for his learning and constructed increasingly sophisticated thinking strategy solutions. As a consequence of this advance, he became the mathematical authority in an increasingly widerange of situations. Jack then found it even more difficult to participate, and seemed to experience greater frustration as he failed to fulfill his obligation to develop his own solUlions. Thus, although the regularities in their interactions remained unchanged, their social relationship appeared to be degenerating.
REFLECTIONS The first issue discussed in this overview of the case studies concerns the relation ship between the individual children's mathematical activity and their small·group interactions. Anention, then, focuses on two pragmatic issues outlined when introducing the case studies. The first concerns the extent to which the children engaged in inquiry mathematics. and the second concerns the nature of the learning opponunities that arose in the course of their smallgroup imeractions. Next, Piagetian and Vygotslc.ian perspectives on social interaction and learning are considered in light of the case studies. Finally, the pedagogical implications of the case studies are discussed.
Cognitive and Social Aspects of SmallGroup Activity The case studies indicate that the four groups of children established markedly different social relationships. In each
case.
the individual children's situated
cognitive capabilities appeared to constrain the type of relationship they developed. For example. Katy but nOI Ryan was able 10 routinely partition lwodigit numbers. Further, she but not Ryan became able 10 create abstract composite units of len in
3.
LEARNING AND SMAllGROUP INTERACTION
103
the absence ofsituatiorHpecific imagery. This, in tum, enabled her to cOOn! by lens and ones on the hundreds board. 1bese differences in the two children's cognitive l were apparent in the tension that characterized their smallgroup capabiities relationship in that Kat)' felt obliged to explain her solutions and help Ryan understand, whereas he felt obliged 10 solve tasks for himself. The differences in Michael's and Holly's cognitive capabilities were the most pronounced of any of the groups, and this was reflected in the social relationship they established. with Holly as the mathematical aumority. Andrea and Andy appeared to be the most cognitively compatible of the four groups al the outset, in thaI there was no iodication thai ant could reason in significantly more advanced ways than the other. Significnntly. neither child seemed (0 regard either the self Of the other as a mathematical authority in the group. The relationship between Jack's and Jamie's cognitive capabilities and the smal.lgroup relationship they established is con founded by Jamie's role as the socia) authority in the group. As a consequence, the nature of their interactions tended to reflect the difficulty ofa task for Jamie rather than the differences in their cognitive Capabilities. The case studies indicate that the relationships the children established both facilitated and constrained the occurrence of learning opportunities, thereby influ encing each child's mathematical development. The tension in Katy's and Ryan's views of their own and the other's role was realized in frequent argumentative exchanges that facilitated both children's mathematical development. In contrast. Holly, as the mathematical authority. was obliged to explain her thinking to Michael, who was obliged to listen and to adapt to her activity. Exchanges of this sort rarely appeared to give rise to learning opportunities for either child. The reciprocity in Andrea's and Andy's views of their mathematical competence was indicated by the way in which they frequenl1ychaUenged each OIher's explanations. However, as a consequence of the difficulty they had in establishing a takenas shared basis for mathematicaJ communication, these exchanges did nOI appear to be particularly productive for either child Jamie, in his role as the social authority of the group, typically regulated the way in which he and Jack interacted. In doing so, he acted as though Jack was a resource for his own learning, with the consequence that their smallgroup interactions were more beneficial for him than for Jack.. The central notion that characterizes the relationship bet.....een the cognitive and social aspects ofsmallgroup activily is thai ofconstraints (Cobb, Wood, & Yackel, 1992). The very fact thaI it is possible to imagine a variety of alternative social relationships thai children with particular cognitive capabilities might establish indicates that the link between the cognitive and social aspects is not delenninistic. This is. perhaps, most apparent in Jack and Jamie's case, in that Jamie's role as the social authority did not appear to have a cognitive basis. No doubt, the nature of their interactions would have been very different had Jamie routinely given Jack the opportunity to develop his own personally meaningful solutions. It can be noted in passing that, with the possible exception ofmis group, issues of statUS within the peergroup culture that seem endemic at higher grade levels (cf. Linn, 1992) appeared to have liule influence Of! the children's interactions.
104
COBB
Although !he children's interactions changed in the teacher's presence (Yackel, chap. 4, this volume). the social relationships they had established were relatively stable for the IOweek periodcovered by the video recordings. Further, within each group, the children's cognitive capabilities relative 10 those ofthe partner were also stable. The only exception to this observation occurred dwing the last session in which Katy and Ryan worked together. Then, for the first time, Ryan produced several solutions thai were beyond the �m ofKaty's developmental possibilities. and she appeared to revise her view ofherselfas the mathematical authority in the group. With this exception noted, it seems reasonable loconcJude thatthe children's cognitive capabilities and the social relationships they estabUshed tended to stabi· lize each other. Further analyses of smallgroup activity are needed to clarify whether this was an incidental characteristic of these four groups, or whether it s i a more generaJ phenomenon.
Inquiry Mathematics 'The extent to which the children engaged in inquiry mathematics is addressed by first considering the quality of their smallgroup activity and then comparing this to their activity in the individual interviews. SmallGroup Norms.
As past of her attempt to foster the development of an
inquiry mathematics tradition in herclassmom, the teacher guided the development of conain smallgroup noems. These included explaining one's mathematical thinking to the partner. listening to and attempting to make sense of the panner's explanations, challenging explanations that do not seem reasonable. justifying interpretations and solutions in response to challenges. and agreeing on an answer and. ideally, a solution method. TIle case studies indicate that the teacher was reasonably successful in this regard (cr. Wood, chap. 6, this volume, for a further discussion ofthe teacher's role in the classroom), The most obvious exception was Jamie's frequent failure to either explain his own thinking or give Jack the opponunity to develop his own personally meaningful solutions. This was one feature o(his role 3S the social authority of tnc group. In addition. it was observed that Michael rarely challenged Holly's explanations. This deference to Holly. the mathematical authority in the group. might have reflected the relatively large difference in the two children's cognitive capabilitics. Mathematical Objects and Procedural Instructions.
It will be recalled that, in cognitive tenns. inquiry mathematics involves creating and acting on experientially real mathematical objects. In sociological terms., it involves partici pating in the development of a takenasshared mathematical reaJity. The children's smallgroup activity provides numerous indications that the teacher was generally successful in guiding the development of an inquiry mathematics tmdition. For example. although Katy demonstrated that shecoold pcdorm the standard addition algorithm in her interview, she did nOl. do so with any regularity in the smallgroup
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTERACTION
105
sessions until she had made: a major conceptual reorganization and could give the steps of the algorithm numerical signifJCance. This indicates thai she considered this solution method to be inappropriate until she could explain it in IcnnSoractions on mathematical objects. In addition. both Ryan and Andy. who had not made this conceptual reorganization, rejected their panners' use of the standard a1gorithm. On one occasion, Andy in fact referred to it somewhat disparagingly up a bunch of numbers."
as
"mixing
lbe case studies also indicate that counting by tens and ones on the hundreds
bolIld generally seemed to involve: the creation ofcountingbased abstract compos ite units of ten. Several instances were documented in which children who could not create units of this type in the: absence of situationspecific imagery ancmpted 10 imitate the partner who coumed by lens and ones. In each case, the children gave
up the attempt. presumably because their counting aclS did nol have numerical signi.ficance for them. Overall, seven of the eight children were rarely, if ever, observed solving tasks by following procedural instructions. instead. within the consllainlSoftheir small·group relationships, they attempted to develop personally meaningful solutions that carried !he significance of acting on arithmetical objects. Andrea was the one exception to this conclusion, in that she produced instru mental solutions that involved following procedural instructions both in her inter view and when working with Andy. During the teaching experiment, it was apparent that her beliefs about the nature of mathematical activity were al odds with those of the other members of the class. The case studies clarify why she did not reorganize her beliefs: It appears that she was frequently unable to make mathematical interpretations that were compatible with those of the teacher and the other children. This was panicularly the case when she established collection based numerical meanings while attempting to solve missing addend and missing subtrahend wo. In these instances, it might well have appeared 10 her that the other children were solving tasks by following some unknown procedural instruc tion. If this was the case, her experiences in the classroom would have tended to
rather than to conflict with her instrumental beliefs. She would then have no reason to reorganize her beliefs (d. Krummheuer's discussion ofdifferent
corroborate
framings, chap. 7, this volume).
Interviews and SmallGroup Sessions.
Arguments concerning the so cially situated nature ofcognition raise the possibility thal lhe children might have experienced the interviews and smallgroup sessions as different social situations.
A5 it transpired, the interviews were reasonably good predictors oftheir mathemat ical activity in the classroom. This does not. of course, mean that the interviews somehow tapped the children's pure cognitions. undistorted by social influence. Instead, it indicates that the obligations they altem�ed to fulfill to be effective in the interviews were similar to those that they attempted to fuJfill in the classroom (cf. Lave & Wenger. 1991). In Andrea's case, this could involve following proce dural instructions, whereas ror the Olher chi l dren it involved engaging in inquiry mathematics activity.
106
COBB
Michael was !he most obvious exccption to this general conclusion. In the classroom. he typica1ly attempted to develop personally meaningful solutions mal had numerical significance for him. However, in his interview. his solutions to the stripsandsq uares tasks appeared to be somewhat instrumental in nature. It appears thai while intetaeting with the interviewer, he learned 10 be effective by differen tiating between the numberword sequences used to count a collection of strips and those used to count a collection of individual squares. In doing so, he seemed 10 view the strips as singletons ruther than as composites of 10 units of one. The interViewer, for his part. was nol aware that Michael might have been solving the [aSks in this way. Al lhe time, the interviewer in fact thought that his interventions were generally successful and that Michael had rwrganized his conceptual activity and was counting abstract composite units of len. However, an analysis of their intc:ractions suggests thatMichael interpreted these interventions as indications that his mathematical activity was inapproprirue. For him, the interview then became a situation in which he was obliged to figure out how the interviewer wanted him to solve the tasks. Thus, the interviewer unknowingly supported Michael's develop ment of solutions that were based on numberword regularities rather than numer· ical meanings. The miscommunication between Michael and the interviewer emphasizes the imponance of viewing interviews as social events. It is essential to coordinale an analysis of the child's cognitive activity with an analysis of the obligations and expectations that are negotiated. Only then is it possible to infer what the socially constituted tasks might be for the child and thus what his or her intentions and purposes might be. As a funher poinl. the analysis ofMichael's interview calls into question claims made in discussions of so·called scaffolding instruction that focus almost exclusively on what the adult does to support the child's activity, and on changes in the child's observed solutions to specific types of tasks.
Learning Opportunities Univocal explanation.
Michael and Holly routinely engaged in interactions that involved univocal explanation both when their solutions were in conmct and when Holly judged that Michael did not understand. In these interac1ions, Holly. as the mathematical authority, was obliged to explain her solutions. Michael, for his part. was obliged to try to understand her mathematical activity. Even though Holly attempted to fulfill her obligation of helping Michael understand, there was no indication that these exchanges were productive for either child. This conclusion indicates that the mere act of explaining does not necessarily give rise to learning opponunilies. In this regard, Webb (1989) contended that giving help facilitales a sludenl's learning only if the helperclarifies and organizes his or her thinking while explaining a solution in new and different ways. Further, Pirie (personal communication, August 1991) reponed that interactions involving univocal explanations can be productive when one student is an active, participa· tory listener. However. Michael rarely asked clarifying questions or indicated
3.
LEARNING AND SMAlLGROUP INTERACTION
'07
which aspects of Holly's solutions he did not understand. Consequently, Holly merely described how she had solved a task when she gave an explanation. i noc possible to unequivocally explain why Michael did nOI play a Although it s more active role, it can be noted that the differences in his and Holly's conceptual possibilities may have been such thai it was difficult for them to establish a viable basis for mathematical communication. In any event. it seems premature
10
conclude from Michael and Holly's case study that smallgroup relationships in which one child is the established mathemaLical authority must inevitably be unproductive.
Muffivocal Explanation.
BoI:h groups of Ryan
and Katy and Andrea and
Andy engaged in mullivocalcxplanalions with some regularity. In Ryan and Katy's case, exchanges characterized by argument and counterargument appeared to give
rise to learning opportunities for both children. In addition, they sometimes developed novel joint solutions. Further, they both seemed to believe that they had solved a task for themselves when they participated in these exchanges. This was not the case when Ryan responded to a sequence of questions that Katy posed in an attempt to lead him through her solutions. In general. the comparison of Katy and Ryan's and Michael and Holly's case studies indicates the need to take account oftile social situations that children establish when assessing the role that particular activities such as explaining can play in their mathematical development (for a further description of this dyad. see YaCkel. chap. 4. this volume). In contrast 10 Ryan and Katy. interactions involving multivocal explanation did not appear to be particularly productive for eimer Andrea or Andy. They had difficulty establishing a takenas·shared basis for communication and, as a conse. quence, frequently talked past each other. The difficulties they eJlperienced "p" peared to reflect differences in boI:h their beliefs about mathematical activity and their interpretations of particular tasks. It was nOled, for example. that an explana tion for Andrea could involve stating the steps of a procedural instruction, whereas for Andy ;1 had 10 carry numerical significance. As a consequence, there were occasions when Andrea felt that she had adequately explained a solution and Andy persisted in asking her 10 explain what she was doing. Further, as was observed when accounting for the penistence of Andrea's instrumental beliefs. her interpre. tations of tasks were sometimes at odds with !hose of Andy, the teacher, and the omer memberofthe class. As a consequence, exchanges that might have given rise to learning opportunities for both children instead often resulted in feelings of frustration.
Direct Collaboration.
Interactions that involved direct collaboration did not
appear to be particularly productive for any of me children. Consider, for example. a collaborative solution in which one child reads the problem statement. the other counts 10 solve it on the hundreds board, and the fil1it child records the answer. This example is paradigmatic in that the children typically engaged in direct collabora lion when a lask was routine for both of them and the inlended solution was taken as shared. As a consequence of this compatibility in their intetpretations. the
108
COBB
possibility thai learning opportunities might arise was relatively remote (for a funher description of this dyad. see Yackel. chap. 4, this volume),
Indirect Collaboration.
Jack and Jamie were theanly group who engaged in
indirect collaboration with any regularity. In these silU3lions, they thought aJoud while apparently solving
tasks independently. However. the way in which they
frequently capitalized on each other's comments indicates that they were, in fact, monitoring each other's activity 10 someextenl. Learning opportunities arose when what onechlld said and did happened to besignificant for the other al thai particular moment within
the context of his ongoing activity. 1be occurn:nce of such
opponunilles, of course, requires a reasonably wellestablished basis for commu· nicalicn. In its absence, Jack andJamie would merely have engaged in independent aelivily (for a further description of the argumentation pallem berween Jack and Jamie, see Krummheuer, chap. 7. this volume).
Summary.
Acomparison oflhc learning opponunities that arose for the four
pairs of children indicates that interactions involving both indirect collaboration and multivocal explanation can be productive.
The former type of interaction
occurs when both children are still attempting to arrive at a solution, and the latter type occurs when they attempt to resolve conflicting interpretations. solutions, and answers. In both cases, the establishment of a takenasshared basis for communi cation seems essential if learning opponunitics are to occur. Significantly, both types of interaction involve a reciprocity in the children's roles, with neither being the mathematical authority. In contrast, learning opportunities were relatively infrequent for the one pair ofchildren who routinely engaged in univocal explana tion. As a caveat. it should be noted that situations of this type might be productive if one child is an active participatory listener.
Piagetian Perspectives (1967) discussion of the role of intellectual interchange in cognlllve development focused on qualitative changes in children's logicomathematical Piagel's
conceptions. In the courseofhis analysis, Piaget delineated three requirements that interchanges between peers need to satisfy in order to contribute to cognitive reorganization (Rogoff.
1990). The first is that there be a reciprocity between the
partners such that the children have an awareness of and interest in exploring alternatives to their own perspective. In the teaching experiment classroom. the teacher's attempts to initilUe and guide the renegotiation of classroom social nonns served 10 suppon the development of this awareness and interest. For example. children who Deted in accord with the smallgroup norms of explaining their thinking and auempting to understand the panner's thinking
were
necessarily
exploring alternatives to their own perspective. Although the teacher had a fair measure of success in guiding the establishment of these nonns, it was observed that Jamie, the social authority in his group. had no interest in jacK's perspective
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGROUP INTERACTION
109
when a task was routine for him. Further, Michael viewed Holly as II mathematical authority and rarely questioned orchaJlengcd herexplanations. ln line with Piaget's analysis, neither of these relationships was particularly productive, whereas ex changes in which Katy and Ryan responded to each other's explanations. justifica tions. and challenges frequently gave rise to learning opportunities. The frequent referc:DCes made earlier to the teacher's role in guiding !he development of social nonns indicate the need to transcend the restrictions of a purely cognitive analysis. In panicular. it seems essential to locate the children's developing awareness of and interest in each other's perspectives within the broader classrom o social context thai they and the teacher established. Only then
can their awareness and interest be viewed as both a cognitive achievement and as an aspect of the classrom o microculture. The second requirement for productive exchanges identified by Piaget is that the panners must have attained sufficienl inlersubjectivity to allow them to explore the existence and value of alternative perspectives. In other words, the children must have developed a taken..asshared basis for mathematical communication (cf. Voigt. chap. 5, this volume). The comparison of Ryan and Katy's activity with that of Andrea and Andy when they engaged in multivocaJ explanation illustrates this point. These exchanges were producth'e for Ryan and Katy. who had established a takenassharc:d basis for mathematical communication. However, Andrea and Andy frequently developed feelings of frustration as they talked past each other while attempting to resolve conflicts. The case studies indicate that the differences in the children's cognitive capa bilities influenced the extent to which each pair was able to establish a takenas shared basis for mathematical communication. However, il should also be nOled that, with the exception of Andrea. the teacher had influenced their beliefs as she guided the renegotiation ofclassroom norms. As a consequence, all but Andrea had a takenasshared understanding of what counted as a problem. a solution. an explanation, and a justification. Funher, the children's mathematical development was both facilitated and constrained by their panicipation in the mathematical practices of the classroom community. Thus. as was the case when discussing the reciprocity ofperspectives. it is essential to go beyond a purely cognitive analysis. Only then can the children's attempts to communicate effectively be related to their participation in the classroom microculture. '(be third requirement proposed by Piaget is that children conserve their claims
and conjectures and thus avoid contmdicting themselves. As the case studies indicate. the second graders did, for the most part., avoid contradicting themselves when they engaged in mathematical argumentation. It is tempting to account for this observation by referring to the genesis ofthe children's development oflogical thought. However. the findings of an investigation reported by Balacheff (1991) call into question a purely cognitive explanation of this type. In Bruacheff's study. secondary school students first wOfked in groups and then discussed their solutions in a wholeclass setting. 8alacheff found that these students often challenged others' solutions on the basis or apparently superficial features such as their simplicity or complexity. Further, he observed that "some students can move in the
110
COBB
same argumcmation from one position 10 another which is completely contradic
tory" (p. 186), As a consequence, solutions were often accepted by the class, "provided some modification had bee n made, but their validity had not really been discussed" (p.
186), Billig's (1987) arguments concerning the importance of criticism of inconsis
tency help clarify why the second graders generally conserved their claims and conjecrures, whereas some o f B alacheff's secondary school students did nol do so. The students in Balachetrs investigation were nol challenged when, from the aduh
perspective. they contradicted themselves. Consequently, they continued to be effective in the classroom when their arguments were inconsislenL In conlTaSt. the second graders in the project classroom had learned to challenge each other when inconsistent arguments were proposed (Yackel & Cobb, 1993). The teacher had played an active role in bringing this about. by initialing and guiding the renegoci alion of what counts as an acceptable explanation andjustification in her classroom. Thus, in place of a purely cognitive explanation, it is again necessary to consider the differing norms or standards of argumentation established by the two classroom communities when accounting for the apparent connict between BalacheWs findings and Ihe smallgroup case studies. In general. the case studies are consislenl with Piaget's analysis of intelleclual interchange. However, for each of Ihe three requirements for productive inter changes lhal he identified, it seems necessary to coordinate psychological and sociological perspectives by considering aspects of the classroom microcullure. In this regard, the case studies substantiate Bauersfeld's (1992) claim that an analysis of smallgroup interactions must take account of the classroom social conte.xt jointly established by the teacher and students. The social aspect of productive exchanges i s funher highlighted by the consis tency between the case studies and Halliday and Hasan's (1985) characterization of discourse in terms of its field, tenor, and mode. The field of discourse refers to the general nature of people's social actions and involves the specification of what is happening that requires them 10 use language Oil a given time and place. These issues were addressed in the case studies by discussing boI:h Lhe classroom mathe matics tradition or microculture and the wholeclass and smallgroup norms. The
tenor ofdjscourse refers to who is laking pan., the nature of the participants, and their permanent or temporary status and roles. This aspect of discourse corresponds 10 the smaJlgroup relationships thai were identified by analyzing the children's Obligations and expectations. Finally, the mode ofdiscourse refers to what part Ihe language is playing, that is, what it is thaI the panicipants ate expecting the language 10 do for them in a particular situation (e.g., persuade, teach, clarify, declare, elc.). Here, Halliday and Hasan seemed to be concerned with the taken asshared nature of a linguistic act. The case studies deal with this aspect of discourse by specifying the social situations the children established in the course of their interactions. Thus, the function of an explanation in an interaction involving univocal explanation differs from its function in multivocal explanation. In the former case il might be to impart information, whereas in the latter case il might be to convince or persuade.
3.
LEARNING AND SMAllGROUP INTERACTION
111
Vygotskian Perspectives Piagel's discussion of the relation between social inlerOClion and learning was structured by his focus on qualitative shifts in children's logicomathcmatical conceptions. VygOlsky's (1960) treatment of these same issues was premised on it different SCI of assumptions, the most wellknown of these is captured in the following frequently cited passage:
Any higher meow function wasextcmal and 5CXial before i t was internal. It was once a social relationship between two people.... We can formulaic the general genetic law of cultural development in the foUowing way. Any function appears twice or on IWO planes . . .. It appeilI'S fiJ"5t between people as an intcnnc:ntaJ calegory. and then within the child as an intnunentaJ clllegel)'. (pp. 197198) Thus, for Vygolsky. individual psychological processes are derived from and generated by interpersonal relationships. Further, as this passage indicates. Vygotsky assumed thai an asymmetry between the child and his or her social environment was the normative case.In his vicw, it is thc aduh's responsibility 10 help the child perform actions thaI a� beyond his or her individual competcnce. As a consequence, Vygotsky was concerned about situations in which a peer group is lcft to cooperate without adult supel"Yision (van dcr Veer & VaJsincr, 199J). The invcstigation of smallgroup collaborativc activity has, thcreforc, not been a primary intcrest of researchcr5 working in the Vygotskian tradition. An cxamplc of an analysis conducted in this tradition is provided by Ncwman,
Griffin, nnd Cole's (1989) attempt to account for smallgroup Icarning in science in terms of the internalization of intermental actions that are socially distributed across the group. Forman's (1992) analysis of discourse and intersubjectivity in peer collaboration constitutes a second example.Shc argued that students have to coordinate two forms of discourse when they are asked to collaborate 10 learn in school. One of these is the cooperative attitude of everyday discourse, and the othcr is the academic discourse of the mathematics register. These and other analyses conducted in the Vygotsk.ian tradition typically subordinate individual thought to social and cullura! processes. In contrast, the view developed in the case studies is that of a renexive relation between psychological and sociocultural processes. with neither being subordinated 10 the other. The importance that Vygotsky attribuled 10 social interaction and interpersonal relations was complemented by IUs cmphasis on the
use
of cultural tools such as
mathematical symbols. Thus. he argued "that children's participation in cullural activities with the guidance of more skilled panners allows children 10 internaliz.e the tools for thinking" (Rogoff. 1990, p. 13). This implies that "children's cognitivc development mustbeunderstood not onlyas taking place with social suwort in interaction
withothers, but alsoas involving thedevelopmentof skill with sociohisttricallydeveloped tools that modialc iruellectual activil)''' (Rogoff, 1990, p. 35). Rogoff quoted Leont'ev (1981) 10 further clarify this sociocultund �pcctive on the relationship belween cultural tools and the development ofindivKJual thought.
112
COBB
(For VygotskyJ the 1001 mediates activity and thus COIlnects humans no! only with the worki of objects but also with other people. Because of this, humans' activity
assimiales (their ''higher psychological fundions'1 acquire a structure necessarily Lied to the sociohiSloricaUy formed means and mc:thods (i.e., cultural toots) transmitted to them by othen; in the process of cooperauve labor and social inler:JClion. (Leont'ev. 1981. p. 55; quoted in Rogoff. 1990, p. 13) II is in this sense that sociocultural theorists working in the VygolSkian ll'adition view cultural tools as eaniers of meaning from one generation 10 the next. B:wcrsfeld (1990) noted lhat Vygotsky called them objective lools 10 emphasize that they serve as mediator objects lhat, by their use, relate the individua1 to his or her intellectual inheritance, the mathcmatica1 knowledge of the cullute. Rogoff(l990) attempted to resolve the apparenlconniclS between Piagclian and Vygotskian accounts of development by suggesting thai qualitative shifts of the (ype investigated by Piagel mighl require shated communication and an awareness o f others' perspectives. whereas a simple explanation or demonstration might be sufficient when children learn 10 use culturally developed lools ror thinking. The case studies allow us to address Rogoff's speculation directly because. in sociocul tural temtS, they document the children's appropriation or mastery of a particular cultural tool. that of our conventional positional numeral system. The children's counting on the hundreds board is particularly significant in this regard because the columns were composed of numeral sequences such as 7, 17.27. . . It will be .
recalled that two of the children, Katy and Holly, developed solutions that involved coonting by tens and ones on the hundreds board during the I Oweek period covered by the case studies. The discussion details both the advances they made and the changing meanings thai they gave 10 numeral sequences on the hundreds board In .
addition. the interpretations that the two girls' smallgroup partners, Ryan and Michael, gave to their solutions are also considered. This analysis or the ways in which the children interpreted and used the hundreds board then provides a contexl in which 10 compare Vygotskian treatments of cultural 1001 use with what emerges rrom the case studies.
Orientation: The Social Setting.
As the focus is on individual children's
mathematical constructions, it is importanllo note that KalY's and Holly's learning did not
in a social vacuum. A small number of children in the class could already count by lens and ones on the hundreds board in January. The teacher occur
frequently legitimized these children's explanations by redesctibing them in terms that she hoped might be more comprehensible 10 other children. by asking these children to demonstrale their solutions to the class. and by emphasizing that this was quicker than counting by ones. Thus, the children who could only count b y ones had every opportunity 10 realize that there was a more efficient way or using the hundreds board. Funher, although the leacher continued t o stress that the children should solve tasks in ways that were meaningful to them and tried to ensure that they did not feel obliged 10 blindly imitate this way of counting. she nonetheless
3.
LEARNING AND SMALl.GAOUP INTERACTION
113
gave every indication thai she valued these solutions.From the observer's perspcc� live, the teacher was attempting to establish counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board as a takenasshared mathematical practice. For their part. the two children who made this advance contributed 10 the estabJishmeni of this practice by giving explanations thai the teacher could capitalize on for the benefit of other children.
Katy.
Katy's solutions during her January interview indicated that she could
create abstract composite units of ten by relying on situationspecific imagery. Nonetheless. she counted exclusively by ones when she used the hundreds board during the five smallgroup sessions lhal followed the interview. She was first observed counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board in the sixth session, which occurred on January 27. This advance, in lum, appeared to reneel a reorganization she made in her counting activity in the proceeding session (January 26). Then, she first solved the task "How many do you have 10 add to ill::: [36) to make IDII:. [53)?'" by counting on by ones from 36 to 53. However, she subse quently curtailed her counting activity and created ten as a numerical composite when she explained her solution to Ryan. I Katy:
Here. you bave thai many numbers. 36, and you add 10 more makes 46 (holds up both hands with all 10 fingers extended). 47,48 ...53 (puts up 7 fingers as she counts).
2 Ryan:
Katy. look, you have to take away a 10 [the remainder of this statement is inaudible].
3 Katy:
I'll show you how I got my number.See, you have 36. and add 10 more makes 46 (holds up both hands with all 10 fingers extended). 47, 48 ... 53 (puts up 7 fingers as she counts'.Do you agree with 17?
Here, Katy's acts of holding up all 10 fingers anticipated the visual result she would have produced had she counted by ones to 46. This solution was novel when compared with those she produced during the incH vidual interview in that it did not appear to involve a reliance on situationspecific imagery. On the following day. January 27. Katy curtailed her counting activity still further when she solved a sequence of number sentences. Instead ofholding up all 10 fingers, she solved the sentence 31 + 19",
_
by reasoning, "31 plus 19 ... is ..
. 31, makes 41. 42. 43 . SO." This suggests that she may have created an abstract composite unit of ten in an imageindependent manner.Later in this same session, . .
she was observed counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board for the first time. In this situation, she began to solve the sentence 39
+ 19 by saying "39 . plus 10.39 plus 10 ..... and then ''39,49.... . Ryan and look the hundreds board he was using 10 solve the task as follows: "39, '"
_
49, that's 10" (points to 39 and 49 on the hundreds board), 4950, 51, 52 ...58" (counts tbe corrcsponding squares on the hundreds board). Oucially. in developing
114
COBB
this solution, Kat)' appeared to conceptualize 19 as a unit of 10 and 9 more before she began 10 count on the hundreds board. Counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board subsequently became one of the roUline ways in which Katy solved a wide range of tasks. 10ere was no indication that her use of the hundreds board played any appreciable role in supporting the advance she made. Instead. it seems thai counting by lens and ones on the hundreds board was a consequence of her newly developed ability to create abstract composite unilS of len in the absence of situationspecific imagery. However, severa] solutions that she subsequently developed suggest thai using the hundreds board might facilitate children's conceptual constructions once they can count by lens and ones. For example. in the very first session in which she was observed counting in this way, January 27. Kat)' explained to Ryan that she had solved the sentence 60 31 as follows: (Counts on the hundreds board from 
=
_
60 10 50 by ones) "Ten, that's 10, now we have 21 more to go (counts from.50 (0 40 by ones), 10, thal.'s 2 tens, now we need 1 more ten, (counts from 40 to 30 by ones), 10,
and then 1 more makes 29." In giving this explanation, Katy demon
strated that she could reflect on and monitor her activity of creating composite units of len when she used the hundreds board. An exchange that occurred a week later (February 3) with one of the researchers indicates that her use of the hundreds board supponed her reflection on her ongoing activity. In this episode.Katy first solved the task. "How many do you hove to take away from 74 to leave Ill::.
135]7' by routinely counting from 74 to 35 on the hundreds
board. "10, 20, 30, 1.2. 3 . , .939," At this point, the researcher intervened. I Researcher. Katy. could you do board? 2 Katy:
that problem without using the hundreds
We know we have that number 1741 and we have that many left
135J, so if you have that many (35], you just go up. 3 Researcher. How would you go up? Uke. 3545, 55, 65, 7 5 , but that's too much. So you take away 4 Katy: a I and then you have ... 74.
5 Resean::her. So how many do you have to add to 35 to make 74? You have 3545, 55, 65, 75 (slaps her open hands on the desk 6 Katy: each time she perfonns a counting act), then you take 1 away, then it's too much, then you take I away and you will have ... 74.
In both of these auempts to solve the
task without using the hundreds board, the
composite units of ten she created while counting did not seem to be objects of reflection for her. In other words, although both the counting sequences she completed during the exchange with the researcher seemed to carry the significance of incrementing by tens, she seemed unable to step back from her ongoing activity and monitor what she was doing. By way of contrast. her explanation of 60 31 
_
::.
indicates thaI she was aware of what she was doing as she created abstract
3.
lEARNING AND SMALLGROUP INTERACTION
115
composite unitsoflen.1t sec:ms rcasonable to speculate that her usc of the hundreds
board was crucial in making this reflection possible. Holly's solutions to interview tasks indicated that,like Katy, she could
Holly.
create abslraCl composite units of ten by relying on situationspecific imagery. In addition. she used a partitioning algorithm to solve balance tasks throughout the time that she wasobserved working with Michael. In this case. an act of partitioning a Iwodigit numeral such as 53 symbolized forher the conceplual actor partitioning the number it signified (i.e.,.53 partitioned into 50 and 3 rather than 5 and 3). Despite these reasonably sophisticaled conceptions, Holly counted on the hundreds board eXClusively by ones during the first six smallgroup sessions. Further, in contnlSt 10 Kat)'. counting by lens and ones on the hundreds board did
not become a routine solution method for her. Although she was observed counting in this way on t�e different occasions, each seemed to involve a local, situation specific advance. SignificanUy. there was no indication that Holly could create abstract composite units of ten in an imageindependent manner when she gave number words and numerals countingbased meanings. Holly was firsl observed counting on the hundreds board by tens and ones on February 2,when she worked with Michael and Kaly. Throughout the session, Katy routinely counted by tens and ones. As it so happened. Holly had drawn three collections of 10 tally marks and 7 individual marle.s to solve a task corresponding to 37 + 2S =_ when she saw Katy count on the hundreds board: "25 plus 10 makes
35, plus 10 makes 45. plus 10 makes 55. 1.2.3,4.5,6,7 ... 62." The way in which she subsequently began to solve tasks by counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board indicates thatshe intClpreted Katy'ssolution against the backdrop ofherown imagesupported creation of composites of ten. For example. she explained to Michacl that she had solved a rask corresponding 10 37 + 57 =_ a s follows: (Points on the hundreds board) '1 smned al57 and I counted down 10. 20. 30. and then I counted these I,2,3, 4,5, 6,7. and I came up with 94." In contrast, she counted exclusively by ones when she used the hundreds board the following day (February 3). It would, therefore, seem that the advance she made was specific 10 her interactions with Katy and. further, that her drawing of groups of 10 tally marks was crucial. The other two occasions when Holly was observed counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board also seemed to be situation specific. The first of these solutions occurred on March 2. when she and Michael solved a sequence of story problems involving money. This solution. in tum, seemed 10 build on a prior advance that she made while solving the task, "Krista has this much money. IA picture shows coins whose total value is 37�.1 She has 25� less than Larry. How much money does Larry have?" In this situation. she explained her solution to Michael
as
follows: "Add 10 cents. that makes 47, then add another 10,57. then
58,59.60, 61. 62." Her explicit reference to coin values ("add 10 cents") suggests that situationspecific imagery may have supported her conceptualization of the 25� as two units of JO and 5 more.
116
COBB
Later in Ihis same session, she used a hundreds board 10 solve the task, "Scott has this much moneY.IApiclure shows coins with a lotal value of 42�.J He has 30¢ more than Susan. How much money does Susan have?" To do so, she first counted the values of the pictured coins and then reasoned: "Then take away, 42,41.40, 39, 38, 37.36.35, 34.... I can '( do Ihis. We need the hundreds board (picks one up), 42 (points to 42 on the board and then moves her finger up three rows)12." Given the nature of her solution to the preceding money word problem. it seems reasonable to infer that the composite units she counted when she moved up three rows on the hundreds board were image supported. The final occasion on which Holly counted by tens and ones on the hundreds board occurred on March 23, when she solved a balance task cOlTesponding to 16 + 16 + 16
=
_.
As noted previously, Holly had used her partitioning algorithm
routinely to solve wu of Ihis type since the beginning of January. 1£ she interpreted this task in this way, she would have created composite units of ten only because all the addends happened to be in the teens. In other words, if one of the addends had been, say,36, she would have created 30 and 6 rather than 3 units of to and 6. Given that this solution was the only occasion during the session when she counted by lens and ones on the hundreds board, it seems reasonable to suggest that she did create units of ten in this situationspecific way. Her counting acts would, then. be expressions of the tens and sixes she created before she began 10 count. In summary, there was no indication that Holly's use of the hundreds board played a significant role in supporting the temporary conceptual advances she made. On those occasions when she did count by lens and ones, she seemed to create abstract composite units of ten before she began to count. Thus, as was the case with Katy, counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board appeared to be a consequence of rather than the cause of her wk interpretations. In contrast to Katy, solutions of this type did not become routine for Holly. presumably because she could not create composite units of len in an image independent manner when she gave number words and numerals counting based meanings. Ryan.
During his interview. Katy's panner. Ryan. created abstract com
posite units of ten by relying on situationspecific imagery. Further, during his interview, he was asked how far he would have to count if he staned a l 4 3 and went to 53. He gave 10 as his answer and explained that he knew this because of the hundreds board. Nonetheless, he was never observed spontaneously counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board despite Katy's repeated attempts to explain her solutions to him. For example. on January 27. Ryan counted by ones on the hundreds board to solve the sentence 38 + 52. _
I Ryan:
2 Katy: 3 Ryan:
=
I'll start at 38. Plus ten makes 48. No.look (anempts to count on the hundreds board by ones from 38 to 52}16.
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGROUP INTERACTION
117
Hen::, in saying "Plus IOmakes 48," Katy seemed to be suggesting that Ryan curtail counting by ones. lbe way in which he flatly rejected this proposal indicates that it had nothing to do with solving the task from his point of view. Further. as was documented in his case study. the possibility that Kat}' created units of tcn when she counted efficiently on the hundreds board did not occur 10 him.
'Then:: were only two occasions when Ryan was observed doing anything other than counting by ooes when he used the hundreds board The fItS! occUJ'T'ed in this .
same session onJanuary 27. when Katy persisted in explaining how she had solved the sentence 39 + 19", Ryan,for his part. argued that the answer was 59. _'
I
Kat)':
(Points on the hundreds board) See, you have 39. and plus 10 m� makes 49S0, 51, 52 ... 58, that's 19, so it has to be 58.
2 Ryan:
Okay. (points on the hundreds board), 10 plus that, 49. and then 50, ,51. 52 ... 59.
In this case, Ryan seemed to accommodate Katy's repeated explanations in an aUempt to justify his answer of 59. The fact that he solved all subsequent tasks in the session by counting by ones suggests that he did not concep(ualizc 19 as a composite unit of 10 and 9 more. Instead, he seemed to imitate her solution by cunailing his count to 59. The second occasion when Ryan attempted to count by tens and ones occurred 7 weeks lateron March 16.ln this instance, he initially solved a task correspol\ding to 17 + = 62 by counting by ones from 17 to 62, whereas Katy counted on the hundreds board, "10, 20,30, 401,2,3, 4, 545".A researcher then asked Ryan _
if Katy had used "an okay method." He replied, "Yes, it's all right." Funher, he reenacted her solution successfully al the second attempt when asked to do so by the researcher. However, as on January 27, he then proceed ed to solve all subse quent tasks by counting by ones. This exchange indicates that he knew how she counted but did not undersland why she did so. In this regard, it should be noted he Dever appeared to create abstract composite units of len in the absence of siruationspccific imagery when he worked with Katy.This inability to create units of ten when interpreting tasks would explain why his technical knowhow with the hundreds board was insufficient. It wouJd also explain why KaIY's concened attempts to explain and demonslJate how she used the hundreds board were unsuccessful.
Michael.
Michael's performance during his individual interview indicated
that the creation of abstract composite units of ten was not within the realm of his developmental possibilities. Funher, unlike Ryan,Michael counted by ones when asked how far he would count if he started at 43 and went to 53. He did., however, know immediately that he would penonn 10 counting acts to get from 4Oto 50 and refeJTed to the hundreds board to explain his answer. Throughout the time that he worked with Holly, Michael was never observed successfully counting by tens and ones on the hundreds board , even when he attempted to imitate one of her solutions. Nonetheless, the facl thal he did attempt
118
COBB
!O solve tasks in this way on one occasion indicates thar. he was aw� iliat there
was a more efficient way of counting on the hundreds board. This attempt occurred on March 5, when he began to count by ones on the hundreds board to solve the task. "How many do you add 10 37 10 get 911" He suddenly SlOpped counting, saying "I've got a faster way." He then counted" I, 2,3 ...9" as he pointed on the hundreds board to the squares 38, 39, 40, SO, 60, 70, SO, 90, 91. Thus. he seemed 10 be creating a path on the board from 37 10 91. Next. he retraced this path by counting (and pointing to squares) as follows: "I (38),2(39). 10 (40), 20(50). 30 (60),40(70). 50(80). 60 (90)," Finally, he decided to check this result by counting by ones and arrived a t an answer of 54. This sequence of solution attempts suggests that. in contrast to Ryan. Michael was yet 10 learn how to count by lens and ones on the hundreds board. For Ryan, moving down acolwnn on the hundreds board from, say,3? 1047, seemed tosignify a curtailment of counting the 10 intervening squares by one. In contrast, it seemed that, for Michael, only the column 10, 20, 30 ...signified the curtailment of counting by ones. A solution attempt
that Michael made on March 23 reveals much about his
understanding of counting on the hundreds board. On that day, he and Holly attempted to solve a task corresponding 10 16 + 16 + 16 =
_.
Holly panitioned the
16s into 10 and 6 and attempted to count by tens and ones. Michael, for his part, coun1ed by ones, bu1 his answer conflicled wilh lhal which Holly proposed. He continued, "I think I can seUle this. 6 and 6 is 12(then altempts 10 count another six on the hundreds board}19. 19 plus 3 ones, 20, 21. 22. so it must be 22." Michael seemed to realize thai Holly had partitioned the 16s. However, as the act of partitioning a Iwodigit numeral suetl as 16 did not symbolize the conceptual act of partitioning the number it signified. the result was 1 and 6 rather than 10 and 6.His count of 3 sixes and 3 ones on the hundreds board was an expression of the task as he understood it.Significantly, his use of the hundrt:ds board did not help him to conceptualize 16 as 10 and 6 when he interpreted Holly's solution.
Conceptually Restructuring the Hundreds Board.
The analyses just pre
sented indicate that the four children's use of the hundreds board did nol support their construction of increasingly sophisticated conceptions of ten. This conclusion is consistent with the problem·solving activity of the other four children included in the case studies. None of these children counted on it effectively by tens and ones to solve tasks.It instead appears that the children's efficient use of the hundreds board was made possible by their construction of increasingly sophisti cated placevalue conceptions. A comparison of the four children's case studies leads to the identification of two steps in this developmental process. The first results in knowing how to count by tens and ones on the hundreds board, and !he second
culminates in the abiJjty to use the hundreds board in this way to solve a wKJe range of tasks. The contrast between Michael's and Ryan's problemsolving efforts clarifies what is involved in making the first of these two developmental steps. Recall that Ryan seemed 10 understand how Katy counted on the hundreds board.This understanding seemed to be based on his realization that moving down
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGAOUP INTERACTION
119
a column from, say. 37 to 47 cunailed counting the 10 intervening squares. He Lherefore gave numerical significance to regularities in the numerals (e.g 7,17, 27, 37 ... ) and. by so doing. structured the hundreds board in terms of numerical .•
composites of 10 units of one.11 seems reasonable to assume thai Michael could also abstract these regularities from the numerals on the hundreds board. During
his individual interview, for example. he produced the number word sequence "4,
14,24 ... 94" when the interviewer first PUI down 4 squares and then repeatedly
pul down a strip of 10 squares. Nonetheless. the hundreds board did not seem to be structured into numericaJ composites of ten for him in the way that it was for Ryan.
Instead,only the column10.20,30 ... seemed to signify lhecunailmentof counting by ones.
Michael's relatively unstructured interpretation of the hundreds board can be accounted for by fiBt noting that a break or pause in the rhytlun of counting by ones occurs at tbe end of each row. These breaks in sensorymotor counting activity
might facilitate the isolation of the count of an intact row (e.g.. 51, 52 ...60) as a
numerical composite of 10 units of one.Counting down the column 10,20, 30 ... would then signify the curtailment of counting along each row by ones. The possibility that Michael had made this construction is supported by his reference to the hundreds boord during his individual interview to explain why he would �rfonn 10counting acts when going from40to 5O.l In contrast. there are no similar breaks or pauses that might facilitate the isolation of, say. 38, 39, 40 ... 47 as a composite of ten.Instead,a pause o:curs in the middle of this sequence of counting acts. Consequently,the process of giving numerical significance to a sequence such a s 7, 17, 27 ... requires the child to transcend the constraints of sensorymotor counting activity. Michael appeared unable to create numerical composites of ten in this imageindependent manner, whereas Ryan was able to do so.
The second developmental step in learning to use the hundreds board a s an efficient problemsolving tool can be clarified by considering why Holly learned
from Katy whereas Ryan did nol. As has been documented, Holly attempted to solve the sentence 37 + 2S by drawing three groups of 10 tally marks and 7 individual mam. This made it possible for her to create abstract composite units '"
_
of ten and thus make sense of Katy's counting activity on the hundreds board. As
a consequence. she knew why Katy had counted on 3 tens and 7 ones from 25.
Ryan. however, seemed 10 misinterpret Katy's counts by tens and ones. Recall, for example, that h e assumed she had misread Ihe sentence 39 + 19", when she said _
"39 plus 10." From his point af view,adding 10 to 39 had nothing to do with solving the task. Although he slrUcturcd the hundreds boord by creating numerical com posites of 10 units of one,there was no indication that thesecamposiles were single
entities or units far him. Further, he did not appear to create abstract composite
units of ten in an image·independent manner when he inlerpreted tasks. Conse quently,the composite units that Katy expressed by countingon the hundreds board by lens and anes did not exist for him. l Even in lhis �.IM hundreds bcunI did no! � M aeanierofmcaning. MK:�I had 10 ab5uact from his KIlSOQ"lI1OIor counting activily to come to this rea]iwiOll. The most Ih.U can be SOlid is th3I coulUing by ones oolhe hundl'eds board was the upc:rienliaJ situalion in which he mad!: this abslIxliOll.
120
COBB
We saw thai Holly could only create composite units of ten in an imagesup poned manner and that the advances she made in using the hundreds board were situation specific. In contrast, there was sb'Ong evidence thai Katy created the composite units she routinely expressed by counting in an imageindependent manner. Her useofthe hundreds board, in turn, enabled herio refleci on and monitor her activity of counting by tcns and ones. It seems reasonable to infer that, for her.
the hundreds board was structured in tenns of abstract composite units of len rather than numerical composites of 10 ones. 1be units often and onc that she expressed by counting were then simply there in the hundreds board as objects of reflection for her. Thus, her ability 10 create absb'"at:1 composite units of ten in an imagein dependent manner made it possible for her to solve a variety of tasks by counting efficiently on the hundreds board. In general. the case studies do nOI support Rogoff's speculation that simple demonsb'ation and explanation might be sufficient when children learn to use a culturally developed tool such as the conventional positional numeral system for thinking. The three requirements (or productive intellectual interchanges identified by Piagel, therefore. seem relevant when considering the types of social interaction that might facilitate children's attempts to use cultural tools. such as mathematical symbols, effectively.
cunural Tools and Mathemstical Activity.
Thus far, the discussion has
emphasized that children's use of a cultural tool such as conventional positional notation is constrained by their current interpretive possibilities. l...es l this account seem onesided, it should also be stressed that children's use of cullura) tools can facilitate their subsequent mathematical de\"elopmenl. For example, Katy used the numeral pallems on the hundreds board when she reflected on and monitored her activity of counting by tens and ones. Because she could creale abstract composite units of ten in an imageindependent manner, the units of ten and of one thai she expressed by counting were simply there in the hundreds board as objects of reflection for her. An()(her instance in which the children's use of a cullural lOOl played an enabling role can be culled from the case studies. This concerns the balance fonnat used to present tasks. The analyses of Ryan's and Holly's mathematical activity indicate that both children's use of the panitioning algorithm was initially limited to balance tasks. This suggests that both children gave different meanings to twodigil numerals when they imerpreled balance lasks and, say. number sentences. In panicular, it would seem that they established numbers as arithmetical objects that could be conceptually partitioned only when they interpreted the notational scheme used 10 present balance tasks. In this regard, it should be noted that one metaphor that was generally taken as shared by the classroom community was that of a number in a box. For exarnple,the teacher and students often spoke of the goal of a balance task to be that of finding lhe number that went in an empty box. Holly, in fact. used this metaphor on January ) 3, when she explained her intCIprelation of a task 10 Michael: "This is a takeaway box.lhis is a takeaway."
3.
LEARNING AND SMAllGROUP INTERACTION
121
One characteristic of the box metaphor is thai its use implies the bounding of whatever is placed inside it (Johnson, 1987). Consequendy, Holly's and Ryan's interpretation of tasks in terms of this takenasshared metaphor may have sup poned their construction of numbers as discrete, bounded entities that they could act on conceptually. To the extent that this was the case, their creation of relatively sophisticated arithmetical entities was facilitated by a taskspecific convention of intetpretation. This explanation does not, of course, imply thai a takenasshared metaphor carries with it a mathematical meaning that is selfevident to the adult. The analysis of Michael's mathematical activity indicated that numcn.ls in boxes did not signify discrete arithmetical object'> for him. Instead, it seems that a metaphor such as that of a number in a box can support some students' active, imapsupportc:d construction of experientially real arithmetical objects. The mathematical significance of the metaphor is lherefore relative to a srudenl's developmental possibilities. Following Saxe
(1991). this discussion can be summarized by saying that the
notational scheme used to present balance tasks was deeply interwoven with Holly's
and Ryan's cognitive activity. A similar point can be made with regard to
the conventional positional numeral system. It was noted. for example, that Katy's
sophisticated counting solutions were based in pan on regularities she abstracted
from
the numerals on the hundreds board. Further, as was the case with the
number·inabox metaphor, the significance of
these: regularities for the children
was relative to their conceptual possibilities. Katy's mathematical reality was such (ilatlhe numeral pattern 7, 17,27 . . meant 10 more. Thus, her use of the hundreds .
board transcended the separation of syntax and semantics (cr. Winograd & Flores,
1986). The two were renexively related in her activity in tilat the numeral patterns both constrained and enabled her numerical intetprttations, and her numerical underslanding made the numeral patterns significant when she used the hundreds board to solve tasks. In contrast, the numeral paltems that Michael had abstracted did not cany numerical significance and,
as
a consequence, did not involve the
integration of syntax and semantics.
A crucial difference between the numberinabox metaphor and the numeral pallemS is, ofCOI.trSe,that the former wasspoc:ific 10 the classroom community, whereas the latter are taken as shared by wider
society. In this regard. when Michael's activity
with the hundreds board is interpreted in tenns ofhis mathematical encultw"ation, it is reasonable 10 say that he had abstracted notnliontd "gulariti�$ thai are consensual with
those constructed by members of wider .society. Katy, in contrast, had constructed a symbolic numerical practice consensual with that of wider society. Here, the tenn symbolic of course implies that syntax and semantics were interrelated reflexively. More generaJly. thisconception ofsymbolic mathematical activity touches on a central a.spoct of mathematical experience discussed by Kaput (1991): One can draw an analogy between the way the architecture or a building organius our experience. especially our physical experience. and the way the architecture of
our mathematical
notation system organizes our
mathematical experience. As thc
physicallcvcl arcllitccture consll'ains and supportS OUt actions in ways thaI we are
often unaware or, so do mathematical notation systems. (p. S5)
122
COBB
In proposing this analogy, Kaput acknowledged VygolSky's contention that our mathematical activity is influenced by the sociohistoricaJly developed tools that we use. The issue at hand concerns the nalure oflhis influence. Ifit is accepted that syntax and semantics
arc
reflexively related, then it is not malhematical notation
per se that constrains our Ihought: rather, it is our enCtlhurruion into consensual symbolic mathematical activities. To the extent thai notational regularities are given mathematical significance, the process of leruning 10 use a cultural 1001 such as a mathematical notation system involves the construction of an experiential mathematical reality that is consensual with those of others who can be said to know mathematics. Consequently, when we use conventionaJ notation individually or when communicating with olhers, we panicipalc in the continual regeneration of a consensual mathematical reaJity, and that consensual reality both conslIains and enables our individual ways of min king and notating. BOIh Mehan and WexxI (1975) and Bruner (1986) drew attention to the more general phenomenon that we create the world about which we speak as we speak about it. The renexivity of linguistic activity in general, and of symbolic mathematical activity i n panicular, indicates that Kaput's analogy is appropriate. We see the abstract mathematical reality we create symbolically as we look though the cultural tools we use.
Vygotskian and Emergent Approaches.
The analysis presented of the
children's conceptual reslTucturing of the hundreds board is reminiscent of VygolSky's (1982) disctlSsion of how a chessboard is perceiVed by people with differing levels of experuse: The one who deles nOl know how 10 play chess perceh'es the structure of the pieces from the perspective of their eJOlema! characteristics. 1be meaning of the pieces and their position on the board fall completely outside of hi s
lor her] perspective. The
vel)' same chessboard provides a different suuclure 10 the person who knows the meanings o{the pieces and the moves. For him lor herI, some parts of the table become
lhe background. others become lhe fOOJs. Yet differently will the mediumlevel and exccllent chess playcrs view of the board. Something like that takes pl ace in the developmenl of the child's perception. Cpp.
277278)
This passage illuslTates mal VygOlSky was interested in qualitative developmental change. The primary difference betwocn his sociocultural perspective and the approach exemplified by the case studies concerns the way in which these changes are
accounted fOf.
In VygOlskian terms: Human thinkingand higher psychological processes in generalarc primarily overt acts conducted in tenos of the objective materials of the common cultutt. and only secondarily a private matter. The origin of aU. specifically human. higher psychological processes. therefo�. cannot be rOllnd in the mind or brain or
an
individual person but rather should be sought in the social "exlracercbral" sign s)'SleJt\S a cultu� provides. (van der Veer & Valsiner 1991. p. 222) .
3.
LEARNING AND SMALLGROUP INTERACTION
123
In conlraSt. the analysis I have presented focuses on i.ndividual children's cogni tive construction of increasingly sophisticated ploccvalue numeration concepts. In this combined constructivist and interactionisl approach, an account of the origin of psychological processes involves analyses of both the conceptual con structions of individual minds and the evolution of the local social worlds in which those minds panicipalc. It is tempting to respond to the conflicting assumptions of the two approaches by claiming that one side or the other has got Ihings right. However. in my view. they have evolved to address different problems and issues. Considering firsllhe sociocultural perspective. VygolSky appeared to have developed his theoretical orientation while addressing problems of cullural diversity and change. In panic uw. he seemed to have been committed to the notion of "the new socialist man" and to have viewed education as a primary means of bringing about this change in Soviet society (Kozulin, 1990; van der Vccr & Valsiner, 1991). FUMer, much of his empirical research focused on differences in the activity of members of different cultural groups in the Soviet Union. 1be vantage point from which he analyzed psychological development appears
to be that of an observer located outside the cuhural group. From this point of view, thought and activity within a cultural group appear to be relatively homogeneous when compared with the differences across groups. An issue that immediately comes to the fore is, then, that of accounting for the social and cultural basis of personal experience. Vygotsky"s sociohistorical theory of development can, in fact, be interpreted as a response to this problem (Korulin, 1990; Wertsch, 198.5). In addressing this issue. it is reasonable to treat learning as primarily a process of encuituration, and to emphasize the crucial role played by both children's interac tions with more knowledgeable others and their mastery of tools that are specific to the culture. From this perspective, placevalue numeration might be viewed as a culturally organiz ed way of thinking whose appropriation involves mastering a cultura1ly specific tool, our numeration system. An analysis conducted from this perspectiv e might, therefore. investigate how and to what extent children's use of instruction devices such as the hundreds board facililales this appropriati on process. In contrast to Vygotsky's interest in cultural diversity and change, constructivists
and intcractionists (henceforth called emerge.nt the.orists) typically focus on qual itative differences in individuals' activity. Thus, whereas Vygotsky emphasized homogeneity within a cultural group, emergent theorists emphasize the diversity of group members' activity. The position from which they analyze activity is, therefore, that of an observer located inside the group. An issue that comes to the fore is that of accounting for the diversity in individual leaming by investigating how individuals reorganize their activity as they panicipale in the practices of a local community, such as that formed by the teacher and students in a classroom. Consequently, whereas analyses conducted in VygolSkian terms investigate the influence that mastery of a cultural tool has on individual thought. analyses conducted from the emergent perspective focus on the individual conceptual constructions involved in learning to use a cultural tool appropriately. From this latter perspective, it is the practices of the local community rather than those of
124
COBB
wider society that are taken as a point of reference. With regard 10 the analysis of the children's use of the hundreds board, for example. Katy can be seen to have contributed 10 the establishment of counting by tens and ones as a classrom o mathematical practice once she could create composite units of ten in an imagein dependent manner. In lhis account, her mathematical activity contributed to the establishment of local mathematical practices thai both enabled and constrained her individual activity. Thus, in contrast to Vygotsky's focus on the social and cultural basis of personal experience. this combined constructivist and interaction iSI analysis highlighrs the contributions that actively interpreting individuals make 10 the development of local social and cultural processes (cr. Cobb,
1989).
Given these differences between the two theoretical approaches, the interesting challenge for me future is that of exploring ways in which they might complement each other by delineating siruations in which one or the other might be more appropriate. This task seems worth pursuing, given that together they span the actively cognizing student, the local social situation of development, and the established mathematical practices of the wider community.
Implications of the Case Studies Some of the conclusions reached while conducting thecase studies were genuinely surprising to the American researchers, even though they had visited the classroom on an almost daily basis during the teaching experiment. As a consequence. the initial impressions about the productiveness of panicular groups' interactions had to be revised. For example, during the teaching experiment, Michael and Holly's relationship was thought to be reasonably productive. Holly consistently auempled to help Michael understand her more sophisticated solutions, and few interpersonal conflicts arose as they worked together. Conversely. given the continual tension in Ryan and Katy's interactions, there were doubts about the productiveness of their relationship. As it transpired, the relative harmony of a group's interactions was not a goOO indicator of the occurrence of learning opportunities. Instead, two aspects of childRn's social relationships seem critical for their learning in a classroom in which an inquiry mathematics microculture has been established and the children can conserve their claims and conjectures. These are:
I. TIte development of a takenassharM basis for mathematical communication. 2. The routine engagement in interactions in which neither child is the mathe
matical authority, namely those involving multivocal explanation. In this regard. Steffe and Wiegel (1992) argued that cooperation among children should invotve giveandtake a n d a genuine exchange of ideas. information. and viewpoints. To engage
in
such cooperation. a child must be able to assimilllle the
activity of the other. and in an attempt to u nderstand whal. the other is doing. modify the assimilattd activity as a resull of interactive communication until lhere is an agreement about what the activity means. (p. 459)
3.
In
LEARNING AND SMAllGROUP INTERACTlON other words.
125
the children should have developed a takenosshared basis
for
communication. However. this is nol genuine coopention. Cooper.llive leaming should nOI be reduced to one child attempting to understand the activity o(the other. Rather, each child also has the obligation to become iovolved in his or her productivc activity that might yield II result. and then be willing 10 correlate the result with the result or the: other. Cooperation is possible only if the involved children are suiving 10 reach II common goal. (Steffe: & Wiegel. 1992, pp. 459460) enough
(0 ensure
Thus, neither child should be the: mathematical authority in the group. The only caveal lO add 10 this argument is thai it might be premature 10 dismiss as unproduc tive interactions involving univocal explanation in which one child is an active panicipatory listener. As noted, none of the four groups described in the case studies engaged in interactions of litis !)'pe. On the surface. the two criteria listed previously indicate that the differences in the children's conceptual possibilities should be relatively small. Such a conclu sion, of course, leads to difficulties in that homogeneous grouping clashes with a variety of other agendas that many teachers rightly consider important, including
those that pertain to issues of equity and diversity. Funher, it
can be
noted that
strongest predictOf of children's eventual reading ability is the reading group to which they are assigned in first grade. At the very least, il should
be clear that
general rules or prescriptions for organizing smallgroup activity cannot be derived from the case studies. Lest this outcome seem unsatisfactory. it should
be noted
that general principles of conduct are almost invariably too extreme and must be balanced by conflicting principles (Billig, 1987). This is clearly the case in a complex activity such as teaching, which is fraught with dilemmas,tensions, and uncertainties (Clark. 1988). Within the context of such activity, the proposed criteria suggest ways in which teachers might look at and interpret smallgroup interactions when making professional judgments. In this regard, it appears that neither harmonious, ontask activity nor the mere OCCUlTCnce of explanations are good indicators of interactions that are productive fOf malhematical learning. Instead,
the criteria indicate that teachers should monitor lhe extent to which
children engage in genuine argumentation when they solve tasks and discuss their solutions. Funher,teachers should intcrveneas necessary 10 guide the development of smallgroup norms lhat make genuine argumentation possible (cf. Wood & Yackel, 1990). The comments made thus far take the general organization of the leaching as a given and assume that the teacher should assign children experiment classrom o to groups. In this regard, Murray (1992) described the interactions that occurred in a thirdgrade classroom in which children initiated their solutions independently but were then encouraged to collaborate in groups of two or three. Although the teacher did intervene, she left the: final choice of whom to collaborate with to the sludents. In such an arrangement, the groups were nol stable but broke up and refonned according to the needs and interests of different students.
126
COBB
The children in Murray's classroom had more responsibility for and control over their social imeractions than the children i n the secondgrade leaching experiment classroom had. Nonetheless. the teacher with whom Murray worked continued to act as an authority and attempted 10 guide the establishment of two essential social nonns. First. a student could only be helped with a solution SlI'alegy that he or she
had already initiated. Second, a problemsolving episode could not be tenninated unless each student had solved the problem successfully by means of a strategy that he or she had initiated. Further. it was the group's rather than the teacher's responsibility 10 ensure lhat this occurred. Murray (1992) reported thai the students engaged in intimate, reflexive discus sions as they interacted with chosen peers. II would, therefore, seem that they were able to establish takenasshared bases for mathematical activity. Murray also noted that the less conceplUally advanced students objected to cooperating wilh their more ma!hematicaJly sophislicated peers. As one child pUi it. 'This means that !hey stan telling me what lhey Ihink, and then I don't have !he time to !hink for myselr' (p. 8). The same child went on to say Ihat he did not aClually need direct suggestions about possible solution strategies from other group members, but that wOrldng wilh lhem would definitely enable both him and them 10 solve problems. In the terminology of the case studies, this child appears 10 be describing interactions that involve indirect collaboration and multi vocal explanation. Murray argued that these children intuitively realized that they could nol establish a takenasshared basis for mathematical communication with their more conceptually advanced peers. Instead, they believed that !heir development of solutions was
aided by
collaboration with lIUe peers. This view is consistent with the findings of Ihe case studies if, by true peers, Murray meant those who do not attempt to act as malhematical authorities. In light of Murray's experiences, teachers might want 10 experiment with alternatives to the social arrangements established in the leaching experiment classroom. For example. approaches that require students 10 initiate their own solutions seem worthy of further investigation, given that Ihe children in Ihe teaching experiment classroom frequently experienced a tension between the obligations of developing !heir own solutions and explaining their !hinking to the panocr. Funher, aJthough teachers should clearly initiate and guide the develop ment of classroom social norms, they might aJse want to go beyond Ihe case studies by investigating whether and to what eXlent students can construct the social structures Ihey need for optimal collaborative leaming when Ihey are encouraged to engage in voluntary social interactions with their peers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The development of these case studies was supported, in part. by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. RED 9353587). and by a Sir Alan Sewell Visiting Fellowship awarded by Griffi!h University in Brisbane, Australia. The allthor thanks George Booker for his wann hospilality.
3.
LEARNING AND SMAU.GROUP INTERACTION
127
REFERENCES DdamoN.. S., &. Hammersley, M. (1988). Qualitative research tndilions: A British !UpOtISe IOJacob. k>'Ww '"EdllCQ/ioN.JJ Rmardl. 58.DI250. Bmthcff, N. (1991). The bmcfiu and limiu of social inlaXtion: The case of rrwhI:malH;:aI proof. In A. J. Bi$hop(Ed.). Mawmlltical btQ....udgt: lu gro....1It I/voMg" �ac:1Ww (pp. 175(92). Dordn:chl. Ncthcrtands:: Kluwa. Barnes, D.,&. Todd. F. (19n). C_icasit!K fJNJ hamu., in $mtJJI·S""'Ps. LoOOon: RoWcd� &. Atkill$OlI, P
.•
Kepn PILII.
Bauet$fcld. H. (1990). Aclivil)' IMIn) tutd rodical c<WLJl'nI",ivumWIIIlI do rhq have in CDmIIIOII rwf
IwwdoIMydi/fdl(OcasiotlliJ Papa 121). Bielefeld, Gamany: UniversilyofBicJcfcld,lnslilullUr Didaklit der MlIIhcmlil t. Baucrsfcld. H. (1992). A profeuionalllClf·poruaiI. iOlIl7J{J/for Restarch III MawlfIIl lies EdllCtlIWII. 2J, 483494. 8illia. M. (1987). Arg�Urg t11Ul drinking: A. mtforical appmach /(1 social prycluJiogy. Cantlridge. Ena:1and: Canilridge University 1'n:sI. Bruner,J, (19116). AclUal mirIdJ. pouiblt 1WH'/dJ. Can"bridge. MA: HlII'nrd University Pn::u.
Clark. C. M. (1988). Asking the righl questions about teaclGfHepantion: Contributions of rcseart:h on lcachet thinking. &/ucllliOl'lClI Rncarclv" 17(2). 512. ppall &: R. Even Cobb. P. (1986). Clinical inltnic:wiPI in the eoolleXl of �sun:h programs. In G. JI (EdI.I, Prou�di."lsofIM rig/u"_1Ml1 muw.g ofPME·NA: PkNUY,��cI.u un4sywy>QSI_. East Lansing: Michigan State UnivcnilY. Cobb, P. (1989). ExpcricnJial, COJDitivc .oo anthropoiOJgi<;aI pc:npecti�C5 in mMhcmMia educ.alion. •
ForIJr� /Aaming of Mal�mtll�s,9(2). 3242. Cobb. P &. Whcatlc:y, G. (1988). Olildtm', iniJiaI Wldcrslandings oflcn. FoclUtNI /Aoming Probilms .•
In MalMmtltics. 1lX31. In.
Cobb . P., Wood. T., &. Y.:kcl. E. (1992). Learning.oo inlCradion in ciassrosom illJ.1lions. fdymrjONJ/
Studiu ill MOIMmtJlics. 23,99IU. Cole, M. (1985). 1"b!: l.OIIe ofpoJ.imaJ development: Whe� cullu�.oo cogn.ilion create each OJho:t.ln J. V. Wertsch(F.4.),CW/llln. cDmlrUol,u(tl60... tJNl rognirjan: \?goutian �rsptcm.v{pp. 141 161). New York: Cambridge: Uni>ersily Press. Davidson, N. (1985). Small·group learning.oo leaching in ma!hematics: A sclcClh·c ��iew of !he rn«n:h. In R. Slavin,S. Shinn, S. K3gan.. R. Hau.·Lazarowitz,C. Webb,&. R. Schmuck {EdJ.I, Uami"l IO CiJ(}prroll. cooprrrlw./t 10 /torn (PII. 211230). New York: Plenum Ptess. DOrlkr. W. {I99I).lmage sdlCmMa MId prococo15.ln F. Furinghctti (Ed.). ProcudingsoflM Fi/iunlh Con/cntICc of 1M IntcmmiO#WJ Grokp for dr� Psychology of M�mtJJics Edwcotion (pp. 17321. Genoa. Iialy: Program Comminee of!he ISLh PMEConfetence. Erickson. F. (1986). Qu.a/illivc l mclhods oft"tstwdt OIIlltlClling (Jnj eel., pp. 119161). New York: Macmillan.
Forman.. E . A. (1992). Oiscaurse. intc:nubjcCli�iry and !he �lopmcrl1 of peer collabo;n]ion: A VY&Olskian approach.. In L. T. Wi�pr a: J. Valsi/la"
IVll: MCIOlMortticol. l�ticaJ anillnltlwdDlogi(tl/ wuu. (pp. \4)159). Hillsdale. NJ: lawrmcc ErlNum At.socWcf;. Fonnan. E. A� &. Ca.tdell, C. 8.(1985). Explorillg VygOlSkian perspc:cliYC$ in educuion: 1"b!:coen.ilive �aJuc of peer in�l1ICtion. In J. V. Watsch (Ed.), CIIIIII", �l)IrIJrIIUUcaliOll. oN1 eogniliOll (pp. 3D347). Cambridge,MA: Cambridge: UniYer5ily Pn:u. FI)I1lWl. E. A.. &. McPhail. J. (l993). A VygDlYr;ian pc:rspcctiYC on childrm', colbborati�e problem· IOlvi,,& .ctivilies. In E. A. 1'onnM. N. Minick. a: C. A. Stone (Eds.). EdlteotiOfl un4 mUtd: TM intcracrjlJll ofinsrjlltllOllOI. sudol. oN1 /k.·c/op_ntaJ proc�sscs (pp. 21l229). New York: Ch;ford Univcnily �. COfllut1:
128
COBe
Gale. L &. Newfield. N. (1992). AaMlversari� ..... ysis of.50h.ionfocused marital theTapy le$Sion.
JolU7lD1 o!MaritaJ and FflIfIily TMrG{1Y. IS, 1SJ163. Gla5er, B. G., &. Strauss, A. 1.. (1967). TN disco'ery of ground�d IMOry: Stroltg�Jfor ql4lliJQJi� rtsnm:h. New York: A1dine. Good. T. L. Mulryan, C., &. McCaslin. M.(1992). Grouping for insuuctlOll in IfI41hemalics: AcaJi for prognsmWic raun:h 011 RN.l1group p"",eSi. In D. A. GrouWI (Ed.). HlJnd/x)(Jk of ra�arch 011 IfIlllMtnDlic1 kadUng <JJtd �amillg (pp. 16S196). New Yon: MlCmillllll. Halliday. M. A. K., &< Hasan, R. (1985).imtglMlgf'. (OIIIUI, and ltD; .u�CIS oflQllgullJl� ill Q joc�1 semiotic �'S�,tiVI. Oxford, EngJ.aod: Oden!. Ullive(1.il), Pres5, Johnson, M. (1987). T1u body in 1M miNt T1u bodily bwis of rtlUU/I and im
von
Glasenfeld(Ed), RadicalCOfISIrw:ti.jsm ill lfIlJliwMlin tdllcatiOfl (pp. 5374). Dordrecl:t. Nether lands; Kluwer. KOZlllin. A. (1990). IoygotskyJ psyclwlog)\ A biography of idnu. Brighl:on. EngJ.aod: Harvcstef
Wbbwgcnsil.. Newman, D.. Griffin, P.. '" Cole, M. (1989). T� ron.rll1
HiIIsdaJc. NJ: La'lo'l'CDCC EribllUm Associa1cs. Sdtrocdcr, T. . Gooya. z.. &. un. G. (1993). MathenWicaI probkm solvingin cooperative small·groups: HQW \() cnsure that (wo beads will be better thM one? In I. H�yuhi, N. Nohda. K. Shigo:lIlalsu, '" F.·L Un (Ells.), Procttdings ofllu �,·trllWIfIl CotlftrrllCt ofth� frlltmatiOtWl Group/or rhe
3.
LEARNING AND SMALlGROUP INTERACTION
129
PrycltotogyofMalhorlDn'CJ &fucoriPII (pp. 6512). University ofTwkuba,llIJe: P'OIJ" Commit. lee of 17th PMBConfem\Cle.
Sfw. A. (1994). Reificaliorl utile birth ofmmpbor. Forllw L.nu7!iII, ofMallwmDIia. 14(1). 445!i. ShitnQu, Y. (1993). The de'I'Cloprnw of coIlabonI:iw: diaJogue in paired IMilc:lNllicaI invesbl_klo. III I. Hinbay.w, N. Nohda. K. Shigcl1llt$U, &. F.·L Lin (Eds.). ProCUdingl of W &VtIUWUIr Con!ntncr 0/the /lII tmmiOMJ GfOItPfor 1M P�IwIoD ofMtUMntlJlia Edw:aJion Cpp. 7280).
Univusit)' ofTsukuba.lapao: Program ComntitlCe of 17th PME Conference. 5nth. E., &. Confn:y. 1. (1991, April). UnknUllUJing collllborotivt ltaming: SmIl/lgrollp work 011 COIIlaIUOl probkl/U IUitIg Q ..w1ti·rtprtStll4Jlio/lOJ sojrwGf'f 1001. Paper preset'ted aI th: annual moetin, of !he Arneriean Eduearioaal RescardlA 'socjar ion. Olico&o. SlCtrC. L. P Cobb, P., &. VOII GLasersfdd. E. (1988). Con.sf",clioll of an',/rmth'clll _illgs and ItraU,;u. Ne..., Yen: SpringaVcrlc_ SIeWc. L. P.. von GlaxnfeJd. E.. Richards,I.. &. Cobb,P. (1983). Childrol:r counting l}�J: Philo.wplly. tlwory. undgpplicGliofl. New yert: fneger Scientific. SlCffc, L p� &: Wiegel, H. G. (1992). On reforming prEtia: in rrwbmwics ed�kwI. EducafiollUl Studirs Uo MmhunaJicJ. 21. 445466. Taylor,S. J., &. Bogdan. R. (1984). Iflt1'OiburiOfl 10 qwaiilO.livc rr�urrll fM//tods{2nd ed.), New Yorl;: .•
Wiley. Thompson. P. (1994). IIJD8C$ of � and opcnIionai ll/ldentanding of the fulllbmemal IhecRm of ukulus. EJuaiIiOMI Slildits ill MIlIMmmia. 26(23), 229274. dcrVecr,R.,&; Vaisiner,J.(\99I). UrrdtnWlldillg �gou.q: A 'lilts/lor S}TlUIUU. Cambridge.M": Blackwell. Voi&l. J. (1992. "u&US1). N�golitltio" ofIfI4JIMmmicaJ fMOIIiIIg I..'UuSTlJOlfl proceJSts. Paper prcsICnled at the Intenwional Congres.s on MillhelNlfics Fmvwion, Qul!bec Cil}'. ConM, Vygotsky,L S. (1982). Fvrwanl.ln L S. Vnouky, SolmIlli� socltinoUj. TrlfII1. Vi:lprolJ �oril i uloril psWoofogii [Collected Worts,\blume I. Issues n:ganlina; the theory ..d hislory ofps)'l:hology) (pp. 238290). Moscow: Pedagogika. (Original work published 1934) Vygouky,L S. (1960). Ru:r:vilit 'oyfslliMpsiMicMlkikJt rwMuii [Thedcvdopmcnl ofthe hicbumenu.! fuDCliolu]. Moscow: A.kad. PeG. Nauk. RSFSR. Webb, N. (1989). Pl:er inleraCtion ..d I� in smallgmups./llltrnarionul Jounwl of£dJ«atio/llll Ruetur/t, JJ. 2139. Webb, N. M. (19&2). Studelll inle'*=lioo and !camm8 in gnaJl groups. Rnirw ofEtb.cun·rNUJI. Rts"'rdt, 52,421445. Wensch,1. V. (l98S). �goutyand 1M lOCilJljonrlllliOfl a/miNi. Cambridge. MA: HaNatd Univel"5ity """'. Winograd. T� &; Aon:s, F. (1986). UNhrsWlldill& COtllpUltrs ami ct)gniliott: A ntWfoundlJllolI for duign. Norwood,NJ: "bkJ. Wood, T. . &; Yackel. E. (1990). The dc�lopmelll of coIlabonIIi� dialogue within smallgroup illlCracUoll5. In L P. Steffe It T. Wood (Eds.), TrUlUjormi"I clli/drt,,'s mllwlfIIlli,s tdUCflliOfl. IIIl�TIIIJtioltlJl�nptcli"ts (pp. 2442S2). Hillsdale.. NJ: Lawn:noe Erlbaum A.ssociaIes. Yackel, E., &; Cobb, P. (1993, "priI). SodolfJalll IIonns. (3IJIOIOIt'Natim. 0IId tlII/ol\O/ft)' ill I1K1I1ItIfIIllicS. Papuprcscnled II the annual meetilIiofthe "mcricaa Educal:ional Reseasth Assoc:illion,AtiantL Yael. E., Cobb, P.,&: Wood., T. (1991). Small group i.IlIetJCtions. a5DUfte ofkarnin, oppommities in 5eCOII d gnde mathenwic:s. JlJIJmt;J/for Ru",rrll ill MrlIMmlltic, EJJ4cruiQII, 22, J9O..408. v..
4 Children s Talk in Inquiry Mathematics Classrooms Ema Yackel Purdue University Calumet
This chapter was motivated by a desire to investigate the ways in which children
talked about and explained their mathematical solutions and thinking in the project classroom where mathematics instruction followed an inquiry tradition. In this tradition, instruction is designed to engage children in meaningful mathematical activity. including explaining and justifying their thinking 10 others (Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & McNeal, J 992). Other chapters in Ihis book deaJ with Janguaging more gencmlly (Bauenfeld.chap. 8, this volume) and with the development of argumen tation (KJUmmheuer, chap. 7. this volume). In the past several years there have been a number of attempts to modify the participation structure in mathematics classrooms by organizing instruction so that students actively engage in doing and talking about mathematics (e.g., Ball, 1993; Cobb, Wood. & Yackel. 1991: Kamii. 1989; Koch. 1992: Lampert. 1990; Murray.
1992; Richards. 1991). Such inslTUCtion contrasts with teacherdominated instruc lion. in which students listen to teacher eltplanations, respond to teacher directives. and develop eltpertise using pregiven solution procedures. In the United States. much of the impetus for this change comes from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standard "Mathematics as Communication." The Standanfs (Na tional Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989) ca11 for children to "talk mathe matics" to help them construct knowledge, learn other ways to think about ideas. reflect on and clarify their own thinking, develop convincing arguments, and eventually extend such arguments to deductive proofs. Others have argued earlier for the benefits of dialogue in classrooms. For example. Barnes and Todd (1977) described the value of collaborative dialogue as follows:
131
132
YACKEL
mutually supportive: by taking the trouble to elicit an opinion from someoneebe, or by utilizing what has been said by extending it funher. thegroup members ascribe meani ngfulness to one another's auemplS to make sense of the world. This helps them to continue, however hestl i ll1liy. shape their own Wlderstanding by tallcing. and contrasts sharply with any schooling which reduces the learner to a receiver o f authoritative mowJedge. (p. 36)
(ColiaborativeJlOOves
are
From the student's poinl of view, the purposes for talking in the classroom are to explain their thinking to OIhers and 10 challenge and question the thinking of others. From the teacher's point of view, talking serves the additional function of giving the teacher information about the students' progress. Such infonnation is useful for both evaluating individual sNdents and making instructional decisions. This emphasis on verbaJ communication in the mathematics classroom under scores the importance of studying students' ways of talking about their mathemat ical activity. This chapter analyzes and discusses differences in students' explanations and i n tbe solutions they develop and offer in various classrom o situations, The analysis has several purposes. One is explanatory: Classroom observations clearly indicate that the solution methods children discuss and the ways in which they talk aboUi their activity change in different situations. The investigation that formed the basis for this chapter auempted to document and account for these differences. As the investigation proceeded, it became apparent that 10 account focobserved differences it was necessary to consider more than the social settingan analysis that took children's imerpretations into accoum was needed. The symbolic interactionist perspective proved useful for this purpose, because one of its cenll'al tenets is that meaning develops out of interaction and interpretation. Consequently, another purpose of this chapter is to exemplify how a sociological perspective can clarify an activity, such as explaining, that is typically thought of primarily in cognitive terms. This chapter repons on the analyses thai were conducted in the attempt to explore differences in the children's talk and explanations across situations in the project classroom. Throughout, the symbolic interactionist perspective is empha sized as a means of interpreting the data and accounting for participants' commu nication activity. Two major themes emerged from the analysis. The first is thai the critical feature in detennining the nature of children's talk and activity is the situation as it is interactively constituted as a social event rather than the social setting. Forexample, the analyses indicated that there are no systematic differences between the students' explanations in smallgroup work and in subsequent whole class discussion. However. qualitative differences in the children's explanations and in the solutions they develop and offer become apparent when the analysis
focuses on their interpretations of social events rather than social arrangements. In the analyses presented in this chapter, the explanations a child gives for the same problem to his or her partner, the teacher, a researcher during smallgroup work, child's expectations and interpretations of his or her obligations in the immediate situation. It is shown that despite wellestablished social nonns for smallgroup
4.
CHILDREN'S TAU<
133
work and wholeclass discussions, the expectations and obligations are n(N stable across groups or across
class discussions. Across groups there are dramatic differ
ences in the way the children interact and in lheirinterpretations oflheir obligations to each other. 1be critical role of students' interpretations indicates that it is the context rather than the setting that distinguishes qualitative differences in students' explanations. Funher, the relationship between the quality of an explanation and the social situation in which it is developed is reflexive. The student participates in the interactive constitution of the social situation as a social event through his her 3ctivily, and the social event, in tum, conslrains the student's activity.
or
A second imponant theme in the chapter is the teacher's role in supporting students' attempts 10 explain their solutions. 1be analysis clarifies the distinction between the teacher's attempts to help children develop viable solutions and h�r attempts to make sense of students' �xplanations. FinaUy, the analysis indicates the t�nsion that exists for the teacher as she attempts to fulfill her obligations 10 help students understand explanations given by their peers and. at the same time, help them develop an understanding of what constitutes mathematicaJ explanalion. In the final section of the chapter, implications for insuuction that arise from these ana1yses are discussed.
THE PROJECT CLASSROOM The project classroom was described in chapter 2 ofthis volume. Additional details that ate particularly relevanlto this chapter are included here. The typical lesson in the project classroom consisted of a brief introduction. smallgroup work. and subsequent whole<:Iass discussion. The purpose of the introduction was 10 clarify the intention of the tasks to be completed during smallgroup work. Tbese problem tasks were typically posed in written format. Consequently, the introduction necessaril y included clarifying symbolic conventions of the written formats. For example, some tasks were posed in the format of a pan balance. To interpret these tasks. students needed to understand thai balance is achieved when the amounts on both sides of the balance are the same. In this case, the introduction to the lesson included a clarification of this basic principle of a balance. Following the introduc� tion t o the lesson, students worked in pairs for approximately 20 minutes to solve problems. After smallgroup work. children discussed their problem inltrprelations
and solution attempts in a wholeclass setting. The social nonns that were negotiated in the classroom are panicularly relevant
to discussions about students' explanations of their solution methods. The project classroom followed an inquiry mathematics uadition. In this tradition, children engage in meaningful ml1lht:matical activity, including explaining and justifying their thinking to others (Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & McNeal, 1992). �n students work in small groups. they are expectedto work collabotalively, develop personally meaningful solutions, explain their thinking 10 their partner{s), and listen 10 and try 10 make sense of their partner's explanalions. During wholeclass discussions,
134 sttxlents
YACKEL are
expected
10
explain their solution methods 10 the class, lislen to and
try to make sense of the explanations of others, and pose questions and challenges when appropriate. 1he leacher plays a signific3m role in that he or she initiates and guides the
development of the social nonns as just described (Cobb. Yackel, & Wood, 1989; Yackel. Cobb, & Wood, 1991), facilitates children's developing ability to engage in colJaboralivc dialogue (Wood & Yackel, 1990), and facilitates their evolving understanding of what conslilUtes an adequate explanation (Yackel, 1992). Addi tionally. the teacher initia!es and guides the development of norms that are specific 10 mathematical aspects of the children's activity. These sociomathemat.icalllOTTTIS are
critical 10 the children's understanding of what constitutes mathematical
difference, mathematical sophistication. and mathematical elegance (cr. Voigt. chap. 5, this volume: Yackel & Cobb, 1993), and consequentJy influence the children's mathematical activity.
DATA Videotape data and available transcripts were examined 10 identify cases in which children, who had been video recorded as Ihey allempled to solve a problem i n the small·group setting, described their solutions during the subsequent wholeclass discussion. All relevam episodes were analyzed. In addition, selected episodes of the
same
type from a secooo teaching experiment conducted in a differem school
selling were analyzed. Several examples from the latter group are included i n this chapter to exemplify different types of interactions in both the small·group selting and the wholeclass discussion setting.
THEORETICAL CONSTRUcrS Meaning as Interactively Constituted Critical to any investigation of communication and "talk" is one's vieworrrwPfing. The theoretical framework underlying social interaction as used here is derived largely from Blumer (1969). The view that meaning is
not
intrinsic but develops
out of interaction and interpretation is central to his position. According to Blumer
(1969), meaning arises: in the process of ioter.lCtion between people. 'The meaning of a thing fot a person grows out of the ways in which other persons act toward the pcrlOn with regard to the thing... . Thu5, symbolic interactionism KC'S mt'3lIing as social products, as creations that are formed in lind
internet. (pp. 4S)
through the
defining a.:.:tivities of people as lhey
4.
CHIlDREN'S TAlK
135
Symbolic intc:TaCtionism emphasizes the interpretative process involved in the development of meaning as an individual responds to. rather than simply reacts to, another's actions. 'The response is based on the meaning an individual ascribes to another's actions. It is lhe emphasis on interpretation that distinguishes symbolic inleractionism. The symbolic inieraciionisl position regarding the constitution of meaning is compatible with the constructivist perspective as Slated by von Glasersfeld (1983): "For communication to be considered satisfactory and 10 lead to what we caJl understanding. it is quite sufficient that the communicators' representations be compatible in the sense that mey do not manifestly clash with the situational contexi or the speaker's expectations" (p. 53). Implicit in this position is the view that participants in the interaction have expectations and intentions thaI guide their activity. A participant'S interpretation involves taking account of the intentions of another, at least implicitly. Accordingly, the analysis of children's activity and talk focuses on the children's intentions.
Contexl In this chapter, context is used in the sense of Bateson (1972) to refer to the internal (cognitive) state of the child rather than to external conditions. such as who the panicipants are or the format in which a problem is presented. In this sense, context is individual and indefinite in scope. The external conditions (onn the setting. This
distinction between setting and context is consistent with Cobb's use, as iIIuslr3led by the following example. Cobb (1986) found that some children interpreted the task 16 + 9 presented in horizontal format using plastic numerals as a differentlask
from 16 + 9 written venically on a traditional workbook page. One child solved each task differently and arrived al different answers without being puzzled by the fact thai his answers did not match. For him, they represented different contexts. On the olher hand, for those children who immediately commented that the second problem is ''jUSIIhe same" as the first. they represented the same context. tn this chapter. the use of context rather than social setting indicates the importance of taking social interaction into account. The analysis will show that a child's interpretation of his or her obligations and his Of her expectations of other panicipanls in the immediate situation are critical to the nature of his Of her activity and talk, Thus, the same social setting (e.g., smallgroup work) may represent completely different contexts for different individuals or even different contexts for the same individual from one occasion to another. 1nese differences are explored in this chapter.
Reflexivity lbe ethnomethodologists' conceplof reflex.ivity is useful in accounting forthe way
in which situations that occur in mathematics classrooms emerge. described reflexivity as:
Leila (1980)
138
YACKEL
A property of social phenomena which ... makes social facts the produa of inletpl'etalion. . Acrounts and SCllings. then, mutually elaboralc each other. The account makes observable features of the settingwhich. in tum, depend on the 5ClIing fOf their specific sense. 1lle features ofaSCllingthat arerevealed by descripli vc accounts and behavior do no( jU5t eKplicaae the 5CUing; they. in tum. are explicated by the setting. (p. JJ8) .
.
There is a reflexive relationship between context and a child's actions; the child's inlaprclation helps to define a situation to be as he or she interpreted it For example, if a studcm's intClpfCtat ion of his
or
her obligation in the immediate
situation is thai he or she is fa clarify which of several answers is COIRCt, then by fulfilling that obligation, the student, in effect. participates in creating the situation as one thaI requ i res clarifying the answer. The teacher's interpretations contribute along with the children's interpretations to the constitution of the situation. In this sense, situations as well as meanings are interactively constiruted.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF CASES An overview of the results is given in this paragraph as an orientation to the subsequent analysis of cases. The analysis of the targeted episodes thaI follows shows that for children the critical fealUre is n� lhe social setting. such as smallgroup problem solving or wholeclass discussion. but instead is the way in which the sin1lllion is realized as a social event. ThaI is, il is the context that is relevant, DOl the social selting. The presence of the teacher or a researcher during smallgroup work results in different interaction patterns than when the children alone. OIildren may a1ler their explanations and sometimes their solution methods due to their differin g expectations, their perceptions of their obligations.
are
and their own personal agendas. For e:umple. in the presence of the teacher a child's goal may be to establish that he or she had the correct answer ratherthan to elaborate on difficulties he or she had with a panicular interpretation of the problem. On the other hand, the child's goal might be ro elicir rhe teacher's assistance ro resolve a conflicr berwocn rwo differing interpretations. When chil dren are inreracting during small'group wode, with no adult present, they may be anempcing ro convince each other of the viability of their own personal interpreta tion, or they may be atlempting to take each other's perspective. When children calk during wholeclass discussion, it may be 10 report (and explain) a previously developed solution method or il may be 10 enler into the ongoing discussion using their prior smallgroup activicy as a basis for their contribution. In some cases, they may abandon cheir prior smallgroup work and develop a solution thai addresses the questions and challenges of the immediate discussion. The child's interpretation of the immediate situation is critical to the nature of the activity (and talk) in which the child engages.
4.
CHILDREN'S TAU<
137
Qual�ative Differences in Studenfs Explanations To illustrate children's differing activity and talk in various silUations that they interpret as different .social events, we consider the following example.
Example 1February 2.
Jack and Jamie are working together on a pro!>
lem in smallgroup work, first alone, then in the presence of a researcher, and later in the presence of the teacher. Finally. they participate in the subsequent whole. class discussion of the problem. Although these (our situations can be viewed as differcnlsocial seltings. the analysis indicates that it was not the setting per st, but the individual children's expectations and their interpretations of their obligations.
thaI were the critical factors in their activity and developing explanations. 1bc problem under discussion is the last problem on the activity page shown in
Fig. 4.1, involving 38 and 38. In each case, the msk is to figure OUI what number to put in the empty box to make the left and right sides balance. Because both boys related the last task to previous tasks on the same page. their solutions for Tasks 2 and 3 are described. Jamie solved the second task by adding
40 and 40 to get SO. adding 6to 80 to get 86, and then adding 6more to get 92. and the third task by relating it to tnc second. I Jamie:
48 and 48 make. just make 2 more4 more than that (pointing
to previous task). Just 4 more than that. Whal's thal?That makes 96.
For his pan. Jack simply indicated that he agreed with lamie's solution of the second task.. He proposed to solve the third task by adding 8 and 8 and 80. bUllhere is no evidence that he completed the calculation. 12 '"
46
'"
46
48
38
48
38
FIG. 4.1. SIIIIienI page orbalancc Iaib.
138
YACKEL
The following dialogue ensued when the boys attempted to solve the last task
on the page. I Jamie:
Thirty ...
2 lack:
38, 38. Jusl lake away ...
3 Jamie: 4 Jack::
8 from that (points 10 38).
5 Jamie:
20, 20, take away 20. Thai would be uh. 76, 76.
6 Jack: 7 Jamie: 8 Jack:
Take away 10. Take away 10. No. take away 20. Take away 10.Take away 10 (points at 48 and 38). Look. 40, 30. Not 20.
9 Jamie:
Ilrnow. onYeah.
10 Jack:
Take away 10.
I I Jamie:
20. 7050 that should be 76.
12 Jack:
No. Take 10 away from thai answer (points to previous task). thai answer (points to currenllaSk) . . 86. .
13 Jamie:
Wait. 40 take awayso take away 4 more. Take away 20, makes 70.
14 Jack:
No, take away 10.Look. It's 40, 30 (points 10 currenl and then previous laSk).
15 Jamie:
80 take away, 80 take away 20. 80 take away 20 makes what? We're not supposed 10 be laking away 20.
16 Jack: 18 Jack:
But look ... Because there is 48 and 43. 1b.at's just taking away 10. So take
19 Jamie:
away 10 from that (points to 96). What?
20 Jack:
See. Right there (points t 048). 1b.a1 is 10 higher than Ihat (points
17 Jamie:
10 38). So take away 10 from that (points to 96). 21 Jamie:
Urnurn (no]. It's supposed 10 be 70. (Writes down his answer of 76.)
22 Jack:
I don't agree with you. (Jamie fetches another activity page. Jack writes 86 as his answer.)
The dialogue shows that both boys proposed 10 solve the task by relating i l t o the previous task.However, they had differing ideas about how 10 do so. Because there is a dispute. il seems appropriale from the observer's perspective that each child would clarify his interpretation of the problem and provide a rationale for his proposal. The first evidence of an attempt to do so was given by Jack in Line 8, when he said, "Take away 10.Take away iO (points at 48 and 38). Look, 40, 30. Not 20." Jamie's reply in Line 9, "I know, ohYeall," on the other hand, gave no rationa1e. Funher, this remark might have been an indication that although he may have been aware of the discrepancy in their solution procedures, he might have been unaware of the discrepancy between his and Jack's interpretations of the
4.
CHILDREN'S TAlK
139
problem. He appeared to agree with Jack.. acknowledging that lhis problem in volved 30 whereas the previous problem involved 40. Nevc:nhcless, from the observer's perspective. they had differing interpretations of the problem that were not explicitly addressed in the subsequent verbal interaction. Jamie simply repeat edly restated the need to "take away 20," and reiterated the resull as being 76 or in the 70s, whereas Jack repeated ''take away 10." Jack attempted to provide a rationale on three occasions, first in Line 8 when he said, "Look, 40, 30. Not 20"; later in [jne 14 when he said "No, take away 10. Look. It's 40, 30 (pointing 10 ,, current and then previous wk) : and still later in Line 18, "Because there is 48 and
43. Tha"sjusl tiling away 10. So take away 10 from that (points 10 96)," (Jack's repeated references to the 40 and the 30 lead us to interpret the "43" as misspeak. ing.) This last remark gave explicit evidence that Jack's intention was to give a rationale for the solution method he was oovocating. Here, he was relating his interpretation of the task to his suggested solution procedure. However, his expla nation failed to explicate the differences between his and Jamie's interpretations. There was a distinct change in the nature of Jamie's ''talk'' when il researcher entered the scene a few moments later. At that point, both boys gave a rationale fOf their solution activity in response to the researcher's request, "How did you do itT'
32 Jamie:
Well, take away 10, 10 from each oflhese (points to the previous wk).
33 Researcher. Yeah. 34 Jamie: Take away 10 from each of these make 20, take away 20. He pul gO. I think thal'sI lhink it's 76. 37 Researcher. How did you do it? (to Jamie) See, that's just 10 moreIO less than that. 38 Jack: 39 Researcher. Yeah. So the answer has to be 10 less. 40 Jack: Jamie's reply to the researcher elaborated his interpretation of the problem and explained the origin of the '"20" that was to be taken away. His previous comments to Jack did not provide this clarification. His expectation may have been Ihat Jack shared his interpretation of the wk. (1'here is somesupport for this hypothesis from the previous history of this pair; see Yackel, Cobb. & Wood, 1993.) Another possibility is that Jamie may not have fell obliged to give Jack an explanation. although he did feel obliged to give one to the researcher. The researcher had previously established his interest in how the children thought about the wks. In any event, Jamie fulfilled his obligation 10 explain his thinking to the researcher. Further, his reply indicated that he understood which aspects of his thinking were critical to providing an explanation that would be adequate for the researcher. For his pan, Jack's reply to the researcher differed from his prior comments to Jamie in that he then went on to verbally relate his observation, 'Just 10 moreIO less than lhat." to the answer, "So the answer has to be 10 less," whereas previously he had only pointed to the answer. If either child had said to the other what he said to the researcher, they may have resolved their disagreement. The difference in the
140
YACKEL
explanations given by each child and in the nalureoflheir "talk" indicates that each of them interpreted the presence of the researcher as a different context than thai of working as partners.Both boys understood that in the presence of the researcher they were obligated to explain their solutions.In this situation, Jamie clarified both his problem interpretatio n and his solution in detail, whereas in his previous interaction with JIICk he gave no rationale for his suggestion 10 ''take away 20." When the teacher entered the gI'Ollp lalt:r, the boys immediately lold her about their conflict over the problem. even though they were already working on another activit)' page. Because of their previous experience in this class, they might have expected the teacher to help them resolve their disagreement by discussing their sollnion procedures with them. However, the situation evolved differenlly. Two solution methods were discussed with the leacher. both of which differed from the methods the boys were anempting to
use
previously.
The teacher's initial comment signaled a relationship to the previous problem. Jack accepted the teacher's implicit suggestion to relate the problem to the previous one,but Jamie did not. Instead, Jamie solved the problem by adding30 and30 and 8 and 8, which is the same method he used to solve the second task on the page. I Teacher:
You know that 48 and 48 make 96, so38,38.
2 Jamie:
Make ... 10 less than that.
3 Jack:
4 Jamie: , Teacher:
Not quite 1 0.
6 Jamie:
68,69 ,7 0 ... 76 (puts up fingers as he counts the last 8), 76.
7 Teacher.
30. 60...
He still gets 76. Okay, there is another way you can figure this. What's30 and3D?
8 Jamie:
60.
9 Teacher:
And what's 8 and 8? 16.
10 Jamie: \I Teacher:
You got a60 and a 16.
12 Jamie:
That makes 76.
The teacher's initial move was to implicitly suggest a solution procedure that she anticipated the boys might use, given ber knowledge of the solution methods they had previously used and her knowledge of their cognitive capabilities. How ever, she listened to their proposals and explanations before making further suggestions.When Jamie expJained his solution. the foc:us shifted from relating the two wks to the result of the computation. The children's expectation was that the teacher would follow up on their solution attempts. In this case, the teacher chose to follow up on Jamie's explanation by suggesting an alternative way 10 figure OUI the sum of30,3D, 8 and 8, namely adding the two30s, the two 8s and then adding the panial sums. 1be episode concluded without an opportunity for Jack to explain his thinking. The solutions discussed in detail in the presence of the teacher were not the same as those the children attempted when working as partners or in the brief intercbange
4.
CHILDREN'S TALK
141
with the researcher, even though the leacher implicitly suggested that they might relale the curren! and prior tasks when she first entered the group. Jack's response iooicated his expectation that the discussion would be about their prior activity. However, Jamie's introduction of a different solution method indicated that he did not share lack's expectation. One possible inlerpretation is that in the teacher's presence. Jamie's intention was to establish lhal his answer was correcl By using a different method, he was able to do so without referring to the disagreement he and Jack bad about the problem. In this way, he initiated the interactive constitution of the activity !O be that of developing a viable solution, rather than a discussion of his and Jack's prior solution activity. 1nc teacher contributed to this interacti\'c constitution with her proposal for an alternative melhOO of computing the sum. Her earlier reply to Jack. "Not quite 10:' signaled that Jack's interpretation was not appropriate. However, !here was no indication of why and the discussion did not retum to this issue. 1be� was a potential situaJ.ion for Jack to give an explanation, but it did not develop, because the teacher and Jamie interactively constituted the activity to be one of developing a solution. Because the teacher did not pursue her attempts to interpret Jack's comment, and becauseJamie offered a different solution from the one he was advocating earlier in his discussion with Jack, the episode concluded without a confrontation over the twO solution methods and the two interpretations that were the subject of the boys' prior smallgroup activity. In the subsequent wholeclass discussion, Jamie first explained that he and Jack had disagreed on the interpretation of the problem. Then he gave the variation of his solution method that the teacher had suggested when she intervened in their smallgroup work, thereby clarifying thaI the correct answer was 76. Finally, Jamie shifted the topic of discussion to his and Jack's disagree ment in smaJlgroup work. 16 Jamie:
Well, urnJack was a little mixed up cause be thought it was only 48 take awayand no 48. He thought just 48 and no other 48 and 38 and no other 38. And just take away 10 would be 86. But we had to take away 20.
Here, Jamie directly addressed the difference between his and Jack's interpre tations of the problem. He explained what be inferred to beJack's interpretation, ';He thought ... ," and gave an explicit rationale for what Jack did based on that inference. He then went on to explain his own interpretation, "But we had to take away 20." However, he stopped shon of explicating the origin of the 20 as
be did when he said 10 the researcher, "Well, take away 10, 10 from each of
theseTake away 10 from each of Ihese to make 20. Take away 20." These children understood that in interactions with the researcher, they would be asked to explain how they thought about the tasks, whereas in wholeclass discussion Ihe teacher would typically assist them with their explanations. The children's obligations to explain their solutions were different in the two cases. As the episode continued, the leacher supponed the children's expectation that she would provide assistance.
142
YACKEL
17 Teacher:
Aha! Why did you pick 2O'?
18 Jamie:
Cause48 and48,jusl!akeawaytake48 takeaway IOmakes 38.
lamie's response still provided no differentiation between his thinking and Jack's, who repeatedly said. '"Take away 10," during their smallgroup attempt to solve the problem. It was the teacher who continued and completed the explanation.
19 Teacher:
Dh. That's what I was trying to gel you 10 say. All right. Do you seethat, boys and girls? He said here is 48. Here is 38 (pointing
1048 and 38) and I know that's 10 less. And 48 and 38 is
10 less
(poinling to the other 48 and 38), So how's thaI going to affect your answer? The episode concluded with another child from the class answering the teacher's question with, "Two tens less." In summary, in Ibis example, the solution processes the boys described and the way in which they explained and talked about their thinking differed, depending nOlan t he social scning, but instead on their individual contexts. Even toougb the classroom social norms included the expectation that children should explain their thinking, in only two instances did either boy explicitly attempt to give what would count as a rationale for us. Jack attempted to give a rationale to Jamie during smallgroup work, and Jamie gave a rationale to the researcher. Neither child gave a rationale 10 the teacher or during the wholeclass discussion. lbe children were aware that dunng class discussion the teacher frequently intervened to rephrase and elaborate on their solution descriptions for the benefit of other students. The example also showed that the two boys' interpretations of the purpose of interacting with the teacher during smallgroup work were not the same. For Jack, the occasion was one of discussing prior solution attempts and, presumably, resolving their differences. For Jamie, il was oneof establishing thecorrect answer. The same social setting represented different contexts for them. A second example complements and contrasts with the first. In this example, as in the fin;t, two children discussed the same problem engaged
n i
in
their solution in the class discussion. This example. like the first, illustrates the relevance of children's interprelations of the situation in accounting for differences in their explanations. The additional supporting evidence th3l this second they explained
example provides is important because it demonstr.Ue5 that not nil pairs of children intc:rpfeted situations in thesame way. In particular, unlike the pair in &le I. these children attempted to fulfill an obligation 10 explain when working in small groups as well as in a wholeclass discussion. TIley genuinely sought 10 convince each other of the viability of their interpretations and solution procedures by providing extended supporting arguments throughout their smallgroup wode. An additional purpose of this example is to illustrate differences between children's descriptions and explanations of activity
4.
CHILDREN'S TALK
143
alrcadycompleted activity. As this example demonstrates, descriptions and expla nalions were nor limited to smallgroup work for activity in progress and subse. quent wholecJass discussion for a1�ycomplcted activity. Rather. explanations orOOm types occurred in each ofme socia] senings. This suggests thal lhe potential of wholeclass discussion following smallgroup work extends well beyond that of reporting back.
Example 2�anuary 26. In this example Ryan and Kat)' are working to gether 10 solve the tasks shown in Fig. 4.2. During the introductory phase of the lesson . which was designed to clarify the intention of the tasks. the teacher called
I.
H ow INtI)' d orOIl Mvf toadd 10
§§ I SIO ..... ke
00 0
,
Haw m;my doyou have lo",dd to
�
0 0
10 mDe 73l
3.
How lIIUIy do you ha� toadd lo3810rNke 0 0 00 0 0
144
YACKEL
on several children to explain !heir imcrpreullions. In the course of these explana tions, various solution methods were proposed and discussed, including methods thaI were primarily image based and others in which the pictorial material (dia gram) was given numerical significance. Kaly and Ryan's solution activity during the first two laSks is
described to
document their interpretation of smallgroup work as an occasion for explaining.
The two cttildrcn solved the first two tasks using differing approaches. Katy used a numerical approach. Sheascribed numerical significance lothe pictorial material. She first figured out what number was represented by the picture and then roumed on. using her fingers. 10 determine the answer. Ryan, on the other hand, used an imagebased approach. He used rnultilinks to symbolize the picture shown in the problem, and reasoned from the multilinks. Ryan began the first problem by pulting out 3 tenbars and 6 cubes (ones). He attempted to solve the problem by pUlting down 2 additional tenbars and removing 3 cubes (ones). The two children engaged in a lengllty discussion. Each child attempted to convince the ollter of lite validity of their method Unlike the previous example. in which the two boys gave little or no rationale to each other for their intc:rprelations and suggestions, Katy and Ryan each attempted to explain to each other in detail how they were interpreting the (first) problem. This difference in the inteTaCtion between these two pairs is consistent with the findings of Cobb's case: snKiies (chap. 3. this volume). In this case:. both children accepted the obligation to explain their thinking to their partner, including their interprc:tation of the problem and their solution atlempts. Kat)' rc:peated her solution to the first task in its entirety at least four different times and clearly indicated her intention to be one of explaining how she figured out
her solution, as indicated by the following statements excerpted from the
extensive (and repetitive) dialogue.
27 Katy:
Come here. come here. I think you're: not getting this right.All right. you have thai many numbers. And this makes thaI, right? Makes 6 (starts counting on her fingers) 7,
31 Katy:
8. ThaI makes 36.
Here, I'll explain to you how I got the number. We have lhat many numbers. We have that many nwnbers.36.Add
to more,
46. Fonysix,47, ...,53. 35 Katy:
I'll show you how I gOl my number. See, uh, 36, and then 10 more (holding up both hands) makes 46. 46, 47, 48, 49, . . ,53 (putting up one finger with each number word and stopping .
when she says 53she has 7 fingers up). Ryan also attempted to give convincing explanations, but he had not fonnulated a solution that resuhed in a numerical answer. His first solution relied on the imagery of the cubes and the tenbars and was based on describing how many cubes
and tenbars to pUl down and remove.
4.
CHILDREN'S TAlK
28 Ryan:
145
Look,look, look.. Well. see this ]picture on the activity page] is 36, but we have lotake away J oflhese things [group or) cubes]. And then you add 2 more of these [bars of 10] and thai makes 53. Thai's how I gel il
Later, he suggested an alternative solution method. again an imagebased approach. Here again there was dear evidence of his intent to explain to Kat)'. 34 Ryan:
Kat)', look, this is how I got it. Well. look. You have to take away 10. Now thai you do mis, you l3k.e this 11 group of3] and pul it over here (on top afthe other group of3) and !hen add 4 more,
II
and then put another 3. Work it that wily. There is no doubt that in this case the children were auempting to clarify their interpretations of the problem and their solution activity for each other. For them. working
as
panncrs carried this obligation.
The next portion of the episode is particularly relevant for demonstrating differences in the way children talk about their solution activity in progress and about completed solution activity. As lheepisodeshows. Katy took lhe perspective of the researcher into account when she described hetsolUlion after ilScompletion. Her account was different than when she first carried out the solution. Ryan, on the other hand, gave essentially the same description while solving the problem during smallgroup work and in reporting to the whole class later. first Katy's explanations are discussed. The wk was the third problem on the activity page. K.aty gave her initiaJ explanation to a researcher who was standing close by. The researcher's responsibility was to make sure that the children's task interpretations and solution methods were documented on the videotape for future reference. Therefore,it was the researcher's responsibility to ask questions when deemed appropriate to encourage the children to verbaJize their thinking. In this episode, Katy accommodated the researcher by talking aJoud as she solved the problem. Her talk included disjointed segments that made sense only to someone who was simultaneously observing her solution activity as she worked with the diagmm on the activity page. Katy seemed to assume that thc rcscarcher shared her interpretation ofthc task and ofhcr activity. An intcrvcning "Mmhmm" from the researcher provided her with some reassurance that this assumption was valid.
S Katy: It's a minus. 6 Researchcr: It's a minus. 7 Katy: Sec there's 10,20,3O(counting3 tenstrips at the left) and here's 1, 2,3,4,S, 6, (counting 6 ones). 8 Researcher: Mmhmm. 9 Katy: And you have 6, 7, 8, (covcring up the ncxt S tcnstrips but counting 2 ones at the top of the tenstrip farthest to the right). Then you minus 1,2,3,4 (counting tenstrips nOl previously
146
YACKEL
counted). 8 (referring to the 8 remaining ones of the tcnsmp from which she took 2 ones). I think ii's 48, minus. Katy then decided to make a mark through each of the 48 she counted. 4 tensU'ips and 8 ones of a fifth tenstrip. llle researcher stepped back and Kat)' repeated her solution to henc:lf to verify her answer. 1he inlCraction between the two cruldrcn began when Katy turned to atlend 10 Ryan's activity. Ryan had been worting to develop an image.based solution using multilinks (for a further discussion of image..based solutions see Cobb, chap.3, this volume). He had miscounted and had put oUl7tcnbars instead oC8. Katy corrected the error and cJl:plained what she had already figured out, ''Take away 48," While Ryan seemed to be puzzling over the solution, Katy addressed the researcher. She explained her solution in some detail. This time she gave special attention to explaining the marks she made on the paper, as if she anticipated that this aspeclofher cxpJanation might be misunderstood. Aconden� version ofber explanation follows. 3949 Katy:
U we have 3038 and we're trying to get 3 8 and we have, we
have 86 we have to take away and I decided 10 take away 30, 408. All these marks mean I don·1.1 don't take them. Ijust take the rest. Yeah, I took these, 10,20,30. And there have to be 8 more. So I counted 1,2.3,4, ... 8. Sec. and then and then and then I marked them other ones out. The researcher completed the argument with "and you counted them."
Katy may
have assumed that the researcher would take it for granted that the final step in her solution was to "count them" and. therefore, felt it was unnecessary to say so. She had already indicated that her answer was 48.
ThediaJogue illustrates explicitly how Katy's interpretation innuenced what she said. In this explanation, Katy first clarified her interpretation of the problem by
saying. "If we have 86 and we're ttying to get to 38 we have to take away." Her use of "we" in this part of the explanation indicates that she assumed that her interpretation was shared by others as well. In clarifying her interpretation, she gave a rlltionale for herproceduTC,namely "taking away." She changed from saying "we" to saying "I." signaling that she was now describing her own solution activity. She explained the marks she made. "AU lhese marks mean I don't, I don't take them." She continued to explain how she used the marks to get her result, "Ijust .. take the rest.So I counted ... Katy's language here indicates an explanation after the completion of activity. Her intention was no!. to clarify her thinking for herself but for another, and in doing 50 she provided elaboration as if to rule out potential misinterpretalions that she anticipated the listener may have made. A5 Bruner noted: In simple declarative speech acts, ones does not
indicate by overt speech thai which onecan take rorgranted as anclement ofknowledge orexpc:tience in tbe inletlocutor s mind. I do nOI say 'This room has walls" 10 my partner in conversation unless the '
4.
CHIlDREN'S TALK
147
matter is in question. . . One uses a negative declarative ''naturally'' only under .
condition5 of plausible denial ...1l1e usc of negation presupposes a conlCll'.llluil .
merits plausible denial (Bruner. 1986, p. 84)
Kaly's interpretation of the situation was thai she was obliged (0 clarify her solution. However, for her, clarifying her solution included much more than trying to explain her thinking; it also included explicitly attempting to lake into
account
the poinl of view of lhe listener. To do so, Katy had to make judgments about which aspectS ofher thinking and whtch aspects ofher solution procedure to explicate and elaborate. Her comment. ., don') take them," indicates that she was awan: that the listener might misinte1pjl�t what she
meant
by marking out
of the squares. explanalion as an
some
11 Taking the perspective of another required her 10 take her 0 ....
objector reOection and. in this sense.. contributed 10 her learning (Cobb. chap. 3. this volume; Yackel, Cobb. & Wood. 1991). Ryan's activity provided a contr3SIIO Katy's activilY. Whereas her descriptions changed 10 having the chatacler of an afterthefact descriplion indicalive of renection when she gave her final explanation 10 lhe researcher, Ryan's descrip lions did nOI do so. In the ensuing exchange with lhe researcnc:r, Ryan described a solution based on Kaly's diagram rather than on his mullilinks display.A condensed version of his explanation follows.
53(;1 Ryan:
Well, I say iI's 48 becauseYou take away .50 and then, take away 50 and lhen you have 6. Look, you have to take away theyou have to take off 2from the tenbar and then add to here and then that makes 38.
This solution, like his solution 10 the frrst task, was ilrulge based. His explanation did not clarify how his process resulted in the answer of 48. leaving it unclear the extent to which he understood Katy's solution. When the teac:hercalled on Kat)' and Ryan during wholeclass discussion. Ryan
immediately reported their answer to be 48. I Ryan:
48.
2 Teacher:
48. Do you say the answer is 481
3 Ryan:
y".
4 Teacher:
All right. Now, how did you figure this out? How did you figure it out? You explain it 10 me.
S8 9 Ryan:
(inaudible)
10 Teacher: II Ryan:
We took away 50 and then, we have 30 left and lhen there is .5 over here so we knew that wouldn't work so ... Righi! We have 10 take 2 off of the lenbars add 10 there and then add it 10 the 30 and !hal makes. and that, and that would make a1l upand thai would make 48.
148
YACKEL
The solution method Ryan described was the same one he was attempting 10 use in sma1lgroup work. His reporting of the answer as 48 suggests that he may have been influenced by Katy's explanation. because he had nOI arrived at a numerical answer. The language Ryan
used in the wholeclass selting indicates that he was aware
that the expressed intent of the wholeclass discussion was 10 "talk about" your solutions and give a rationale for your activity rather than simply repeat (or recreate) il. InitiaJly he used the pasllense. indicating a description of prior activity, "We took away 50800 then, ... so we knewthat wouldn't work " then switched . . . •
we have to take 2 off of the ten·bars ... and to describing current activity, HSO that, and that would make all up," The last phrase is further indication that he was •
•
•
atlempting to figure out !he result, bul he abandoned the anempt (he had not explained this in prior smallgroup work, either) and simply stated the result, "and that would make 48." This example illustrates mat qualitative differences in the way children explain their activity
are
nOi detennined by the social setting of smallgroup work. .?"
wholeclass discussion. In each of these two social scltings there
are
times when
the children described their ongoing activity and when they described prior activity. In the final instance, Ryan's activity in the wholeclass discussion was character ized by a shift from reporting about prior activity to currently engaging in mathe matical activity. Nevenheless, throughout the episode bom children auemJXed to fulfill their obligation to give explanations of their problem interpretations and solution attempts. In so doing, they were actively involved in the interactive constitution of the situation as a social event that warranted explanation.
WholeClass Discussion as an Occasion for Reconceptualizing a Problem In project classrooms, wholeclass discussion (ollowing smallgroup problem solving was initially established as a time for children to report on their smallgroup work. Students would explain their interpretations of problems and their solution processes. However, as it was interactively constituted, the discussion became much more than a reportback session. The example in this section is from a second project classroom in a different school setting. tn this classroom , the teacher regularly solicited solutions different from those already discussed and, as the year progressed. encouraged children to ask questions of each other when they did nOi understand or when they wished to challenge a solution method or explanation. Wholeclass discussion then became dynamic. Chikiren had to go beyond trying to make sense of the explanations given to fonnulating appropriate questions and challenges. In addition. they made comparative judgments about various solutions to decide whemer their own was sufficiently different 10 be offered (yackeJ, Cobb. &. Wood, in press). As a result. children sometimes proposed solution methods during class discussion that were markedly diffetent from those they developed during smallgroup work. indicating a reconceplUalization of the problem. The
4.
149
CHILDREN'S TAlK
following example. which took place in the middle of the school year, is an illustration.
Exampfe 3February 2.
Travonda and Rick
Travonda read the problem and developed a solution
are 10
small·group partners.
which Rick agreed. The
problem was: "Susan had 63 baskets in her shop. She sold 33 of them. How many does Susan have nowT'
I Travonda:
Susan had 63 baskets in her shop. (She places her finger on 63 her hundreds board) She sold 33 of them. How many does Susan have now? 10, W (moving her hand u p the hundreds on
board by rows of 10). I'll stan from there. (She starts over
pointing 1063 and counting up by lens, then by ones on the hundreds board.) 10,20, 30, 1,2, 3. She had 30 left (pointing 10 30 on the hundreds board),
Because her method was clarified visuaJly, Rick had no need to question
or
disagree. The method of counting by tens on the hundreds board was one thai both children used routinely. During the subsequent wholoclassdiscussion,lhe first student called on. Shaun, gave 33 as the answer. When he was challenged by another student to explain how he got 33, Shaun explained that he mistook the 63 for 66. He gave no further explanation. Travonda then raised a question in the form of a remark. 20 Travonda:
I gOI a question. Susan had 63 baskets in her shop. Urn, you got to add some to the 33 to make 63.
The teacher acJcnowledged this question as a "good one" and said. "She wanled to know what did you do? Is that what you did? How did you do it?" Here, the teacher reinterpreted Travonda's remark as indicating that Shaun had not clarified his inteTpretation of the problem. and specifically asked if lhe inteTpretation Travonda proposed was the one Shaun intended. Shaun responded by again explaining that he and his pannerthought the 3 in 63 was a 6. At this point in theepisode the teacher called on Travonda to explain her solution. 25 Teacher.
Would you like 10 lell us how you gOI yours?
26 Travonda:
We got 30 because we said, we said 30 plus 33lhat would equal 63. We said the urn, 3 tens 10the 30 that would make it 60, urn and we already had a 3 over then:. so we said gOl have to put a O. ThaI's how we got 63.
This solution was not the same as the one Travonda developed during small group work. However, it was consistent wilh lhe interpretation of lhe problem she implicitly suggested in her first remark in Line 20. Without explicitly acJcnowledg ing thai she was doing so, she undenook the task of demonstrating how 10 figure
150
YACKEL
out what to add to 33 to make 63. She did so using a comhin:uion of a collections approach and the panitioning algorithm. Interestingly, she implied that the solution bad been developed during smallgroup work. In this way she was able to give the illusion of meeting the implied obligation of describing the solution she developed during prior smallgroup work. At the same time. she was able to engage in the current discussion by responding 10 her own "question" 10 Shaun. II may be thai when Trnvonda heard Shaun's incorrect answer to the problem, she 3ttcmp'ed to verify i t by adding. That could account for her reconcepluaJization of the problem as a missing addend task, whereas she had treated it as a subtraction problem earlier. Al leasl for Travonda. wholeclass discussion was an opportunity to engage in an ongoing discussion and was not restricted lo reporting back from smallgroup work. To panicipate as Travonda did required that she be able to develop a solution, on the spot, consistent with her alternative interpretation of the problem.
Teacher's Role in Supporting Siudents' Attempts to Explain A second theme that emerged from the analysis of the data is the teacher's role in supponing students' attempts to explain. This theme came to the fore especially in those situations that might be characterized as involving breakdowns in communi cation. A txeakdown in communication occurs when there arc differences in the panicipants' takenasshared interpretations and the discrepancies are not resolved. The data that fonned the basis for this chapler included episodes in which children were unsuccessful in their attempts to communicate either with each other orwith the teacher during smallgroup work. The analysis indicated various reasons for breakdowns in communication. The first is that participants may have had dife f ring was no apparent need for them to elaborate and clarify their thinking. The initial interaction between Jack and Jamie in Example I is an illustration. A second cause of breakdown in communication indicated by the analysis was the incompatibility of the children's interpretations of the immediate task and of what constitutes mathematical activity more general\y. In this case, children's genuine attempts to explain were unsuccessful, in pan. because their notions of what constitutes an explanalion differed substantively. A third cause of the breakdown in communica tion was the children's inability to articulate their thinking in a way thai others could understand. The notion of situation/orupIiJlUltion, as described previously by Cobb, Wood, Yackel, and McNeal (1992), proved useful for this aspect of the analysis. Teachers and students give explanations i n an attempt to clarify aspects of their thinking that they deem to be nO! readily apparent to others. However, when they do so there is no guarantee that other panicipants in the interaction attempt to interpret and make sense of the explanation. The distinguishing feature of a situation for explanation is that it is interactively constituted by the participants in the interaction and requires that someone attempt to interpret an explanation that is offered. From this
4.
CHILDREN'S TALK
151
view. explaining is not an individual but a collective 3Ctivity. The usefulness of dUs construct for analyzing situations of communication breakdown is thai it permits distinctions based on the intentions of the listener as we1l as of the speaker.
point of
This section discusses examples in which communication broke down during smallgroup work. In the first example. the children had differing views of what constituted mathematical activity. In the second example. taken from a different project classroom, one child was unable to articulate his thinking to his partner or the teacher. In each case the classroom teacher joined the group. but with differing results.
The discussion of the examples includes a description of the children's
explanation altempts and of the teacher's interventions, including the role those served in facilitating the establishment of situations for explanation.
Example 4FeblUsry 3.
Andrea and Andy were ymrking together in the
smallgroup selting to solve the problem shown in Fig. 4.3. As was documented in previous discussions of the project classroom (Cobb,
Wood. Yackel, & McNeal, 1992) and in Cobb's case studies (chap, 3. this volume), Andrea had an instrumentaJ view of mathematics learning, For her, mathematical activity consisted of following procedural insU\Jctions, By contrast, for Andy, malhematical activity consisted of developing personally meaningful ways of solving problems. Andrea and Andy spent much lime on this problem during smallgroup work, after an initial intervemion from the teacher in which she helped them figure out that they might think of the diagram as the number 35. Andy symbolized 74 by drawing 7 tenstrips and 4 squares and used it to reason that you could get the diagram shown in the problem from his by taking away 4 tens (strips) and adding I (square). For the entire 5 minutes that the children worked on this task without the teacher's presence, Andrea did not altempt to develop a solution of her own. During this time, Andy repeatedly attempted to explain his solulion to Andrea. who showed no evidence of understanding
him. His solution was image based and did
not result in a numerical answer. Andrea's failure (() understand is consistent with her procedural approach to solving mathematical
tasks. She typica1ty used developed procedures for solving
How many do you have to take away from 74 to leave
DDD DD fIG. 4.3. Slripsmd.IQII&I'CS wk.
152
YACKEL
was possible for her 10 interpret a task as an addition wk. 1he procedure she had figured Qut for solving tasks presented using the strips.andsquares format. as was the task posed here, applied only to those where the largest number in the problem was represcnled pictorially. Presumably she could have used her method to solve the problem by using Andy's diagram, but herproceduraJ approach was incompati ble with the explanation Andy developed from his diagram. Further. her interpre tation of this task was that the answer to the problem should be numerical. Andy's explanations. like Ryan's in Example 2, were image based and resulted in descrip tions of how 10 move strips of len and squares (ones), but did not result in a numerical answer. Andy and Andrea had no basis for developing a lakenasshared interpretation of Andy'sdiagram or orhis activity. Neitheronecould conceptualize the task in teons of abstract units of ten that were composed of 10 ones (Cobb. chap. 3, this volume). Nonetheless, Andy did attempl 10 explain his imagebased method 10 Andrea several times. 34 Andy:
Listen, lislen. You leave 30. right? (pointing 10 his diagram) You lake away 4 from 70, and you add a I ...
35 Andrea: 36 Andy:
Thai would be 75. No 3 ,4 ,(4 squares in hisdiagram).ll's4, there is already4 there! There is already a 4 there, see? And !hen you would add a I. 74! So you lake !he 4 (Ienstripsj from your 74 ...
48 Andy:
Okay, take away 4 {tenstrips), take away these. You take away 4 [tenstrips] and you add I !squarej. (Points to his stripsand squares representation.) That will be 5 just like over here, jusl like 5 . ( points 10 the activity page.)
Laler, the teachc:rrejoined the group at Andy's request. Andy explained his solution: 6567 Andy:
What I did was, like I draw 70 and 4 more. You add a I and you take away 4 tens.
He further elaborated on his
imagebased
solution. From Andy's puspective this
constituted a complete explanation. His interpretation of the task was that he should figure out how to begin with a pictorial symbolization of 74 and modify it to make il look like the piccoriaJ symbolization of35 shown in the problem. Theexplanation Andy gave 10 the teaclw:r was much like those he gave to Andrea. From his perspective, he was attempting 10 clarify his activity. The teacherthc:n developed an alternative solution with Andrea. based on starting with the diagram on the activity page. 80 Teacher:
(To Andrea) All righl. Draw a picture down hereAndrea, you do it. Make a stack of 4 5 . another 10, just make one.
8J Andrea:
(Draws a strip.) 45, OK. Go to the next one. (Draws a strip.)
84 Teacher:
55.
81 Andrea: 82 Teacher:
4.
CHILDREN'S TALK
153
85 Andrea:
(Draws a strip.)
86 Teacher:
65,OK. Now 75, but we only need 74. So what an: we going to do? How many are going 10 be in the last stack?
Andrea drew another strip. so now there were 75. 94 Teacher:
OK. Look, wait a minute 10,20.30,40,SQ, 60, 70. 71, 7210,
20.30,40,50,60,70,71,72.73.74.75 (counting on the diagram). But we need only 74,so what are we going to do about this? After another prompt by the teacher,Andrea said,"Just take away one!" In Lines 105 and 107 the teacher continued to develop the solution with Andrea, ignoring Andy's intervening comment in Line 106. 105 Teacher:
Take away onc (from I of the added tcnstrips), you know you
106 Andy:
have 10 in each of these [strips),right? 1,2, 3, 4. 5,6, 7 ... (Interrupts) What I did isljusl put41ike 74 like it says, and then 1 added
107 Teacher:
I like I said over here, and I took away these 4 lens.
(Marks 10 squares on each of the 4 strips added and marks off I square.) Okay. so now that's a 9 instead of a 10 there. That
would give you what you need. 74. All right. now what is this number that you just drew? (Andrea counts to get 39 and writes that down as the answer.) An essential feature of the solution developed by the teacher and Andrea is thai the modification made to the pictorial symbolization was given numerical signifi� cance. In this sense, the solution, unlike Andy's, was compatible with Andrea's interpretation that the problem should have a numerical answer. Andrea partici pated in the development of the solution only to the elltentof responding to teacher directions. The teacher provided the. rationale for the procedure. By doing so, she inadvertenlly contributed to Andrea's interpretation of her actions as procedural instructions. As in any communication attempt. the panicipanlS interpreted the statements and actions of others in tenns of their own understanding and perspec tive. As was noted earlier, context is individual. Andrea's view of mathematical activity as carrying OUI procedures influenced how she interpreted the teacher's comments and actions. Even though the teacher attempted to involve Andrea in the development of the solution method and its rationale. the dialogue shows that the teacher provided both the method and the rationale herself. Thus,despite her best intentions. the teacher contributed 10 the interactive constitution of a situation that did not challenge Andrea's view of mathematical activity. Meanwhile,Andy was attempting to get the teacher to attend to his solution. He kept interrupting, presumably in an attempt to compare his activity to the teacher's. He admiued he did not understand her approach. 120 Andy:
I don't understand what )"ou are doing now.
154
126 Andy:
YACKEL I know I don't agree.
Throughout this smallgroup episode. both Andy and the teacher auempted 10 provide clarification (or their thinking and activity. However, their attempts were unsuccessful. On the other hand, at no point did Andrea altempt to explrun: she merely carried OUI the teacher's directives. Both Andrea and Andy explicitly said that they did nOI understand. Andrea did not understand Andy. and Andy did not understand the teacher. Ouring the subsequent whole...class discussion, one child reported a solution similar to that developed by Andrea and the teacher during smaJlgroup work. However, the report was cryptic. The teacher noticed the similarity and offered to reenact the solution activity she and Andrea had developed together. 14 Teacher:
Okay. This is what Andrea and Andy did one lime. too.Didn', we do thnl one? We extended the picture and how many did you have then? Okay. Let's do that We know there are 75 and I will draw in how many more? 35? Is that what you did? 45 (dmws in 1 more strip).
15 Andrea: 16 Teacher:
3 more [tenstrips] than that and l out and then we getlhe 38. Okay. Now that gives us 40 (from 35 to 75) but we don't want 40. to, 20, 30, forwe only need these many more.So, I'm gonna block OUI 1. Now let's
see
what we have left.
In this reenacunent of the drawing procedure, Andrea and the teacher essen tially reversed roles. In this case. the teacher drew the strips at Andrea's direction, whereas previously Andrea drew the strips at the teacher's direction. However, as in the smallgroup work, Andrea did nOI participate in explaining the procedure the teacher assumed that responsibility. This is consistent with our contention that Andrea interpreted the teacher's actions during smallgroup work as procedural instructions. There is no evidence that Andrea understood the mtionale for using the procedure. In fact, when the teacher later called for an explanation from the group Andrea deferred to Andy. 34 Andrea:
Well, Andy will tell you.He is the one who knows how to draw.
Andy reported that they had solved the problem in two separate ways, and proceeded 10 describe his way. 37 Andy:
We took these (points to 5 squares) and we had 5 of 'em and what I did I put 4 more right there like that ...
38 Teacher:
Okay.
39 Andy:
And J added (pause) I little one right there. I added more to
make 5 out of these and this were all gone. 40 Teacher: 41 Andy:
Okay. And I came up with 35. I erased all those 4.
4.
CHILDREN'S TALK
155
The teacher responded by talking about what she perceived to be an clTOr in her original diagram forthe problem. Neithetshe nor any of the childn:n reacted i n any way to Andy's e,;pJanation. In this example, Andy was consistent. giving essentially the same explanation t o Andrea, to the teacher when she intervened in the group. and i n the wholeclass discussion. In each case, the language he used was similar. He gave an aecou", of the actions he perfonned with the strips and squares giving confirming evidence that his interpretation of the task was image based. There was no need for explanation involving numerical operations. because the appropriateness of his actions could be checked visually. Nevertheless, he gave a rationale for his activity and continued 10 anempl to make sense of the task and of the activity of Andrea
and the teacher. consistent with his general view of mathematical activity as developing personally meaningfuJ solUlions to problems. Several important issues arise from this example. First, a potential situation for explanation arose in that initially Andrea did not understand the problem. whereas Andy had developed an interpretation of it. However, there is no evideoce that Andrea attempted to interpret the explanation that Andy offered. Presumably the teacher attempted to interpret Andy's explanation when she joined the group. However, she quickly dismissed it 10 develop an alternative solution with Andrea.. Therefore, there was no possibility that Andy could succeed with his explanation attempts during smallgroup work. No one was attempting to make sense of them. Consequently. a situation for explanation was not constituted. Likewise. in the subsequent wholeclassdiscussion. a potential situation for explanation arose when Andy described his solution procedure. However, once again there is no confmning evidence that anyone was attempting to interpret his explanation. Second. an illusion of understanding can be created when a teacher and student develop a solution together, with the student following teacher directives. Gregg (1992) referred to this as an illusion ofcomp�t�nu. However, by analyzing the dialogue i t is possible 10 detennine whether one of the participants, in this case the student. is attempting to communicate aspects of his or her mathematical thinking that the student considers to be not readily apparent to others. In both smallgroup interventions and in wholeclass discussions, the teacher can inadvenently guide the interactive constitution of what, from the observer's perspective, is the illusion of competence. In the preceding example, during the wholeclass discussion the teacher and Andrea interactively recreated the illusionary silUation that they had first developed in the smallgroup intervention. The next example illustrates an instance in which neither the teacher nor another panicipating student un
156
YACKEL
what is said (Yackel. 1992). Consequcmly. clarity could develop only when the panicipants in the interaction resolved their incompatibilities. Prior analyses of smallgroup interactions indicate thal one way in which children negotiate mathe matical meaning when they have a dispute is to make explicit what they have previously only taken a s shared (Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1992; Yackel. Cobb, & Wood, 1993). The following example illustrates iliat even when incompatibilities remain and mutual understanding does not develop, there can be some benefits
from the inlCrac1ion. In this instance, even though the teacher did not understand the explanation attempt. he facilitated the development of a situation for explana tion. As a resuh. the student's thinking and reasoning were in no way diminished. Example 5October 23.
This episode among Ray. Jameel, and the teacher
occulTed 2 months into the school year, in a project classrom o different from the one that is the primary subjecl of this book. The problem under considetation was: "Robeno had twelve pennies. After his grandmother gave him some more he had twentyfive pennies. How many pennies did Roberto's grandmother give him?" Ray and Jameel spent considerable time working on this problem. JameeJ first suggested a thinking strategies approach.
5 Jamed:
12 and II is 23. 14 no, 15.
Ray acknowledged that he understood Jamed's thinking with, "12 and 7 is 19 ... what could make 25?" bul pursued a solution using unifix cubes. He put OUI a colleclion of 12 cubes using a tenbar and 2 ones and eventually added 13 using another tenbar and 3 ones. His final colleCIion of cubes consisted of the two collections sKie by side. In the meantime, Jameel also got out a collection of25 cubes, bul had his arranged in a tenbar of one color and a long strip of 15 of another color. In the extended discussion that ensued., the boys talked about whether or nOI both unifix cubes representations were appropriate. Jameel insisted that his 10 and
15 were "the same thing" as Ray's 12 and 13. Ray disagreed. From the social inleractionisl perspective. we might say that Ray's interpretation was that Jamecl had violated two "perceived " sociomathematical norm s. First, a representation with cubes should model the problem as stated, and second. when solving a problem one should nOI"change the !aSk," such as, in thiscase,to discuss (arbitrary) number relationships. Ten and 15 have the same sum as 12 and 13,001 the task at hand was to figure out how many more are needed 10 get from 12 to 25. When the teacher entered the group the boys both acknowledged their disagree menl. After discussing the intClpretation of the problem and clarifying the goa] as figuring out how many 10 add to 1210 get 25, the lcacher auempced 10 gel Jameel 10 explain his thinking. A lengthy discussion followed. At (only) one point Jamed
expJicilly indicated his thinking useful to him.
122 Jameel: 123 Teacher.
strategy
approach and why the 10 and 15 were
Well, wepfay like he had 10. and we, and uh Where did you get the 10 from?
CHILDREN'S TALK
4.
124 Jamccl:
157
I said. we could ploy like we had 10 and urn, and justaJ1 you
gouado isjustsay.um. 13,14, 15, and it's 3. From the observing researcher's perspective. JamecJ was using the compensa tion strategy, that is, he was reasoning that because JO and 15 are 25, then 12 and 13
are
25. However, Jameel's explanation was indirect He argued that to figure
oul how much one needs to add to 1210 gel 25, simply rake the lastlhree numbers in the counting sequence, 13, 14. 15, and add those lhree to the IOta get13.Jamed's inarticulate altemp to explicate the compensation strategy was met with, '" don't quite understand," from the teacher. In his further attempt to clarify
his thinking
to the teacher, Jamccl removed 3
cubes from the Slack of IS, placed them offlO the side. and indicated to the teacher that the remaining 12cubes represented the number of pennies Robeno originally had, whereas the stack of 10 and the 3 cubes off to the side represented the 13 additional pennies his grandmother gave him. To explanation, it is necessary to
make sense of Jameel's second think of the 12 pennies Roberto already had as a
subset of the stack of IS. Apparently Jameel"s reasoning now was that if IS and 10 make
25, then 12 and 13 make 25. Because 12 indicates the number of pennies
Roberto had (and 13 the number his grandmother gave him), the analogy implies that in the 1510 combination, the IS should also represent the number of pennies Robeno had (and 10 the number his grandmother gave him). Yet in JameeJ's first explanation, his statement.
"play like he had 10" indicated the opposite. A further
confusion is that h e used 13, 14, and IS in two different ways. On the one hand, each number is
"named"
assoc iated
with one object in the totaJity, as though each object is with a number name in counting. On the other hand, each number
represents the cumulative total counted so far. The teacher left the group without understandinglameel'sexplanation. Finally.Jamccl counledon from 12to 25 using his fingers and determined that h e
had counted 13 fingers. This explanation was
not challenged by Ray, and they went on to the next problem. During the discussion JameeJ altered his explanation several times but. after his initial remark.
"play like he had 10." he never addressed the critical question or
where the IOorthe I Scame from, or what they represented. even though the teacher explicitly told Jamecl repeatedly that this was what was not shared in their interpretation. Critically. even though the teacher did nOl understand Jamecl's explanation anempts, he continued 10 try 10 make sense of them. Thus, a situation for explanation continued to occur. 1be teacher never indicated to Jamccl that he was wrong. only that he. the teacher. did nOl understand. Had h e i mplied thatJameel was using inappropriate lhinking, the incident might have had the effect of discouraging Jamccl from using relational thinking to develop solutions in the future. As it stood,Jamed could conclude that his explanation was inadequate. but he had no reason to conclude from the interaction with the teacher that his thinking was erroneous. In the wholeclass discussion of the problem, a numberof solution methods were offered. Jameel participated in the discussion of the solutions offered insofar as he challenged the teacher's reference to the "I " in 12 and the "1" in 13 as "one" and
158
YACKEL
"one," Jamed insisted that they each represented ten. not a single one. Given thaI be had been unsuccessful in explaining his method 10 the teacher during smaJJ group work, and that he had repeatedly asked if he could go on to explain the next problem. i t is nOI surprising that when the teacher called on Jameel lo explain the current problem he demonstrated the unquestioned countingon solUlion with which he and Ray had concluded their smallgroup work on the problem. He gave no hinl of his thinking strategy approach. even though none of the other solutions given were based on a thinking strategies approach and different solutions were encouraged, nor did the teacher refer to the discussion he had with Jameel during smallgroup work. A1though Jamed was lefllO draw his own conclusions about the appropriateness of his activity during smallgroup work, the teacher's actions encouraged rather than stifled his explanation attempts. The: fact that the teacher had not rejected his explanation but had only indicated mat he: did not understand it, coupled wim the fact that the teacher accepted Jameel 'schallenge that the "ones" in 12 and 13 should be called "rens" indicared that he respected Jamed's minking.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CLASSROOM As the commonly accepted mode of instruction in mathematics shifts from the traditional approach
to
an inquiry approoch i n which students develop personally
meaningful solutions and explain meir minking to their peers, it is imperative that teachers (and researchers) understand the features of children's talk, meir explana tions of their thinking and their sol.ution methods. More important, it is necessary for reachers to understand that students' activity is reflexhely relaled to their individual contexts, and that the teacher contributes, as do the children. to the interactive constitution of the immediate situation as a social event. Analyses such as those discussed in this chapter are potentially useful in this regard. In this section, we return to each ohhe issues that emerged from the analysis to rc:c:mphasize them and to discuss implications for classroom mathematics instruc tion. The first is the importance of children's interpretations of social events rather than social settings as the critical feature in detennining qualitative differences in their explanations and descriptions of their solutions. 1be second is that the reacher plays an important role in facilitating children's attempts to explain. On the: one hand, the: teacher may assist children in saying what they are trying to say to provide: clarity for others. On the other hand. the teacher may serve the function of maintaining a situation for explanation by persisting in trying to help a child make sense of his or her own explanation attempts. As the data show, teachers must be cautious in their attempts to help children develop viable solutions. The teacher may unintentionally inhibit children's attempts to explain, either by constituting the situation as one of achieving a viable solution or by relieving the children of the responsibility of figuring out for themselves which aspects oftheir e:xplanations require fllnher elaboration and explication.
4.
CHILDREN'S TAlK
159
The examples demonsltalc that children's intc:rprttauons o f thcir obligations in the presence of a I�chet, Of" in the presence of a researcher during small..gmup work. can resule in chik1ren giving different explanations and solutions than when lhey are working only with each othec. In the example with Jack and Jamie, the
boys changed their explanations and. in some cases, their solutions. These changes were
based on their differing expectations. goals. and intentions. For c.xampJc, our
interpretation is that in the pn:scnce of the teacher Jamie felt obliged 10 establish that he had the correct answer, whereas in the presence of the
researcher
be feil
obliged to explain how he had hoen attempting to solve the problem. An implication for the classroom is that the teacher cannot assume thai children interpret the obligation to explain their solution attempts unifonnly. or thai their explanations describing pOOl" activity. Ful1her, the texher must be aware of the possibility that, without the teacher's assistance, one partner in the pair may not have an
an:
opportunity to pursue issues thai remained unresolved in the group. This implies that teachers must exercise caution when working with partners McaJling on them during class discussion. Because the explanations a child gives andthe solutions discussed may represent the thinking of only one child in the pair. teachers must take care to attend to both panners. Second, as we have seen with the examples of Jamie during the smallgroup inten'ention of the teacher
and of Tnlvondn during
the wholeclass discussion, explanations that a� not �s of prior activity can be beneficial and can represent powerful thinking, The teacher's recognition of the creative nature of such activity
can
contribute to fostering the development of
. alternative solution methods and rcconceptualiullions of a problem. The examples also demonstrate that the teacher must be aware of the children's potential interpretations of his or her interventions, including those that are counter
to the teaCher's intentions, [n the case ofthe interventions with Jamie and Andrea during small·group work, the teacher intervened to encourage the children to
de\'elop a viable M an alternative solution method. Nevertheless. in each of these cases, the teacher contributed
to the expectation that developing a solution and
ddermining the COllctc numerical answer were her purposes. Further, in both cases the solution method that these children reponed during wholeclass discussion was the one suggested by the: teacher during smallgroup worle. indicnting that the children may have interpttted the teacher's suggested method as preferential. 1bc analyses also provide teachers and researchers with some indicmion of the
variation of activity that may occur during smllllgroup work. Children may take it for granted that their partner shares their interpretation and understands their thinking. as in the example with Jack. and Jamie, or they may actively seck. 10 convince their partner of their interpretali
with Katy and Ryan. In some cases they may make sense o f their partner's activity, whereas in OIhers. such as with Andrea and Andy.thechildren may nOl have a basis for communicating even though one or both of them may attempt 10 do so.
1be teacher's role in establishing situ3l.ions for explanation emerged as an
importanl theme. As the examples make cJear, constituting a situmion for explana tion neither requires nor im ensuring the development of a viable solution does not imply that a situation for
160
YACKEL
explanation is constituted. In Eumple I (Jack and Jamie), Example 4 (Andrea and Andy), and Example 5 (lamed and Ray), the teacher inlCrvened in the smallgroup work.. For Jack and for Andy, potential silUations for explanation did not develop, because in each case the teacher and another student in the group interactively constituted the topic of discussion to be thai of developing a viable solution. Neither Jack nor Andy succeeded in getting the teacher to interpret their explanations. (In the case wilh Andy. it could be argued that the teacher did undersumd Andy's explanation but was attempting to negotiacc an interpretation of the problem thai went beyond that of a purely imagebased task. Either she chose to ignore Andy's solution or she did not know how to incorporate it into a numerical interpretation, which she felt responsible 10 cncourage.) In each of these two cases, however, a viable solution was developed with the assistance of the teacher. The critical feature of a situa!ion for explanation is that there are panicipants in the interaction who attempt to make sense of the explanation that is offered. The interaction between the teacher and Jamccl in Example 5 exemplifies this feature. This interaction was qualit.aJ.ively dife f rent In this case the teacher was intent on making sense of Jamee]'s explanation, even though he was unsuccessful in doing so. Consequently, we can say that a situation for explanation was interactively constituted by Jameel and the teacher. However, a viable solution (that everyone in the interaction understood) was not developed in the presence of the teacher. Only after the teacher left did Ray and Jameel apparently reach consensus on a solution, one that Ray had proposed even before the teacher entered the group. For completeness' sake it should be noted that while the teacher was present with the group, a situation for explanation did not emerge for Ray. At one point the teacher asked Ray to explain his thinking but, before he finished doing so. the teacher interrupted him and asked Jamccl to continue with his explanation. It appears that the teacher was not listening to Ray's explanation. As these examples have iIIusttated, teachers must be aware of the distinction betwoen assisting students in developing solutions and attempting to make sense of their solution attempts. Situations for explanation are likely to arise for students when the teacher attempts to make sense of their solution methods, but are not likely to arise when the teacher introduces a solution method of his or her own. The role of teacher interventions in assisting children to give explanations emerged as another important issue in the analysis. When the teacher intervenes to help clarify an explanation that a child is giving during wholeclass discussion, the teacher's actions can serve both to assist the children in understanding what constitutes an explanation and to interfere with the children in developing their own explanations. They can assist the children to understand inasmuch as the teacher repeats. elaborates. and so fonh. based on her understanding of the other children's potential for making sense of what is being said. They can interfere in that they relieve the students of the obligation offiguring out for themselves what repetitions and elaboration might be useful. On the one hand. i t is the teacher's responsibility to help students learn how to describe and talk about their mathematical thinking. On the other hand, i t is the teacher's responsibility to help them learn what constitutes an acceptable explanation. The latter involves judging the fit between
CHILDREN'S TAlK
4.
161
what is being said and whalls taken as shared by the class. Rather than taking the
iesponsibility (Of' judging this fit him Of" hersclf, the teacher can ask children if they undemand and encourage them 10 ask questions and request clarification. In
this way. the teacher contributes nol only to children's developing understanding
of what constitutes an acceptable e_planation. bul8Iso 10 the interactive constilu tion oftbe obligation 10 l isten 10 and try to make sense of the explanation attempts orothers.
REFERENCES 8.H. D. I.. (1993). HII1. pi«n. and l'NOths: CoIUtnK:tiDa aad usin. � �ts ift IaCbiIll rlKliou. In T. P. CalpcfIlcr, E. T'elww:nl&, &; T. A.. Rombc:ra: (Eds.). R«iOMl ,....,,: "'" Irw6mtitm tirtJtGI'tll(pp. 1S7I9S), Hilbdale. NJ: U9if'ellee ErIb.um Aux'", Sana, D� It Todd. F. (1m). COIIIIIUII'liaui", ONJ uGnli,., iIIllIIGI/ 8rrHlI1J.lDodon: Ro.alcd,e.t. Kqan Paul. B.atesc., G. (1972). S"fU to lUI KfJl"D D{1ffWl. l.Gndan: Paladill. BIt,IITICI".II. (1969), SyrrrboIk i�rflttiOttislrt. Ea"� Ciffs, NJ: PlePliecHaU. .",Id.J. Cantlridce. MA: Huvard UQioenily Pn::u. Bruner. I. (1986). ActlUlJ 1fIiNh. possiblt ... Cobb, P. (1986l Conie1ll. coak. b:lkrs, and lamina ma1Ixl1lll:i�. For w Uamu., cfMatltmtatia. 6(21.19. Cobb, P� Wood. T� I; YQd, T. (1991). A OI;III:5tnIC:livbt IfIPRloICh \0jii)[X)i1d p:ade lllllhemaics. III E von Glum/tid (FA). RDd�Dl t'OfUfnocrWilIfI i.ot IfItJJMmMicr �dMcGfiotl (pp. 151116). Oordnx:ht: "'_.
Cobb P., Wood, T� YIIde.I. E., &; McNeal. B. (1992). � of cbsJroom 1lllihEQ(ia ,
lfaciiOou: Aft illle� _� AmtricGIIII &lwllliortaJ Ru«udI JOIlTNU. 29, 513604. Cobb, p� Yackel. E., &; Wood. T. (I989J. YOIIal dDldrea'. cmotimal IdS while 6oInall'\llhemltieal pt'Obkm lolvial.IlI D. B. Mc� &; V. M. Aclami (EIb.). AJ/tclfJIIIllltfllw l lllllli(:1IIprobkm soIvilt,: II ttra'fW"pfftiw(pp. 111148). New York: SpriJIea·Vab,. Cobb, P., Ydd. E.. &. Wood.. T. (l992).lalftaCtion AlId lcatUin& ill rnWw:mWe. d.uroom dtuaDonf;. fdwqriOMl Stwli.u bf MrIlhmt.tJ1l4, ZJ, 99122. Cl'cU. J. (1992). 7lIt IlWllaonJtil)Ol '"II �,w.u.,IU,1I 1t/tool1nlll/t,1rIIIIic.s utu:kr 11110 I� JdwoI ...u/wloliu ttlllliru.. UnpublUhcd doacnl diuau ... . Purdie Ullivmity. West Wa"mc. IN. K.amD.. C. (1989). yo...., cIIiJJtrll aJfItu...� to rrlllnntllritluMtic. 2ttd ,rod�: Implicotioll.J ofPill8tt's //wary. New York: Tc.:hcn Colic,," Praa. K.odl.l.. C. (1m. AUi\l5l). �1op{nJ mallvlMJiclIl wliul. Paperpraell�. � Scve.h 1.Q�11III' lional Coq.nss 011 Madrma6c:al IW''C'IriM. Qu&c!; Ci1y, Cauda. Lampert, M. (l990). When � problem is �OI lbe quc:Wa and the IOII1tio11 is /III. lbe &nPo'a. MIII.hcmMiuI kDowiq and 1eICtUI& AllttriaM &Il1Ct1JiotuII � JOIlntDl, 27, 2963. lzilel', K. (1980)." pnr 1M �rIutotrvfltodololY' New York: OUord Ullh'aMY Pn:u. MIImI)I. H. (1992. AyCUII). � IftI>lMlItIlIIu /1IroqIIwc:kd i/lkr«tiDfl. P.. peJc/.ed II the .sch IntemMimal Con&Je$l 011 Mllhem.k:II EiluettioII. QuaIec: Cily. 0 ... .. N.inNl Council ofTud:IctJIIf�cr. (1989). C.. rrica.fw"tJIIdt'WJi1Ulti1lfl11DlldtudsforJdwDi _wtia. RelCOIl, VA: Naaional CouDciI ofTcadu. 0( M&Itanuicr. RKbanh. J. (1991). MMbemMIcaI disnnWns.1n E. _ Gl&5CI'lfcld (Ed.I, RadkoJ C<M.!'fII<:/Msm III ��tlDOII(PP. 1),,51). DlMdnx:bl: Kluwcr. VGII Glucnfdd. E. (1913).l.canlina II • COIIJCnIeIive Ktivity.ln J. C. Sup/OIl '" N. 11e/lIWvQ (EdI;.) PfflCffdu,,1 oftlw riflll ",.,..,/ Mtctill6 oftltt NonI! AlMrktM CItDp�rof1M IlIUmIIIWNII GrrAqI 1M tIu. p� ofA/IJ/MIIwic.t &I11C1J1ioII (Vol. 1. pp. "I 1469). Mo«teaI: !'ME.
162 Wood,
YACKEL
T .• oft Yackel, E. (1990). Tht; deYelopmall of collabocalive dialogue within small group inlcl1lCtions. In L P. Steffe &: T. Wood (Eds.l, Tratlf/orming clU/drtn's maJ/otflllJJics nU.t:a/iOll: fllltrnalional �rs�cm� (pp. 244252). Hillsdale, NJ: LaWIaI
5 Thematic Patterns of Interaction and Sociomathematical Norms Jorg Voigt
University ofHamburg
The underlying motive of the study discussed in this chapter is 10 understand how intersubjectivity is eSlablished in malhematics classrooms, if the radical construc tivist perspective on the leamer's subjectivity is taken as a staning point. The popular answer, that the student could discover mnthematical truth on his or her own, does not seem sufficient because the student (at least the elementary school student) has not fully learned the process of mathematical reasoning, and is not yel a member of a mathematical community. This study searches for an answer by analyzing interactions (i.e mutual influences) between lhe teacher and the students within the classroom microcullure. Although the investigation focuses on theoretical concepts developed within a theoretical network, the concepts are based on the analyses of actual classroom episodes. Thus, classroom episodes in the text will be used to illusb'ale theoretical considerations and empirical findings. In !he rusl section, an inleractionisl approach is presented thai mediates belween individualism and collectivism. This contrast juxtaposes a psychological perspec· live thai stresses the learner's aulonomy and his or her cognitive development, and a collectivist perspective that criticizes the "childcentered ideology" and views mathematics learning as !he student's socialization into a pregiven culture. The comparison of these perspectives is made in order 10 present contrasting ideas and 10 oulline an interactionist approach. This interactionist approach views negotiation of meaning as the mediator between cognition and culture. In the second section, several basic ideas of the intemctionist perspective are o discourse are presented. A main assumption is thai the objeclS of the classrom ambiguous, thai is, open 10 various interpretations. The panicipanlS gain a taken· as·shared understanding of the objeclS when they negotiate mathematical mean· .•
163
1 64
VOIGT
ings. In these processes. the students and teacher ach.ieve a thematic coherence in their discourse,lnteractively, they constitute a mathematical theme that. on the one hand depends on the participants' contributions, whereas on the other hand cannot be sufficiently explained by the thoughts and intentions of any onc person alone. Whereas the second section focuses on the dynamics of classrom o situations, the lhird section attempts to explain the �gularities of the classroom microculture. Thematic patterns of interaction that conU'ibute to the stability of lhe mathematics discourses are reconstructed In particular, this section argues that the evolution of mathematical themes, described as improvisations of thematic patlems of interac· lion, seems to correspond to the students' cognitive development. The founh section stresses the relationship between the students' mathematical goals and values lhat emerge in the negotiation of mathematical meanings between the teacher and the students. Thai is, the students direct their mathematical activities toward their own mathematical goals, and these goals are inclirectly influenced by the teacher. In the classroom analyzed, the teacher and the students mutually constitute sociomathematical nonns, such as what counts as an elegant mathemat ical explanation. This analysis demonstrates how the teacher can positively influ ence the students' mathematical thinking and cognitive development in an indirect and subtle way. This study does not offer direct suggestions for improving mathematics instruc tion. The primary interest is to develop theoretical concepts thai make classroom processes understandable. But what is the relevance of such theoretical work for the improvement of mathematics education? We cannot improve the classrom o microculture in the same way that we can change the mathematical curriculum 01' the classroom macroculture characterized by general principles and teaching strategies. The microculture lives its own life, and its characteristics depend on hidden patterns. conventions, and noons that, like the students' attitudes and the teaching style, are difficult to change. Therefore, we should conceptualize the change of a microculture as an evolution rather than as a rearrangement. In order to influence and direct thaI e\'olution, it is helpful to understand the regularities and dynamics of the processes within Ihe classroom life.
RELEVANCE OF mE INTERACfIONIST APPROACH A basic assumption of the interactionist poinl of view
is that cullural and social
dimensions are not merely peripheral conditions of learning mathematics but are,
10 be. justified. because mathematics learning is often considered to be a process thaI occurs within
in fact, intrinsic 10 the learning of mathematics. This view has
the mind of a lonely learner who is free of social dynamics and cultural influences. Philosophies like Platonism or intuitionism assume that mathematics expresses
eternal relationsrups between objects that are intuitive as well as objective. Tymoczko (1986) cailed such lheories "private theories" because, in lhe idea]
5.
THEMATIC PATTERNS OF INTERACTION
165
situation. a single isolated mathematician discovers or creates mathematical knowI· edge. Diverging &om lhese priva1c thcoIies, othcrphikJsophers, such Wi Lakatos (1976) and Wingenstein (1967), considered ma1hematics to be a product of social processes. Using the literary form of cliL\S1Wffl discussions, IakalOSdescribedhow mathematical concepts are stabilized orchanged over time through the processes of agJeeilcl nt and refutation. WlUgensttin understood mathematics as invented (not discovered), and thus as humanmadc. Wingens�in explained the inexorableness of mathematical argumen tation in our experience through his concept of the "language game." Acoording to this view, the firmness of numbers and figures and the rigor of proving procedures are effects of the rigid language games invented by mathematicians. (For a funher discussion o(languagc games see Bauersfeld, chap. 8, this volume.) In mathematics education, there exists anOiber obsUlCle to the interactioniSI point of view; the prominence of childcentered conceptions that stress the auton omy of the learner. Several educators who refer to Piaget's genetic epistemology or 10 Bruner's early educational claims of "discovery learning" view a child's mathematical knowledge as the product of his or her conceptual operations. Howeyer, although the sociological aspects of Piagel's research are not fully developed, Piaget himself suued thai ''Social interaction is a necessary condition for the development of logic" (quoted by Doise & Mugny, 1984, p. 19). Similarly, Bruner (1986) remarked on D development in his own work: "I have come increasingly to recognize that mostleaming in mosc settings is a communal activity. a sharing oflbe cullure" (p. 127). Quite early, Bruner (1966) doubted thai: the student could discover all school knowledge: ''Culture, thus, is not discovered; it is passed on or f<Xgotten. All this suggests to me thai we had better be cautious in talking about the method of discovery, or discovery as the principal vehicle of education" (p. 101). Nevertheless. I also see the danger of overemphasizing the focus on social and cultural aspects of mathematics learning. Edwards and Mercer (1987, p. 168) claimed that the "chil
166
VOIGT
shldies analyzing discourse processes in detail have concluded thai students' attempts 10 participate in the constitution of traditional patterns of interaction can be an obstacle for learning mathematics (Bauersfeld, 1988: Jungwirth. 1991: McNeal. 1991; Steinbring. 1989; Voigt. 1985. 1989). In usual lessons, the class room discourse often tends to degenerate into rituals thai are constituted step by step. Surprisingly, the teachers are unaware of these regularities in the microprocesses, and they misinterpret the students' panicipation in the classroom discourse. Therefore, we should resist the temptation to identify learning mathe matics with learning how 10 participate successfully in patterns of interaction. We can, however. analytically distinguish between the dynamics of leaming processes and the dynamics of interaction processes. This view will enable US 10 investigate the relationShips between mathematical leaming and social interaction. In view of these problems. the interactionist approach allows the researcher to
consider social aspects, and, at the same time. avoids the danger of overemphasiz ing the cultural aspects. This approach focuses on individuals' sensemaking processes and on the ways in which they interactively constitute and stabilize mathematical meanings. The interactionist approach is based on microsociology, and is paJ1icularly influenced by symbolic in(eractionism (Blumer. 1969: Mead,
1934) and ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967: Mehan. 1979).
Bauersfeld, Krummheuer, and I have modified the sociological concepts in order to deal with the specifics of teaching and learning mathematics (Bauersfeld,
1980: Bauersfeld, Krummheuer, & Voigt. 1988; Krummheuer, 1983: Voigt, 1984). Of course, the inleractionist point of view is not sufficient for understanding classrom o processes as a whole; it clarifies the dynamics and regularities of the microcuhure in mathematics classrom o s. Specifically. it focuses our attention on the negotiation of mathematical meanings in the local events of classroom life. In closing this section, some general methodological comments are given. Because microsociology is based'on the "interpretative paradigm" (in contrast to t h e n o r m a t i v e one; cr. Wilson, 1970). interactionist s t u d i e s prefer microethnographical methods (Erickson. 1986: Voigt. 1990). These methods in
volve the detailed description and interpretation of transcripts in the context of case studies. The transcripts are analyzed as documents describing processes. For
example. instead of asking what the mathematical meaning of something really is or how often the meaning is constituted. we reconstruct how a mathematical meaning emerges and how it is stabilized as the classroom life evolves. Mathemat ical meanings are considered to be products of interaction processes specific to the microculture studied.
and to be
When analyzing rranscripts, the interpreter anempts to reconstruct the construc tions of the observed students and teachers (SchUtz, 1971). The basic relativistic
assumption of Schutz's social phenomenology as well as of von Glasersfeld's radical constructivism is that the actor's experiential reality is the reality as he or she interprets it. This assumption is valid for the interpreter as well. Therefore. o episode is open to different interpreta every observed and documented classrom
tions. In order to justify the researcher's panicular interpretations of an episode. the researcher should explicate empirical background knowledge (i.e., products of
167
THEMATIC PAITERNS OF INTERACTION
5.
earlier inlCrprda!ion5) and �Lical concepts. Therefore, in contrast to quandta
tive positivist studies. ethnographical suJdics have to involve "thick. descriptions" (Denzin. 1989) and the elaboration of theoretic al concepts.
NEGOTIATION OF MATHEMATICAL MEANINGS Ambiguity and Interpretation According 10 folk beliefs, t� tasks, questions, symbols. and 50 on of mathematics lessons ha\"C definite. clearcut meanings. In order 10 realize the: rdevI'lDce of the concept of negotiation. these beliefs have to be challenged. IJ one Ioolu .III miaoplOcesses in the classroo m carefully. the 14$0 and symbols are ambiguous and ca1l (or inlCrpcelation (with regard 10 the ambiguity of tools. such as of the hundreds board. see Cobb. chap. 3, this \'olume). What is the meaning of "S" to young children in a specifIC silUation11s the meaning bound to concrete things (e.g.. "'the lillie finger of my left hatxf')? Does the sign remind the student of previous activities (e.g
.•
"
.II.
difficuil number to write")?
Does it evoke specific
emotions (e.g "my favorite number")? Is ilS meaning related to other numbers (e,g" "equal to 2 + 3, I + 4. 0 + 5'1. and 50 on? .•
lbc: problem shown in Fig. 5.1 is laken from the project classroom. There are
severa] different ways to interpret this problem. For example: Theproblemcan be interpreted as a practical one. Multilinks have 10 be manually conl"'dt'd to each other. In this case, the number of the: add itional squares has to be •
counted. There: is no 7'f'CTSSity 10 figure out the: first number or locoont lens.
"The problem can give rise 10 operations with bani and squares in onc's imagination. 'The additional bars and the surplus squ.an:.s have to becounled in ordcr •
to gcl seven baR and three squares. •
"The problcm can be inlclptctcd as 11 problem of calcullUion wilh abstraci units
of numbers. "The fll'Sl repre:senlation of a number has 10 be cnumerated. Then lhe
How many do you have to add to
to make73?
FIG. 5.1. Strips·and·fIq\IaIa wk �ill'"' 46+__ 1J.
VOIGT
168
difference between the two numbers has to be figwa:! oul according 10 rules of the numeration system. of ten differs in lhese options for understanding. Ten can be taken as the quantity of several objects. or as the name of a stnndard bar, or as a unit. Using cognitive conceplS. Cobb (chap. 3, this volume) discusses the possible intecpietations of the tasks in detail. According to one orlbe ctbnomethodological assumptions, every object or event in human interaction is piurisemantic (i.c ''indcxicaJ,'' Leiter. 1980). In order to make sense of an object. the subject uses background knowledge and Cornu a context for interpretation . If the background understanding is taken for granted, lhcn the subjectdoes not ,......,ssari ly experience the ambiguousobjectas piurisemantic but rather as factual. For example. some students solved the problems by counting tbe missing bars and surplus squares separately. carol. one of the less conceptuaJly advanced students in the classrom. o solved the problem shown in Fig. 5.2 Ims way: 1he meaning
.•
I Teacher:
2 Carol: 3 Teacher:
How are we going to figure this out? We are going to do this together. Wha! are we going 10 add to this number to go 10 this number? How arc we going to do this? What arc we going 10 have lo do? (She waits until several students raise bands.) Carol. (She goes to the boanl.) Add 2 tenban take away 3. (She points to the top parts of the problem). Add 2 tenbars take away 3. Hm, OK. So she says (writes on the overhead projector Carol's solution) add 2 tens and take away 3 ones. All right, that's one solution. I don'( know if it is right or wrong, but that is what she says might work. What about
Michael?
��
How many do you have to add to
D
D D
to make
THEMAT)C PATIEANS OF INTERACTION
5.
169
(nterpreting the problem as a practical one. Carol had no reason to combine the amounts
of the missing b:&n: and surplus squares 10 make one number. Moreover.
that Carol had a conceptual understanding of Icn as a numerical composite ralhcr than an abstract composite unit (for the cognitive concepts see Cobb, chap. 3, this volume. or Cobb &: Wheadcy, 1988). Therefore. the observers assumed
we can infer thai Carol, by herself, could nol evaluate her solulton as a provisional
one. Indeed. (or the practical purpose of combining cubes and ban, Carol's solution
sufficienl. The ambiguity of ob� is nol only a peculiarity of spo;:ial scenes or problems: il comes out as a long.lenn characteristic of classrom o discou.ne if the leacher and was
the students imcrpret the objects in systematically different ways. Referring to
Goffman', frame analysis (1974),
Krummheoer
(1983) reconstructed different
background understandings ( framing5 ) between the teather and the studenu of "
"
an .Igebn. class over a longer period of time. Comparing the inleDctions during collaborative learning with the interactions during frontaJ class leaching. he clem andi gs" between the teacher and the students are quite onsUilted that "misunderstn usuaJ. Even if the participants use the same words. they can think differen tly. Using epislCmologicai arguments, Su�inbring (J 991) explained why the disparity between
the teacher's and the students' background understandings exists, New mathemat ical concepts can implicate new undemandings of what was known before. In order
to learn the new mathematical concepts that the teacher introduces, the students must change their background underslandings toward the teacher's understanding. This disparity, Of nonroC'ipnxity of perspectives. can give rise to leaming opportu nities in social interaction,
10e mathematical problems posed in the project classroom can be solved in different ways ac:c:ording to different conceptual possibilities. Further, the elas.s
room panicipanlS are obliged to understand and compare their differenl interpre·
tations of the problems. During processes of interaction, they negotiate the mathematkal meanings and try to come 10 an agrument about which results and which :quments could be taken as mathematical solutions and appropriate math ematieal explanations, respectively.
Social Interaction From the view of symbolic interactionism. interaction is more than a sequence of actions and reactions. Onc participant of an interaction monitors his 01" her action
in aa:onJanc:e with what he or she assumes to be theother participants' background understandings. expectations. and so forth. At the same time, the other participants makesenscof lhe action by adopting what they believe to be the aclor's background understandings. intentions. and so (onh,
11le s ubsequent actions of the olher
panicipants are intetprel.ed by the former actor with regard 10 hisorher expectations and can prompt a reconsideration, and so on. For example, the student can inttl'}nt i ic the teacher's reaction IS a specf the teacher's reaction might only have been an ellPfUSion of amusement al a
170
VOIGT
particular moment during the student's action. Using his IX her background knowledge of the teacher's supposed emotion and consequently feeling shame. the student might search for more advanced ways to inlerpret the problem at hand and to solve il. Anolhe!' student experiencing a similar silUation might cope by pleasing the: leachec superficially. Of course. the teacher could react differently according to his or her background knowledge of the two students' different dispositions. Analyzing the interaction between lIle teacher and a student, Jameel. Yackel (chap. 4, lhis volume) presents II concrete example of such mutual interpretations and expectations. Of course, the subject's background understanding is not fixed and stored knowledge thai is unchangeable duringlhe interaction processes; at any timcduring these processes, the subject may realize various background understandings. The result may be Ihal the realized background understanding will be confirmed or ailered. However, in the context of lcaming mathematics, the situations of interest are thosc in which lhc studcnts cannot be expected 10 understand lhedassroom objects as intended by the teacher. In the next two episodes, a student offered an advanced solution Ihat the lCaCher did not expect from all students.Therefore, she adjusted her reaction to her expectation of the conceprual possibilities of the other students: TIle problem 5 x 7 is discussed after the problem 5 x 5 was solved: =
I
Teacher:
2 Alex: 3 Teacher: 4 Alex: 5 Teacher: 6 Jack: 7 Teacher: 8 Alex: 9 Teacher: 10 Alex:
=
_
_
You're ready for the next one. All right. It says S x 4 20, the next one says 5 x 5 = 25. If we know that, can we figure out 5 x 7'! Alex? Urn 3 more 10 more. \0 more? Well 10 more ...from 2S [inaudible}. Jack. I'm going to ask you for the next answer. You and Jamie be ready. OK. Go ahead (to Alex). It's 10 more than this [5 x 5 25) because the 7 is 2 more than 5. So you think the answer would be 10 bigger? Yoah. '"
=
The problem S x 7 is ambiguous because there are different ways to think about it and to solve it. Alex's way of solving can be considered advanced when compared with other students' ways of solving. If we assume thaI Alex pursued this way because he anticipated that the teacher would like it. we can understand thaI Alex's activities were influenced by the social interaction with the teacher.That is, Alex could have interpreted the teacher's first tum as an invitation to compare the problem in question with the fonner one. Conversely. the teacher's activities might have been influenced by her interpretation of how Alex's activities indicated his conceptual possibilities. During prior lessons, Alex offered similar comparisons between problems and his answers indicated that he took the structural relationships =
_
171
THEMATIC PATIEANS OF INTERACTION
5.
into account correal)'. Perhaps the teacher addressed Alex rust because: she CJlpeaed him 10 offet a similar method again. Moreover, the teacher's following reaction 10 Alex's solution may have been influenced by her interpretation of the other students' competencies: 1 1 Teacher: 12 Students: 13 Teacher: 14 Srudents: 15 Teacher: 16 Studen15: 1 1 Teacher:
00 you su thai boys and girls? He's saying 5 x S = 25. Oh yeah. This is 2 bigger. Ifs 2 fives bigger. not 2 ones. Oh yeah. But 2 fives . . . and so 25 and 10 make . . 35. 35. If we put 5 on a finger and count 7 of them we have 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30.35. So thaI's another way 10 figure il. .
On the one hand. the teacher stJUSed Alex's solution and explained the mathe matical links between the two problems. On the other hand, she also �5Cnled a ralher plain way of solving. Presumably. the teacher wanted to highlight Alex's way. bul she anticipated lhal not all students would UOOeliland it and mal she would overtax. some of them. For example, 20 minutes before. another student. Peter. had inferred rrom 3 x 7 "'21 that 3 x 8 has to be 22 (I more) orthat it has 10 be 28 (7 more). The nt:xt classroom qJisode also illustrates inlt:raction processes tltat involve difft:�nI h:lt:kground understandings. lbe panicipants have discussed fractions as the pans of the area of circles. Now, the teactlCr uses pieces of apples as an t:mbodiment of fractions: 1 Teacher.
If we have 20 kids and 25 3ppll$; how are we going to split it up so everyone gets the S3JTle amount . . . equal pieces?
1 Student:
I.
3 Student:
We can give everybody I and what /itt we going to do with the: other S apples? Throw them away. We're going 10 throw them away. Well we can throw them away. but th.:I,'s kioo of wasteful. Split them n i half. Isimultaneously) What are we going to do'! Split them in half. Split them in fourths, split them in fourths. Split them into 20 more pieces. Right. Splillhem into 20 more pieces. So sometimes a fraction is not only a whole thing or a group it has . . . it has extr.l pieces. You split the apples into 5 pieces because . . . No. n i to fourths. Wait a minute. Sh Ito rest of class). OK. S opples S x 4 is 20. S x 4. ft would be fouMs. Split the apples inlO founhs.
4 Student: 5 Teacher: 6 Student: 1 Teachc:r: 8 Students: 9 Michael: 10 Teacher:
I I Alex: 12 13 14 IS 16
Bonnie: Teacher: Bonn;e: Teacher: Bonnte:
172 17 Teacher. 18 Bke: 19 Teacher:
VOIGT We would splil lhe apples into fourths. And so how much would everybody get? One and a fourth. One and a rounh apples. Or we would gel ¥4ths. (She circles .$'4 on the overhead projector.) Wouldn't we?
On the one hand. the story can be understood as a pragmaticproblem so thai the distribution of only 20 apples is reasonable. At first. the students suggested thai every child would get one apple, leaving five remaining. In real life, it is not necessary to distribute the remaining apples. On the other hand, the story can be laken as a representation of how fractions can be handled. Acting from this perspective. the teacher had 10 cope with the pragmatic solution, the first perspec tive. The teacher spoke of wastefulness. If a student thought oflhc: problem as ttue 10 life, he orshe had 10 change his or herperspective in order 10 understand the intellectual problem intended by the teacher. By negOliation of meaning. the participants arrived at a provisionaJ agreemenl. In the inlenrtion process. two different OOckground understandings became adjUSkd so that a joint solution was achieved. Mathematical Meanings Taken as Shared It is not only imponant that the teacher and the studenls attempt 10 understand each other. A third thing, the accomplishment of intersubjective meanings taken as mathematical ones, is essemial in mathematics teaching and learning. The point is not that teacher and students "share knowledge" ; from the symbolic interactionist and the radical constructivist points ofview, mathematical meanings are only taken as shared when they are produced through negotiation. Krummheuer (1983, with reference to Goffman) and Cobb (1990, with reference to von Glasersfeld) used the terms working interim and consensual domain. respectively, to describe this situation. The panicipants interact as if they interpret the mathematical topic of their discourse as the same. although they cannot actually be certain that their subjective background understandings an: consistent with those of the ocher panici pants. "We have then a kind of interactional 'modus vivendi.' Together the partic ipants contribute to a single overall definition of the situation which involves not so much a real agreement as to what exists but rather a real agreement as to whose claims concerning what issues will be temporarily honored" (Goffman, 1959, p. 9f). One can never besure that two persons are thinking similarly ifthey collaborate without conflict, especially if they agree about formal statements and processes. One of the characteristics offormal mathematics is that people can coordinate their actions smoothly although lhey are actually ascribing different meanings to the objects. For example, in the earlier scene, the teacher and the students speak of "fourths." They act as irthey are thinking of the same thing, but several interpretations such as a part of an apple. or a pan of five apples. or a number could be assumed The tenn lllken as $hared describes the participants' conviction thai meanings are shared, or lhe participants' willingness to neglect doubts in view of inevitable
THEMATIC PAITEAN$ OF INTERACTION
5.
173
ambiguities. Of the presumption lbat the meanings will be shared if the othcn will "Jt:ad between the lines," The participants' conviction that meanings are shared, fixed. and definite is described by ethnomethodological studies (Garfinkel. 1967; Leiter. 1980) that use theconcepto(�commonsense knowledge" referring to Schijtz and Luckmann (1973). In his ethnomethodological writings. Cicourel (1970) used the concept of the "dcctc:rarulc" to hint at the participants' confidence that they could i.n1erprel the discourse with further clariftCations bul the: provisional under· standings are sufficient (or the purposes at hand. In learning situations, students participate in processes of mathematical argu mentations without ensuring thai the mathemn1ical meanings are immediately clarified. In this episode. the studenlS, Jack and Jamie. 3te solving the following problems: 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7.
SO9=fi
6O  9 = 1l 60  19fi 4 1 + 19fiQ 31 +29=6O ) 1 + 19 = � 32 + 18 ", _
We do not know by direct observation how the two students solved the rlf'S[ six tasks because the videotape begins when the students are solving the seventh wk. In the classroom. several ways of solving were allowed and encouraged; for example, counting by ones, using the hundreds board, or relaling a new problem to a previously solved one (Wood &. Yackel, 1990). The videotape begins when Jack makes a statement: Uhhuh. that's 18, not 19. Yeah, but that's 32 noI 31. OIl yeah! They're the same thing. Researcher. WhaJ.'sthe same thing? These lWo. [Hepoints to31 + 19:0: SO and 32+ 1 8 :0: _.) Jamie: Researcher: Hang on,( wasasking Jack. Which ones? We've got 3 1 and 19. Makes SO. Jack: 9 Researcher: Yeah. 10 Jack: And, look 32 and 18. Sec, it's JUSt one more than thai (points to the tasksl. and thaI's one higher than thai. I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8
Jack: Jamie: Jack: Jamie:
Later on in the interview, Jack and Jamie indicaled that they solved the fifth task by adding the lens and lhe ones 31 + 29 30+ 20+ I + 9 = SO + IOz: 60. 1'be sixth task was solved by comparing the second addends ofthc sixth and ofthc fifth tasks. The students were able to combine two wks that did noI differ in one addend. But
174 the fifth task. which
VOIGT differ'S n i both addends from the preceding IaSk, was solved
as an isolated onc. AI this point, when the students solve
the scventh taSk. a new way of solving c�rged in the COtJr'5e of into1lCtion. We do not know whether Jamie had solved the problem by a compttWllion sb'alegy. such as comparing the sixth and the seventh tasks before the episode starts. The: analysis of the interview with Jamie indicates thai he W04Jkl beable 10 doso. Therefore, it may be that Jamie had offered this solution loJlIC1c who, at the beginning ofthe episode, resisted and had 10 be convinced by Jamie. Neverthelcn, it is also possible to assume thai the compt:nsalion emerges
" between" the Sl�nts without one student thinking of it ahead of the negotiation. This intetprct:ttion illustrates the interactive constitution of malhematicaJ meaning
(rom the inleractioniS[ point of view: The meaning of the task is interactively constituted u one in which the increase of one: addeDd compensates the decrease of the other. At the beginning. each of the studems focused his anentian on the change of one addend Ind points 10 il. Each then altered his anention because he was stimulated by the other and accepted the ()(her'5 Slatement. The students gaintd a laCit agreement without checking whether they did in fact "share" .II common knowltdge. Through this negotiation. a
meaning of the task was constituted.
Without this neg
meaning taken as shared is not a partial match of individuals' constructions. nor is il a cognitive element Instead. it exists at the level of interaction. "Symbolic inler&etionism views meaning . . . as arising in the process of inleractioo between people. 1be meaning of a thing grows out of the ways in which other penons act toward the person with regard to the thing. . . . Symbolic interactionism sees meanings as social products" (Blumer, 1969. p. 5). In the scene just described, the
meaning ofthesc\'cnth taskemergtd when thestudcnts interact 'The: task was taken as the " same thing" compared with the si,;th task. When the rescan:hcr and the students interacted. this meaning was stabilized between them.
Interactive Constitution of a Theme In the course of negotiation. the teacher and the students (or the students among themselves) accompli&h rel81ionsh.ips of mathematical meanings that are taken as shared. From the observer's point of view, I call these relationships of meanings a mathcm3tical lhe�. ln the episode last described. the theme is the comparison of two tasks because the panicipants seem to pay allention 10 differences and correspondences of the tasks, Because "the teacher is not safeguarded against the students' creativity"
(Bauersfdd. personal communication). the studeflts can make original contribu
THEMATIC PATIEANS OF INTERACTION
5.
175
lions to the theme so that it may not represent the content lhal the teacher intended 10establish. Realizing his orher intentions, the teacher is dependent on the students' indications of understanding. just as the students are dependcm on the teacher's acceptance of their contributions. So the theme is not a fixed body of knowledge. but, as the topic of discourse, it is interactively constituted and it changes through the negotiation of menning. In the next episode. a student makes a statement thai. presumably, the teacher did not expect. His statement further extends the preceding theme. This excerpt picks up after a discussion in which a story problem was solved, and the solutions of the story problem were discussed. The first problem is as follows: Jay bas some baseballs. He lost 19 of them. He had 29 left. How man)' baseballs did he have before he lost some? At this point of the discussion. the solutions of the next story problem arediscussed: AfterMary gave away29 stickers to Julie, she had 19 left. How many stkkers did Mary have to begin with? 1 2 3 4
Teacher: Joy: Teacher: Joy:
5 Jack: 6 Teacher: 7 Jack:
Linda: 9 Teacher: g
Joy. 48. 48, how did you get that answer? Well, I just used . . . well. we used the top one. (The teacher smiles and nods.) And it equals 29. (He interruptS.) They're the same numbers. Ah·hah, Jack. did you want to add something 10 that? Yes, they're jusl different words. (A general hubbub of com i shared. ments as the teacherspeaks, as ifto indicate the insight s Among this Linda speaks.) They're cousins. They're cousins, that's a nice way 10 explain it, they're cousins.
At the beginning, the panicipants compared the two story problems. Joy and Jack focused their attention on the correspondence between the numbers. Theolher students' excitement indicated that they saw the correspondence. Should we be satisfied if pure numbers and their relations fonn the theme? Do the students know why they have to add the numbers? We do not know whether lhey realized a correspondence at the surface level of numerals or at a semantic level. If the students did not pay allention 10 the staT)' because they were tempted to look for signal words without realizing the intendcdsemantic structureofthestory problem, then they were only realizing a surface correspondence. In light of this danger, Linda's utterance, "'Jbey're cousins," should not be judged as only a joke. Her contribution reintroduced the slory into the theme, so that her statement could be taken as a starting point for the discussion ofthe stoT)'. In the discussion, the intended semantic structure of the problem could be derived. If the teachet" does not direct and evaluate the students in a rigid, stepbystep way, and if a dialogue consisting of students' original contributions is established, then the theme can be described as a river that produces its own bed. The result of the dialogue is not clear in advance. In one of the episodes presented earlier. Jamie
178
VOIGT
and Jack were nOI forced 10 solve the task by a compensation
stralegy. But, if they bad solved several tasks in a similar way and if they had successfully justified that way. the observer might expect that the comparison of tasks would be a common theme between Jack and Jamie in (Ulure problems. Themes gain stability because people arc obliged to take care of the thematic coherence of discourse (except small talk), and because mathematicaJ discussions are constrained by specific. rigid obligations. In cases of conflict, the participants clarify what is taken as the theme. If a participant is accused of straying from the theme. he or she may be forced to justify the relevance of his or her divergent conlribution. The theme may also be changed through metacommunicative re marks or markers (Luhmann. 1972: see also Krummheuer. chap. 7, this volume). When the interactional cOllCept of lheme is applied 10 leacberstudent interac tions, it mediates between two theoretical perspectives. One perspective stresses the experiential situation as a person subjectively constructs it. The individual's conceptual operations are of interest in this perspective. The other perspective views the globa] cultural context, as stabilized and institutionruized by a community (of mathematics teachers and other persons) over a longer period of time. Because the theme is interactively constituted, it would not exist without the teacher's and the students' contributions. It is related to the students' individual thinking pro cesses as well as to the mathematical and educational claims of a global context thal lhe teacher represents. The theoretical perspective of the second section can be now summarized. In the classroom situation, objects are ambiguous. Because of the differences between their situated inlerpretations and theirbackground understandings. respectively, the leacher and the students negotiate mathematical meanings. The students and the teacher arrive al mathematica1 meanings that are taken as shared. The relationship between these meanings fonns the theme of the discourse. The theme unites students' contributions and those ofthe teacher, who is particularly concerned that the theme fits with the intended mathematics. In elaborating these COnceplS.I a.nempt to take two theoretical demands that Wef'e mentioned in the fim section inio account On the one hand, the concepts are noI restricted to issues of individual psychology. The individual's sensemaking processes are assumed to be influenced by socia] affairs. On the other hand, the individual's actions and thoughts are viewed as originally influencing the socia] processes
(THEMATIC) PATTERNS OF lNfERAcnON The Accomplishment of the Microculture In time, the negotiation of meaning fonns commitments berween the panicipanlS and stable expectations for each individual. Through mutual accommodations, the panicipants fonn the impression that they know what mathematics teaching and learning is. Whenthe interaction proceeds smoothly, a "common sense knowledge"
THEMATIC PATTERNS OF INTERACTION
5.
177
1971) is taken as shared. What was initially conslitUlcd explicitly, now remains tacit. Cobb called this process the iflStiMionaiilatiofi 0/krlOwf�dge (1990),
(Schiltz,
SItJdying everyday life, ethnomethodologislS poim OUI thai the knowledge is confirmed to be shared and to be given by descriptive "accounting practices" : The stories thai peopk ate conlinually telln i g are descriptive accounts. . . . To oonSlruCC
t is to make an object or evenl (past or present) observable and undersland able 10 oneself or 10 someooc else. To make an object or event observable or underslandable is to endow it wilh the status ofan intcrsubjecti'Ie object. (Lc:iler. 1980, pp. 161162) an accoun
Accordingly, from the interactionisl point ofview, we understand an explanation as a
socia] process as opposed 10 an individual act. The participants' indications
that something is mathematically evidential (or standing in need of prooO make it taken as mathematically evidentia1 (or standing in need of proof), In the episode described earlier. Jack and Jamie made the compensation observable and under standable between themselves; in the end of their negotiation. it was laken for
granted that the results of the sixth and the seventh tasks are the same. The boys
their solution with the status of intersubjectivity, which has to be estab lished once more when !he researcherjoins them. The ambiguity of a single object is reduced by relating its meaning to a context
endowed
that is taken as shared. At the same time, the context is confinned by constituting the meaning of the single object. The context and the singular meaning elaborate each other. From that ethnomethodological point of view. meanings are not given by a cultural context that would exist independently of the negotiation of meaning, but the cultural context is continually and simultaneously constituted. Ethnomethodologists uses tbe term reflexivity in order 10 describe such a relationship in which two parts are mutually dependent (Leiter. 1980; see also Cobb. chap. 3; Krummheuer, chap. 7; and Yackel. chap. 4. all this volume). For example. first graders realize that colored blocks. chips. and so forth are used differently in the mathematics classroom than at home. With regard to the subject "m3th," the members of the classroom ascribe mathematical me3nings to the blocks. At the same time, the meaning of what is caJled "math" becomes clearer to the first graders: "One has to count chips, to compare blocks. and so on." o life like an ethnographer who investigates Ifthe observer looks at the classrom a strange culture, the observer might be surprised by what is taken for granted by the panicipants: The use of fingers is taken as an explanation. a picture is taken as a calculation task, and soon. However, in the treadmill of everyday school life, the participants would say that they know what mathematics or the mathematics classroom really is. In everyday classroom situations, the teacher and the students often constitute the context routinely without being aware of this ongoing accom plishment. so thal lhe context seems to be pregiven. For example. in one ofthe previous episodes the students �aJized that the split of apples should be taken as the representation of a fraction. We can expecl that, if
178
VOIGT
given more apple problems. the students and the teacher would constitute the conlCJt' ''fractions'' routinely. without conflicts. In everyday classroom practice. the teacher and the students suppose that the characteristics of their microculture are definite. In facl, they are taken as shared, diffuse. and vague. Further, students' familiarity with the microculture is merely assumed. The microculnue can be constituted without the participants talking about it
explicitly. and it can be accomplished indi.mly. by way of mathematical activities
.
For example. describing a specific method of solving as "simple" does not only
ascribe meaning lethe method. it also gives meaning to thecontextofmathematical argumentation. In the classrom o observed, the panicipams use the tenn simple in the sense o("mathematically elegant" (and not as cognitivcly easy), In this way. Jack's and Jamie's compensation strategy described earlier would be evaluated as simple. This positive evaluation supports lhe students in orienting their aclivities toward that advanced mathematical argumentation. The students are given confir mation th:u tbe construction and use of complex thinking strategies and abstract considerations are characteristics ofthe inquiry mathematicsclassroom. Hence, the
microcuilure ora classroom can be constituted during interaction processes without
the necessity of having the panicipants explain the characteristics of the culture. From a distance, an ethnographer can think of other classrooms with different
characteristics. For example, in many mathemaLics classros om teachers do not usually expect a variety of ways of solving but rather a specific one (the "natural"
one, or the "appropriate" one). During frontal teaching, they elicit and control the classroom discourse step by step (Voigt,
1985, 1989). Hence, comparing different
classrooms we can view different microcultures depending on tbe participants' activities, even though the participants themselves could view the microculture they establish as natural and pregiven.
Patterns of Interaction Because of the ambiguity and different background understandings in the class room,
the negOliation of meaning in the microsituation is fragile. Even though a
context is taken as shared, there is a permanent risk or a collapse and disorganiza
tion ofthe interactive process. Pattemsofinteraction function to minimize this risk
(Voigt, 1984. 1985). The paltems of interaction are considered as regularities that are internctively constituted by the teacher and the students: "What is presented is a level on which processes remain processes and do not coagulate into entities, to which the very process from which they were abstracted is assigned to as effect" (Falk & Stdnen,
1973, p. 20). For example. the elicilalion pattern (Voigt, two apparently contradictory claims.
1985) hints at lhe combination of
The idea of elicitating a clearcut body of
mathematical knowledge is juxtaposed with the claims of a liberal and childcen tered classroom (cr. Maier & Voigl. 1992). In the paUem, three phases can be dislinguished:
190
VOIGT o o o
o o
o
o
D OD O D DO o
o
o o o o
FIG. $.7. Strip$·and·�uatI:$ coliection te�Slen[ing 31.
FIG. 5.8. SlIips:m!Isqo.wt:s collection
It'pre5c:nting 19.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o o
o o
o
o
AG. 5.9. StriPSaOO8juarcs collection representing 54.
teacher asks: "How did I change
thalT' The
answer "II" is given, and explained
by arguments of calculation with twodigil numbers.
13 Michael:
I think. it is 54. (He walks to the front.) 10,20,30.40,41 . . 54 .
(counting on screen).
14
Teacher:
54! Ifwcstartcd OUI with 65 and we have how many now? How many did you say. Michael?
IS Michael:
54'
16 Teacher:
ADd we have 54 here already. What's the difference between 65 and 54?
17 Students: 18 Teacher:
II. Andy?
19 Andy: 20 Teacher:
II. II. How many think it's II? (They raise Iheir hands.)
22 Teacher:
You gOI it.
21 Students:
AI the beginning of thai episode. materials or figures of materials were counted by Michael. The teacher asked a question in lenns of calculation: "What's the difference between
65 and 54?" Andy
answered as intended by the teacher. The
calculation with twodigit numbers was thematized. The point is that the difference between 65 and 54 was stated, without reference to the rearrangement ofmaterials. The analysis of an interview with Andy and the analyses of other classroom situations indicate that Andy could count numerical composites. bot not abstract units of ten (see Cobb, chap. 3, this volume). Andy was able to take len as a strip
5.
THEMATIC PATTERNS OF INTERACTION
191
of 10 ones. We can infer that, in this s.iruauon. Andy's thinking was bound to strips and squares that are visualized materials in his mind. Nevertheless, it was possible for Andy 10 participale in the pattern of calculation of twCKIigit numbers, presum ably without constructing abstract units of ten. Often, the T! pattern was not purely constituted. Several times the pattern was initiated, but broke off. In these silUations, the teacher seemed to want the calcula tion with twodigit numbers to be realized, but several studenlS did nOljoin in. 1he next episode serves as an example. The students were discussing the wk shown in Fig. 5.10. The pattern Tl was realized ("add 31cns and lake away 2 ones"), and the teacher tried to elicit the answer ''27' (see one of the episodes described earlier), Then. she asked the students (or a different way. 12 Teacher: 13 Michael: 14 Teacher:
Jamie: Teacher: Jamie: Teacher: I. Jamie: 20 Teacher: 15 16 17 18
Someone do it a different way? First of all, what do you have to do? Add. If you, you are given the problem. How many do you have to add to ... (pointing up to the number) to make 73? What do you have 10 figure oul firsl? The answer. Jamie, the answer. right! (She is laughing.) 40 . . like over there, which number that was. Right! Whal was that the picture of, what is that the picture of'? .
46. 46. (She writes 46 on the overhead projector.) OK. Now. we are
21 Michael:
ready to go. Now, Holly and Michael did you do that first? Did you add up these? Did you add these, um, first? Well, we added up the 3 tens, cause I figure how many else ... because I have most of this and I look away me 2 ones because if we still had the 2 ones it'd be 75, so I took away those 2 ones.
22 Teacher:
OK.
My interpretation is that the teacberexpected the transformation of the geomet rical representation into a numeral to be the first step. Presumably, Jamie's answer, 'The answer," had not been expected by the teacher and her response was to laugh.
192
VOIGT
Then, Jamie fulfilled the teacher's expectation. The teacher asked Holly and Michael whether they "add these up first." Perhaps the teacher intended 10 ask whether Holly and Michael had realized the first step of h that is, whether they had added the parts of the first number to arrive at a numeral. But Michael reponed that they compared the bar.; and squares of both numbers separately. The teacher accepted this answer and. hence,T, was realized after all. Two lhemaLic patterns have been presented thaI differ wilh regard to the meaning of ten. The theme ofT. is more strongly related to the material objects, whereas T1 bypasses the material meaning and emphasizes the relations within the system of numerals. Although sometimes the teacher tries to initiate an argumentation ac cording to the second pattern, the: students tcnd to engage in the first one. causing the teacher to join in as well. The evolution of a theme that involves increasingly advanced mathematical arguments has to be supponed by thesludenls' construction of iocreasingly sophisticated units of ten. This cognitive construction of sophisti cated mathematical concepts enables the students to contribute to corresponding themes.
Evolution of Themes On the one hand, the individual's cognitive development contributes to the evolu tion ofthemes between inclividuais. On the other hand, the following considerations should emphasize that the evolution of themes contributes to the individual's cognitive development. Taking both arguments into account. we can begin to see a reflexive relationship between interaction and learning. Because the theouticaJ concept of reflexivity and its advantage is sometimes difficult to understand, I will develop a theoreticaJ rationaJe before the analysis continues. In the third section. reflexivity was defined as a property of the relationship between the context of a classroom situation. that is, the micnx:ulture, and partic ular meanings that are interactively constituted in thesituation (Leiter, 1980). From this theoretical point of view, a mutual relationship exists between meanings and culture. The micnx:ulture makes the meanings in the particular interactions under standable. while al the same time the microculture exists in and through these very interactions. For example, what the students experience as inquiry mathematics is not pregiven. but it emerges in classroom interaction. In addition, the ethnomethodological concept of rdlexivity will be extended in order to describe the relationship between learning and interaction. The motive for the extension is the claim that the theory should mediate between collectivism and individualism. From both perspectives, one is templed to assume a oneway dependence between the classroom culture and the individual'siearning, as if one was only a precondition of the other. If we assume a reflexive property or learning and interaction (and negotiation, respectively). we get the scheme shown in Fig. 5.11 in which interaction mediates cognition and culture (cr. Voigt, 1990). The reflexive relationship between the meanings that are interactively constituted, and the microculture was outlined in the beginning of the third section. Further, this
5.
THEMATIC PATIERNS OF INTERACTION
193
constituted through interaction
reconstruction of thematic patterns emphasizes the influence of the individual's learning on interactions with others. Now. in order to compktc the scheme. the individLW."Ji; learning will be viewed as influenced by social interactions; more precisely. as influenced by the evolution of themes. 1M (ollowing antiysis reconsIJUCt5 the evolution of mathcmaLicallhemes. and il argues that this evolution supports the sruden[S' learning. 1be analysis does noI take the teacher's experiences inlo account. Wood (chap. 6, this volume) rcc::on· SINCO the teacher's point of view. AI some points in the classroom di5COUrse. student's upllftalion may initially i . at first. the bars are compared. But. later. the tens auwne the pattern of T ; thai s 1 and oncs are composed. Two episodes can SCt'VC as illustrations. 'Ole answers, "Add 2 tenbars take away 3 ones" and the "IT' were given. Jamie combined these answers: 2 Jamie: 3 Teacher. 4 Jamie:
And just
like I put 20 take away 3 more is 17. Say that again. Did you hear what he said? (She looks at the class.) Say that again. Jamie. 20, just like if we had these 3 and these 2 together. Thai would be 20 ahogether. Take away 3 would be 17.
Jamie was able to "construct collectionbased abstract units of len al least in siwations where he could rely on taslcspecific figural imagery" (Cobb. chap. 3. this yolume). With regard to the: relationship between mathematics learning and social interaction. the interesting point is that in the previous discourse a thematic coherence was established between the separate counting (and comparing) of materials and the calculation with Iwo.digil numbers. Students who do not have the conceptua.l possibilities that Jamie displayed can be stimulaled to extend or change their interpretation of the task so that they can participate in the interaction of type Tl. Then. these students can feel the obligation to combine the lens and ones conceptually to one number to get the resuilin the following episode. the students were woding on the wit shown in Fig. 5.12. 4 Teacher: 5 Ryan: 6 Teacher:
How about Katy and Ryan? What do you have 10 add to 38 to make 867 47. You say the answer is 47.
VOIGT
194
How many do you have to add to 38 to make D D
D D
D
D , AG. 5.12. Strips·and·squMCs task �ding 1038 +
7 8 9 10 II
12 13 14
Ryan: Teacher: Ryan: Teacher: Ryan: Teacher: Ryan: Teacher:
IS Ryan: 16 Teacher: 17 Ryan: 18 Teacher: 19 Ryan: 20 Teacher: 21 Ryan:
_
'"
86.
[inaudible] OK. Which one arc we on? Number 3. Oh! 48. 48. Do you say the answer is 48? Ye.. All righi, now, how did you figure Ihis out? How did you figure it OUl? You explain it to me. Well. (She is talking to another child.) Why don', you share this with him, so they can see? Well, (inaudible). But it wouldn', work. Yeah. It would.We took away SO and then, we have 30 left and then there is 8 over here so we knew thai wouldn', work so ...
Right!
... We have to take 2 off one of the Icnbars ...and then add it to the 30 and that makes. and that. and that would make all up and that \,l,'ould make 48. . . .
I assume that in the beginning Ryancounled the differencebetween the tenbars. The teacher's evaluation "but it wouldn't work" indicates that Ryan thematized something that was unusual or not wanted. Ryan opposed the teacher's evaluation. He related the tens and ones 10 each other and arrived at a numerical result. For Ryan ''the consttuction of composite units of ten was within the realm of his conceptual possibilities" (Cobb, chap. 3, this volume; for Ryan's activities with others, see Yackel, chap.4, this volume).On the surface, Ryan seemed to be able to transcend the constraints of the materials, although he still relied on figural imagery. The interesting point is that, in the episode, the collections were the matized numerically as well as materiany. Students in these situations who do not initially think in terms of abstract units of tenS and ones because of their current
5.
THEMATIC PATTERNS OF INTERACTION
195
conceptual possibilities might gain an "cncry" to il. These students are supponed by imagined materials that they ClIn try to transcend. They may interpret the malerials as representations of numerical �Iations. although they only have a hunch of these relations. In the next episode. the teacher manipulates the materials in order to enact arguments that are related to the calculation of Iwodigit numbers. 'The teacher presented the stripsandsquares collection shown in Fig. .5. J 3 on the overhead projector. 14 Teacher: IS Holly: 16 Teacher. 17 Holly: 18 Teacher: 19 Holly:
20 Teacher.
.. .Holly.What would you like to say'! Well. um ...(She goes to the screen.) When you saw this what did you ... how did you decide to put these: numbers together? These squares and ... One thing is ... you know there is 2 tenbars that's make 20 and then you count ... Sshh (shushing a studenl who interrupted Holly's explanation). You counl these, you counl these 1,2,313 squares) 4. 5, 6, 7. 8. 9, 10 (6 squaJ'eS), II. Since there's II (inaudible) you see then you 1,2, then take 10 and that makes 30, And then you put thai extra 1 for II and you get 31, That's right She is telling me that if I lake all of these ones (moves 3 squares 106 squares, moves I square 106squares) and squeeze them logether (pushes them together and uses a strip to push them together) I'm going to make a len·bar or a ten, and so that's how she figuml OUI thai if you take all those ones and make a len oul of it then you have a ten·bar. It's the same thing, OK. good. Now. Go ahead sit down. Thank you. Holly, Thai was a nice explanation.
Holly began by counting thebats and squares separately, but in heT last tum, she split and composed lens and ones without speaking of concrete ban and squ�s. We know thaI Holly "routinely created and counted abstrnct composite units of lens when she inlerprtled and solved wks thai involved strips and squares" (Cobb, chap, 3, this volume). II is intc�ting to note that the leacncr's materialization and reenactment of Holly·s account provided karning opponunities for other students. That is, the
o o o FlO, 5.1 3, SIri�and.lqUZIU coIkcDon rrpn:· Kmlna: 31,
o o o o o o
o o
196
VOIGT
teacher helped those students who were dependent on activities with materiaJs to undersland Holly's explanation. This understanding encouraged the students to extend the conceptual range of their thinking beyond a level attained using less advanced methods, such as counting by ones. The theoretical considerations afthe third section can be summarized as follows. o The microcullure of the mathematics classrom has been described as constituted through social interaction and negotiation of mathematical meaning. The stability of the microculture is described by patterns of interaction, especially thematic patterns of interaction. The relationship between patterns of interaction and learn ing mathematics was illustrated in cases in which the patterns were improvised and the themes evolved. 1bese considerations enable us to describe the process of learning mathematics as intrinsically related to the negotiation of meaning.
SOClOMATHEMATICAL NORMS It seems reasonable 10criticize interactional regularities in which the teacher forces students to fulfill specific obligations, such as artfi i cial mathematics. Also, because the negotiation process between teacher and student can be risky and problematic. one might caJl for more ''teacherfree'' situations. In response to this call, this section argues that the teacher's influence on the students' mathematical activities must not be suppressed but has to become more indirect. The teacher's influence on the students' goals are described in an indirect way analogous to the manner in which Saxe (1990) reconstructed the influence of cuiluraJ settings on an individual's orientation. Yackel, Cobb, and Wood (1991) described how social norms are constituted and stabilized in the project classrom o . But "sociomathematical norms" are also constituted and stabilized in the projectCIasstOOIII. The ICmlS mathonaticalnormor sociomathemati cal norm are used here to describe a criteria of values with regard to mathematical activities. Sociomathematica1 nonns are not obligations that students have to fulfill; they facili� the students' attempts to direct their activities in an environment providing relative freedom for interpreting and solving mathematical problems. The swdents solved the following tasks:
27+9=_ 37+9=_ 47+9= 47+19= 48+18=_ 49+17= 49+19=_ 49+21 7021'" 6021= "'_
5.
THEMATIC PAITEANS OF INTERACTION
197
Many students solved the tasks as isolated problems.Their solutions included using fingers, lally marks, multilinks., oc the hundreds board. Some students compared the tasks and made use of previous solutions in order 10 solve the next ones.Now, dwing whole<:Iass discussion, different ways of solving were com pared. n.e teacher accepted all correct explanations. Forexamplc. the tcachersaid: '''That was one way of doing il. Now, who did it a different wayT' h is important to note that the teacher evaluated the explanations of correct answers differenlly. Ifthc offered way of solving seemed 10 be cognitively demand ing, she reinforced the way. For example,Holly and Michael compared three tasks: I Teacher.
2 Holly: 3 Teacher: 4 Holly: 5 Teacher. 6 Holly: 7 Teacher. SHolly: 9 Teacher.
Okay. you're talking 27 + 9, 31+9,47+9. Those are about the same thing. Because they are allthey're a117s. RighI. Excepl tbe ones thai are going to go up higher 36, 46. 56. Okay. 46. Okay. So you say should be46 and ...., 5<;.
Okay. Raise your hands ir you agree al your seats . Good! (SeveraJ sludcms raise their hands.) Now, so they saw a panem. They saw aha! Allihese are adding 9s. "They saw lhat each or Ihe 27, 37,47 all end wilh 7. So !hey saw thal Raise your hand ir you saw that happening. (Sludents raise their hands.) Good.
In Ihe classroom observed, the teacher characterized such solutions as "insight rul" ways or "simple " ways or as "discoveries." She also outlined the mathematical structure explicitly, or she asked the students 10 explain their methods once more while requesting the other students 10 listen. or she expressed emotional delight. By hcrevaluations, the teacher indicated mathematical claims implicitly. It was up 10 lhe students to decide whether or nOl they would orient their activities loward the leacher's claims. (Usually. the students expect the teacher 10 reprcscm lhe culture or the mathematical discipline.) In the classroom observed. several students accepted the intellectual challenge. Looking at the rourth. firth. and sixth tasks. John said: " made two discoveries ...the beginning numbers go 47, 48, and49 . . . then it was 17 the bottom one then 18 ... 19 ... so it's all the same answer." And Michael, who realized that the rourth solution had to be 10 more than the third one. announced: "I found a discovery." In this case, what counts as an elegant mathematical solution is interactively constituted. The teacher did nol set a standard thai the students had 10 obey step by step.Some students. and not the teacher, offered mathematically advanced conui butions. lbc leacherevaluatcd thecontributions so that she Itplcscnted the discipl ine of mathematics. 'Olen, the students could take the teacher's evaluations as hints 10 more advanced explorations.In the future. the teacher was 10 evaluate these explorations as "insightful ones," and so on. Through these interaction proccssc:s.
198
VOIGT
the quality of the mathematical discourse evolved. As a consequence. the teacher's
claim and the students' goals fit together. A sodomathcmatical norm was interac tively constituted.
or course, t he teacher did noc accept: incorrect resuhs. Allbaugh the teacher
encouraged the students 10 present their results without being afraid of embarrass ment. the leact� also ensured that the students did not speculate. In neT evalual;ons, she offered
teacher had to achieve a balance. "Rigor alone is paralytic death. but imagination alone is i nsanity" (Bateson, 1979. p. 219). What
is the meaning of the criteria "insightful" or "simple" (in the sense of
mathclIUllicaJly elegant)? There �re no definite and explicit regulations necessary.
because implicit criteria for contextdependent values were sufficient. The only way the student could gain an impression of the sociomathcmstical norms and orient his or her activities toward the teacher's claims was to inttTpTet lhe teacher's judgments in a specific context. At the same time, the Ica.cher had to adjust her cwms to the siudents' possibilities,
Thus.. the sociomathematkal norm emerged
belwcen the participants The students had the freedom 10 soh'e ,
the 1llSks b), mechods the)' choose: themselves, and the)' were free to interpret the teacher's judgments in the situation. Nevertheless, the teacher could be confident thai the students were willing to explore mathematical relations by ovc:.rstepping former standards, Also, Ihe leachet
could be confidentlhat the Sludents take the leacher's indications into account. The students' goaJs and the mathematical nonns of the classroom discourse devdoped reflexivel)', During the teaching experiment, the teacher and the project members focused cheir attention on the constilution of social norms in lhe classroom. Wood (chap. 6,
describes the cOllesponding changes of the c1auroom discourse during the teaching experiment b)' considering the teacher's point of view, The leacher's intenlion was not to assess the students' contributions during the class this \'olume)
room di.scourse. but rather to encourage srudents 10 discuss their contributions among themselves. However, by anal),zing the wholecl:w discuss ions from a distance, it is possible 10 reconslNC1 the teacher's indications of her mathematical claims. Her asse ssments contributed to the constilUlion of sociomathematical
norms between lhe teacher and the students. Alchough the lcacher did not intend the constilutlon of sociomathematical norms and was not conscious of them, her
contributions supported the evolution of an inquiry mathematics c lassroom The conlJlldiction betwocn the leacher's intentions and her actions gives rise 10 .
two genera] 5talemenLS. First. the change of the classroom cullure is not restricted to intended improvements. Moreover. the unintended and unconscious side effects
of reforming classroom life are no less powerful lhan are the inlenlional effects even in a leaching experimem. As a consequence, if we want to reform c:Iassroom
life, we should nOI onl), know what we want 10 do. but we also need the means to understand what happens in fact. Second, the te:acher's indirect and unintended influences on t he students' orientation migt. be inevitable conditions of the conSliMion of inler1ubjectivit)'. If we appreciate mathcmatKs as produced by a
5.
THEMATIC PATIEANS OF INTERACTK)N
199
community that. for example. determines what counts as an elegant explanation, o processes as a necessaty we can vicw the teacher', influences in the classrom condition for learning mathematics, The inleract;onist approach mediates between individualism and collectivism. Roughly aaid. individualism tends to explain mathematics learning as t he prOOuet of the laws ofboth cognitive development and the selforicntation ofthc individual who experiences a problem. Collectivism attempts to understand mathematics learning as the socialization of the individual into a pregivcn culture. From the interactionist point of VteW, the students:and the teacher infl� each other. In fact. the indirect, subtle influences are especially important The teacher and the students interactively constitute mathematical meanings and sociomathematical noons as taken as shared so lhat the students'learning and the m;':rocuJturedevelop mutually.
REFERENCES 8Mc:_. G. (1919). MiNI tJNi IWRO". A NtdSDTY_it. � yort; DuilOil. B itcmdcl. H. (1980). Hiddal c1immlion. in .he: iOAIlod ft:alily of I IlUlIEIIUIQ daaroom. E4MalrilNral Snu/iu ill Mmltt_ia. 11.2341. snrtld. H. (1983), ''*1¥tiorL. COI'tWUo:tkle. UId tDowledCiC': AI\emldi� pmpediVft for INJhe.. maticf edllCllion. III T. Cooney 4 D. Grouws (&il.). E.J/ulil·� IIfQIIw_ics kfrlli"l (pp. 2746). �Oft. VA: National Council ofTeJdIcn of M� and l..awmM:e ErIbuIm�. Bauenfcld.. H . • Knimrnheua, G.• 4 VoiCi. J. (1981). Interactional thror)' of laniilll trod lUChinl mathenWicJ and tdllCd micradt.qnp/lical iluda. In H. G. Steinu &:: A. VIm\aIIoie:I (EdJ.). F/1IiIIIlIJIiOtU tJNJ JMtlwdaiol'l of,1w disripliN lfItItM�a tdllClUilM 1JIp. n....Ia3). Alllwup: · .... ioa .. (TME) CoIIfclalOe. I'Ioccc:dilIp oIdlrl TbeoIy of Mathl:malicaI Ed Billma. H.(I969). S�ie iII�nJt:� P��1lIId _dIod. Endeood OiffJ, NI: �1Ilice H.n. BNna, J. (1966). Some deInenh 0( diKO"Ul. l11 C. S. SbIIl.man &:: E. R. Kci_<6ds.).l..tw1Il,., ITJ diswo't.ry: " cri(kal uppniliaI (pp. 10611). Chicaao: Rand McNally. Bruner. J. (1986). A..:DIClI' 1fIiNh. ponibl� lO.",ldJ. Carmrid,e. MA: Huv.d Ulli\'e".., Pra.s. Oeo.d. A. (1970). 8uic: and hOIlI.i� Nlc5 in the ncr;ociation 0( JUl. aad "*111 H. P. 1hiU.c1 (Ed.). RuttltMJddo", No. l. ""'ntiof�I.·� bttllu�·i«"(pp. ....,). ... New yOlt: M.ICI1IiIl.... CotIlI. p. (1990). Mllltiple penpectiVeL I. L P. Steffe.t. T. Wood (Edt.). T....q� c.li.ld",,,� u.atia t� l..wfJlfUitHlal",�pttaWu(pp. 20021 "�. Hillsd&lc. HI: t.n.ol'mal Erlblwn .
CotItI. p., 4 wt.e.tky. G. (1988). OIiklrm', milia! �I!&I ohm. FoclU OOIl.1tJ171Ut, ProbJ� Ut MIIlIwIflGliu. 10(3). 121. DcnDn. N. K. (1989)./lItup'rlruivt ;"U'.....:riMi_. Newt.ly Par\, Co'\; SacDoiJe.. W� It MIIPY. G. (19804). Ttv wdQ/ tko·dlJf'MttlltJl'M ilut/ltd. CWoo1: FtrpnlOll Preu. ddoisRcymfJIId.. M� 4 �1. 8. (1974). N",kJilIlv, ScJuJb.d INwkbll.ocr Jdlooibolol; (Vol. 11.
FrMIkf\ltt: �. E4YIII'IIt. 0.. 4 Maca. N. (1917). C_ �,.
7JIt tkwloplwN of ""dmklIllM, ;"
1M
c�. LondoIl; Metbuell. EridaoIl. F. (1986). Q\IaIiutive methcIIU in raeardl oftcm\iD.. III M. C. Wiltroc:t (Ed.), HClnd� 0/ ",MGd 1M IftlClMI (Jed ed� lIP. 119161). New YOlt: MKmiilaa. Flllk, G . • 4 Slcinat. H. (1973). Obcr den Soziolo,en 1111 KoasuubnlJ"YO. Wirklkhkril. du WrKn der IOzilllm 1I.c:anc.ll. die o.:r.iciOll IOriak. Sit, .. ....... uad die sr:r.caica ilnr Ik...lltillml (The
200
VOIGT
t«iologi. eonswctin& IQJhy. (he a5nP'T of JDCiIJ rulily,lhI: CHIIIWIIII ofIOciaJ nu.ions, &lid mnhoch for tOpior with lheIe &iniM.iou).11I H. $aeinert (ElL), SyrnbtJ/Uc/tt 1rtkra.tt4M. AtWi/," lit tW' "fIuivDt SodoloKit [S)'ItIboIic 1tJlcnetioa: Wo.b ill RdIW� �) (pp.. 1J....46). Snltlpft: Klett. o.flllkcl. H. (1967), Snuln ill "lwwwthodoloD. Ea&kwood Oitfs, HI: PmlliccHalI. Gotrmaa. E. (19S9). �puMftUUUM of"Ifill rwrytJ.rq lift. New York: Doubleday. GoffllWl. E. (1914). Ft'IJIM lJIIOlyJu: Aft UMZY l1li flit IHJGIIil.lllioA ofupuimCf. CambridF iotA: HarvanJ Univn$Ay PnK. l�pinh. H. (1991). latcndioa IIlCI gcndc:r. �TlCI 01. � '9P'O'dI1O d.auroom
� M(QrjONll SnuJiu ill MmNfJttJliu.l2. 26}..214. Knurmbeuet. G, (1983), A�btaU.:1w TttMII�.." ill tkr �kwtdtvJtuft 1.4!ucIrJ�ridll d"u FOTscJu.cpp",j,tJu IAlednk lnQA ormII .... '. ill hip JCho't" AAaI n:pon 01. P'''rlI PloFIl.MaIaerialiea uDd SllIdiea {Malaiak aad SlucliEsl (Vol, 31). Bielefeld., c.emy: Did.akl.ik au MIlbeIllllit.. LalufD5, J. (1976). ProofJ rwJ ff/uwIotu: 71w /uric of_/MItoli(oI dis«1>,,.,. london: Cambridae
Ullivcnily �.
Leiter. K. (1980). ApriJrwr/)fl t�/JtodDSoty. New York: (Word lhUwm:y Pnu. Uitmana. N. (19n). EinfKhc SoziabyItc:.ISimpksociai �u.J. 'Ui�c/viflfi' SodohJtit. 1(1). jl�.
MIM:r. H�.t. VoiCl.J. (1992). T�III aylcs ill mathcmMieI �ion. UNraJb/
MCIlIwIfl4lik. 7.149lSl. MtNuI. 8. (1991). n.»:WNHIJUlo{ON1llwttaticO/ tkvdopmott. Uopublishcd docIonJ disscM:ioa, Purdue Ullivoenlty, � LaCIIy.:ue. IN. Mlad. G. H. (l9}4). AliNJ. uVrvtd SfKkry. 0;,.'",: UaivenilyofOtiaco PIaL Mdwl. H. (l979).Lnlnfu., kntlftS. c.a.mridee. MA.: Harvard UciYCflily�. .... it ... l\lll ceo Die AU$handlun, JChu]� Neth. A .. .t. Yoip, J. (1991). Lcbo:rw.vctllic:he In Bedo:u.tuncm til Sadlaufplln {Stlip, the ilfeworid: of.ory ptIlbIelDlJ. In H. Maier .t.J. Vaip (Eda.).INt'JIrflllJliw U,,'trrlcJlIs!oncltwlt (InccipfUM; � in c:lasuootm) (pp. 79116). CoIop, Germany; Aa.lis. Salle. O. B. (1990). C.Ilt..r UNI copiriw �/QpfMIII; SnuJ.'u {II IfICIwmlJlica/ IUtdtn4l/ldiJot. 1li115dalo:. HJ: LaWl'mCle FnbIum Ano"iln. SdlIlIz, A. (1'171). Cd_lit ""fJ/1l:l., (CoUected papt,,) (Vol. I), Om Hu.a: NiyhofT. Schlllz, A.. .t LuekmaM. T. (1913). TN JlrUCflltrJ if 1M fi!�wor/d. EvlUfttOll, II.: NorthWUlCnl U.ivenify Prea. SoIomoD. y, (1989). 1M practicl of_",mQ.1.oIKIon: Routlcdp.. SfeinbrillJ, H. (1919), RoutiDe &lid meani., in the matb:n:r.alb claut .... 'D . .. For 1M LranWtr of Mrulwmmlu, 9(1). 24)).
Sfembrin.. H. (1991). Matbemalics in ... .... in. . pm"...,a. The; diipUity betWftll ,,.che, aid sudan
knowled&c.. R«Itrrd,u III DidtWlqw dil, 1rI1lf1ti_iquu, 11(1), 6SUll. 1'ymoako. T. (1916). MakiPc fOOftI fOf IIIIlhemaicians m me philosophy
01 IUIfhenwia. TM
Mal/tt"",liclJllrut/figtrlur. to). 4450, Voip, J. (19M).INttaobi�rIINl ROIIliIlnl ilK Mrldit1ltGlihWtrriclllJJwowtiKlv GnuvI/agtll lind IrIikrwIMOfropltiK1tt FDlh4NtnwcltMlIll" [h� oIinlenl:tlon and ftlUti_ in mllhemai� dusroom5Tbeoreti� fonndcions uxI c� fllld"",). WciDbr;im, Germany: Ben Voip. I. (I98S). PMImI uxI lOUIincs in dl.S$lOOl1l inleraction. R«lttrdwl '" Ditlactl.qllt du Matltimatiql>tJ, 6(I). 69111. Voip, J. (1989). Sodal CullCti_ofrouIillCl _QOIUaI1Ie1IOL'I for.ubjca IlIJItfer 1unUn,.I"untllliDrlDl 10"",,,1 ofEdMcrltioMI RUlord •• IJ(6). 647656. Voip. J. (1990). The � in"CSlipion 01 the inlelW:livc l."IIIISfilution 01rrwbctnaIic:al munin" In ProaldilllJ ofdill! 2N1 BfUlirfr/la IlIUnvuioNU S)oItIpt>silllll 1M MrllMIIWlOCl EdMcaIio.. (pp. 12010). BBtisIl..... Cnc .... hnkia: . Bt1tislava Univatily Pres5,
5.
THEMATIC PATIERNS OF INTERACTION
201
WiI!lOll, T. P. (1970). Concq:u ofinkBdion UK! fonns 01' sociolo&ieaJ CJlpllrWion.. hMrictlll Socitr logical Rev!"rw, J5, 697710.
WdIFJlllei.a.. L (1967). �1fttUb Dr! wfollNiDlkHu o f mtUNmtUicS. Oxford: B�U. Wood. T� &; ytd;d. E. (1990). The do:velopmcnl of collaborative dialogue within small poup
interactions. In L. P. Steffe &. T. Wood (&Is.), Tnmsjof7f,iflg clrJldrrll:' IfItJIMffltlliu �d/ICaliaI (pp. 244252). Hilsdale, l Yael, E.. Cobb, P.. &; Wood,T. (1991). Smallpoup inleBCticm au 5lMIIt% ofbmina: opportIIIIitiet in scrondp1de tnIlhcmllia. JDI'tNJI/or RtM",d, ill MruM/ftQtiu &Ulmtioll, 21, 390408.
6 An Emerging Practice of Teaching Terry Wood Pulfiue University
In the previous chapters, the focus of the discussion was on the various aspects of
the classroom cullure thai have influenced children's learning, and of the role thai children's interaction and subsequent discourse involving reasoning and argumen tation has in their understanding of multiple units (including ttn), place value, and
the system of whole numbers. These chapters provided illustrations of
the oppor
tunities that are available for students in the classroom to validate their mathemat
ical meanings. Complementing these previous efforts. the focus of this chapter not
only continues the emphasis on Ihe interactive process of leaming and teaching but also centers on a teacher and her actions in this situation. Previously, the changes that the teacher
made during the year of the classroom
leaching eJlperimenl have been described in broad general strokes (Wood, Cobb, & Yackel. 1990, 1991), The purpose of this chapter is 10 depict in greater delail the Irnnsformation of Ihat teacher's conception of what it meant to teach and to learn
malhematics and its influence on her actions. My intention is to describe and interpret Ihe events that reflected an emerging practice of teaching rather Ihan to report the results of teacher change. In doing Ihis. I show me reorganization Ihat the teacher made in her thinking. reve.lled through her innerdirected actions as she attempted to alter her previous way of teaching mathematics to create a new fonn
!.he characteristics that distinguish teaching as an interactive activity in which attempts are made by teachers to understand and negotiate meaning with their stmienlS are revealed in a
of practice. In choosing Ihis appro ach I contend lhat many of .
different way of communicating. In the analysis. I describe the emerging practice
from the perspective or a detached observer looking at the interaction. but I also attempt to take Ihe perspective of a participant observer and consider the teacher's point of view by trying to infer her interprelation of the situation.
203
204
WOOD
LEARNING IN CLASSROOMS Over the past several years, research on children's cognitive development has created new understandings about the ways in which children make sense of mathematics. With this in mind, those interested in mathematics education were confronted with a centra] problem: How might they realize major assertions about the development of children's thinking in the collective setting of everyday school classrooms? In attempting to offer some insight into this process. several research and development projccts have attempted to address the issue of children's learning of mathematics in school settings (e.g Carpenter. Fennema. Peterson, Chiang, & Loef. 1989; Fennema, Carpenter, & Peterson, 1989; Hiebert & Wearne, 1992; Newman. Griffin. & Cole, 1989). However. what initially distinguished the class room research project described in this book was a commitment 10 a radical constructivist view of learning mathematics and later an interactionist perspective (Wood, Cobb. Yackel. & Dillon, 1993). .•
Teaching Any consideration of extending constructivist assumptions aboUi learning to the selting of a classroom necessarily meant lhut teachers and their activity should be considered in the process. The activity of children's learning from a constructivist perspective has been well resean:hed, bUi attempting to understand teaching from this perspective has been neglected. The selfreflective reports of Ball (1993) and Lampen (1988, 1992) provided some insight about the process as viewed by mathematics educators themselves attempting to teach in elementary school class rooms. However, this classroom teacher in the everyday setting of her own classroom found the constructivist view of mathematics and children's learning to be in strong opposition to her traditionally held views. From her perspective, learning mathematics was about following wellestablished procedures in order to arrive al right answers, and, as the teacher, she believed it was her responsibility to ensure that her sludenlS could do so. It is not surprising that the emphasis on the individual. subjective construction of mathematical knowledge raises two questions thal Noddings (1990) pointed out as critical for any teacher: What is important for the student to know in the sense of general mathematical knowledge. and how does a teacher judge when a student is constructing or bas constructed meaning? These questions not only relate directly to the underlying epistemology of constructivism, but they also strongly influence the practicality of classroom life and create dilemmas that the teacher must attempt 10 resolve. Moreover, although one may consider learning to be an individual process, teaching is by definition an inleractive collective activity in which it is the intention of the one teaching to influence the development of his or her students' thinking. This does not mean that the sole intention is to impose on children what 10 think or how 10 make sense of their experience. Instead, one must recognize that although teachers can create possibilities for learning by providing a focus for
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
••
205
children's activity and suppon for their lhinking. the act ofleaming itself is personal
and subjective. Teaching, then, as viewed from this perspective. involves attempt ing to understand and negotiate meanings tIuoogh communication. In this regard,
teachers not only affecl lheir students but, in hIm, are affected by them in much the
same way thai parents influence and are likewise guided by their inCants (Trevarthen,
1979).
However. a major difference
that distinguishes schooling from learning thai is
accomplished n i lhe home is the simple fact lhat a teacher's support for students' personal construction is offered while the child is participating as a member of a group. This creates for teachers the conrinual tension of trying to honor individual chi1dren'sconceptions on the one hand and attempting to negotiate IBkenassharcd
(SU'ecd,& Sandwich, 1979) undemanding among the members orthe class on the
other.
Perspective Taken for Analysis Although the intention of the research was 10 investigate children's mathematical learning in the classrooms from a consuuctivist perspective, it lumed out to be a siwation in which the teacher was learning as well. In this case, her learning involved not ooly a different meaning ofmathematics and an increase in awareness of the ways in which children make sense of mathematics but. more imp:>rtant, an
inlelJlIetation of the phi l osophicaJ and theoretical perspective that guided the researchers' thinking. II was this construaJ that she could envision and on which she could rely to guide her actions. Moreover, it was her sincere attempts to accommodate our ideas of children's learning
to her personal experiences in the classrom o s thaI created the situations in which conflicts, contradictions, and surprises arose for her. These events ultimately led her to reflect on her activity and to create for herself a different way of teaching mathematics. I take as evidence of the �her's learning the changes that occUlTed in the
the nature of the discourse that emerged between the teacher and her students over the course of the school year. 1bese modifications in
patterns of interaction and
herpnacticedid not progress ina linearsequence toa final end but, instead, reflected the "10ing" and "froing" that occurred as she shifted �twcen an emerging practice and her pevious ttaditionaJ ways of teaching. These fluctuations reflected the continual, mutual orienting of the teacher and her students while they negotiated
and renegotiated expectations and obligations for one an()(her's behavior as they
created an atmosphere of inquiry in the classroom. Major shifts and changes in the
underlying social nonns that fonn the patterns of interaction extended throughout
the year, as the teacher and students found themselves continually redefining their roles in the classroom. As these patterns werejointly and interactively constituted. the teacher and her students established cenain regularities in their interaction with one another. These regularities that the participants developed enabled them to maintain a continuity in their everyday life without !he necessity of continuaJly delibetating among various options for action.
206
WOOD
Thus, the routines that were developed by the individual members of the class allowed many aspects of a situation to be taken for granted and enabled them to focus their .menlion on making sense of tile unfamiliar or problematic aspects of a mathematical situation. More important. these routines provided the underlying foundation for the ways in which the members of the class interacted with one another and the nature of communication that occurred in the classroom. 1be variations that occUlTed in these routines and !he concomitant dialogue created a source from which to investigate an emerging (onn ofteaching. As a final commen!, relating these changes as an observer I do nol intend to act as an evaluator, but rather as a documenler of the shifts and vacillations that occur.red My purpose. then. is to describe and interpret the teacher's activity in light of her experiences and to consider the nature of the interaction and the relationship of Ihis to an evolving practice of teaching mathematics. Data Source In this analysis I have selected, from a central data resource oflessons spanning a time from January [0 March (with two additional lessons from December and April), only Ihose lapes lhal depict wholeclass discussion. From this analysis I have chosen five lessons on which to conduct further microanalyses. The examples from the illustrative episodes are edited for the purpose of presenting lhose elements thatare relevant to the analysis without reproducing substantial segments of transcribed data. Thus, the intention is to provide succinct characterization rather than a comprehensi\"C description.
TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND EMERGING PRACTICE In the traditional class, the"disparity in background knowledge between the teacher and students," to which Voigt (I992) referred, generally assumes that the negotia tion of meaning that occurs between the teacher and students is one in which the intention is for the students to learn what the teacher already knows. The purpose of this didactical interaction is derived from the view that leaching is a mailer of socializing students to the meanings held by society of which the teacher is already a member. In this role. the teacher is viewed as one who tells students infonnation and Ihen evaluates them to see how well they have acquired this knowledge (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Weber, 1986).In this form of leaching, the teacher's purpose in asking questions is to elicit from children information previously presented and to evaluate immediately whether the students have understood whal was intended. Because such teacher.> are only listening for correct responses from students, they do not engage in the kind of discourse in which attempts at genuine communication take place. In trus regard. the nature of the talk in classrooms is
6.
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
207
very differentfrom everyday conversations and reflects a situation in which theteacher iewed as those who do noc know. .. the one who knows, and students are v is viewed a o underconsideration, however, the students' experiences In lhe typeofcJassrom and thinking are an important aspect and central focus for instruction (Confrey. 1990; Labinowicz. 1985: Noddings, 1990; von Glasenfeld. 1987). A teacher who does nOl know about students' ways of thinking is at
3 distinct disadvantage
in a
siwation in which children's sense making is the central focus. The necessity 10 engage in continuous genuine negotiation of meaning in order to panicipale
becomes equally as important 10 the teacher as it iS la the students. The teacher, in
this case, must listen carefully to children's explanations and attempt to makesensc of them in order 10 be effective in Ills or her role in the classrom o .
At first. the teacher in this particular classrom o was not aware of the ways in
which the children's mathematical understanding developed, and in light of the tradition ofschool mathematics had not had sufficient opponunilies to learn about them. It is nol. surprising thell, that the "disparity in knowledge" 10 which Voigt (1992) referred took on a different meaning in this classroom. It was against this backdrop that I viewed the leacher as a panicipanl in an evolving and emerging fonn ofpractice that involves a transfonnation in philosophy to consider a different vision of teaching and learning mathematics. In addition. in her view mathematics was a static subject, with set rules and procedures that needed to be carefully followed in order to arrive at correct answers. The changes that OCCUlTed in her thinking had a profound effect on her beliefs about the nature ofmathematics. These shifts in her perspective resonated with the underlying view oflhe refonn initiatives (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1989, 1991). However, when the project began, the various refonn documents for mathematics had not yet been released, and the conventional wisdom of what counts as school mathematics and "effective teaching" still prevailed (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986).
Recreating the Classroom Atmosphere The teacher's immediate concerns at the onset ofthe school year were to find ways to make it possible for children to work together productively as panners and 10 express their thinking to others during class discussions. Specifically, with the pairs she was confronted with the problem ofbeing aS5U� thai the children would worlc cooperatively to solve the problems and complete the activities without her close supervision. Ifthey could doso, then she would havean opportunity to move among the groups, listen to children as they solved problems together, and intervene to aid their learning as necessary. This meant that she did not want to spend her time monitoring their behavior as she circulated among the children. Further. during class discussion she wanted the children 10 express their ideas and explain the methods they used for solving the instructional activities. She realized that it would not be possible to predetennine students' responses, because the goal or the instructional activities and lhe class discussions was 10 encourage individual solutions that would necessarily be unique. She also lacked prior
208
wooo
knowledge ofchikfren's solutions, which might nave allowed her 10 anticipate., al least to some extent, their ways of thinking. Finally. the nonevaluative stance that the researchers encouraged her to take with regard to students' responses in dass and the lack of daily grnding of papers added to her conccrns. These changes in 11 long.esUlblished and very stable form ofpractice (Goodlad. 1984) aeated a great deal of uncertainl), and unpredictability for her in a setting in whkh she was ,mditiona11y c.xpec:tcd 10 be the authority and sole purveyor of knowledge. In addition, by her own admiuance, she did not feel hcrunderstanding and knowledge ofmathematics was strong. and in the pa5tshe lacked the enthusiasm and enjoyment for teaching mathematics that she held f()l" language am and reading. Consequently. her main concern was to reestablish with her students the social norms thaI would form the underlying network of' individual rights and responsi bililic$ 10 others essential 10 working in pairs and in cJlISS discussion. She com mented off..handed]y after one oflhe project meetin� before the school year began thai ..the rules would have 10 be different" Although the initial renegotiation of a different sct of norms occurred within the first few weeks of school, those nocms were continually being readjusted throughout the year. Even though the teacher rea.lized the need to establish diffCRnt social nonTlS, the ntltUre of lhesc was nOi readily apparent to her. Thus, although the nalU1'e of the n i teraction that was established early remaiDCd relatively stable throughout the year, some renegotia. tion occurred as different roulines were needed In accommodate new dilemmas that arose for the teacher and students. At one level. the class discussion consisted oftalIc for which the main pmpose was to constitute interactively the appropriale behavior necessary to create: and maintain a problemsolving almosphcre. At the other level, the talk deah with discussions about the students' mathematical thinking. These two levels have been previously described as "talking about talking mathematics," to refer to the .situa tions in which the discussion was focusedon expectations and obligations for ways ofbc.having, and "tallcing about mathematics," in which the talk was mathematical in nanut: (Cobb, Wood. & Yaclcel, 1993; Cobb. Yaclcel. & Wood. 1989). At the beBiMinB of the year. tIS one might suspect, the ta1k in class more frequently focused on talking about tallcing about mathematics than did the dis course thai occurs later in the year. As the year progressed, the talk about mathe matics often followed theestablishcd ways thai are coosidcrcd essential in conducting formats of argumentation (see Krummheuer, chap. 7. this volume). However, lest the reader misunderstand. I emphasize thai the talk th:u concerned social or mathcmalicaJ problems did not ocxur as separate entities. Quite to the contrary. it was not unusual for the discourse 10 shift from one to the other in the midst of an ongoing discussion, making it evident that the two levels of talk were intertwined.
Establishing a Different Pattern of Interaction During thecally weeks of school, the teacher OlJ1d students mutually negotiated and established the individual routines that woold (onn the enduring patterns of
AN EMERGING PRACTICe OF TEACHING
6.
209
interaction and c:ommUllicalion dwing class wscussion. The following episode. which occurred in the first month of school, briefly illustrates many of the continuing characteristics of the wholeclass discussions thai occ:WTCCl during the lime frame of me analysis (January tNough April). In this example. the class was discussing the $Olutions to a won:! problem written on a card. I Teacher:
2 Kathy: 3 Teacher:
4 Chris: 5 Joe: 6 Teacher. 7 Kathy: 8 Teacher:
9
AleA:
10 Teacher: I I Alex:
12 Teacher:
are. 6 tulips behind the rock. (4 tulips shown in the picture). How many art. there in all1 Kathy? 10. She got 10. Raise your hands if you gO( 10. (Several children raise their hands.) Raise your hands if you got a different number? What number did you get. 0uU'? 11. 1 801 4. How can we figure this oul1 Since I called on Kathy fust, I'll let herdescribe how she got the answer. I got 6 ilnd then added 4 11)(lft;. Did anyone else gel that. answer or maybe do it a different way? Alex. 11. Wellwait a minute. 11Jere would be 10 flowen. How did you discover thai? It is 4 flowers. one pair woold be 6 flowcs. 6 flowers in the front, 6 flowers in the back. ThaI would equal up to 12. If (II loOk 2 away (that) makes 4 in front and 6 in back would make 10. Exactly! Did anybody else do it a different way? There
1be panem of interaction that underlied the remainder of the dllSS discussions (or the rest of the yt:1l may be seen as emerging in this episode. E\'en though the teacher had prev;ously lold thechildren that she was interested in how they solved the problem, by reading the question given on the card she found herself in the siruaUon of asking them for an answer. As a way to keep the conversation open. she asked the childm!. to raise their hands if IIq' agreed or disagreed with the answer Kalhy gave. This IICt also served lIS a way for her to check their answen:. When she discovered that different ansWtlS existed. she asked Kathy, who had Biven thecornc.t answer, to give her method forsolving the problem. Her followi", qocstion. "'Did anyone else get that answer or maybe do il in a different wayT' iIIustr.ded the shifting that was oocurring as she tried to adhere to the view lhat children's ways of solving problems are of central interest and 10 disregard the well�stablished tradit;on of school mathematics in which thecOin�ct answer is the only important consideration. This shifting that occu� in this situation continued throughout the year and. as such. provided insight to the tetcher's way of thinking about the immediate situation at hand and her struggles to CJUle a different environment for learning o . From the observer's perspective. a tension was mathematics in her classrom
210
WOOD
creaced for the teacher as she decided to accept children's incorrect answers while she slill felt the obligation to ensure thai they arrived al ille correct answers. In this particular episode, she attempted to resolve her dilemma by returning to Kathy. who had given the correct answer, and asking her to give an explanation for her answer. Kathy's clIplanation, however, was merely a description of the procedure thai she used to arrive at the correct answer. and in the tradition of school mathematics, would be considered an appropriate response. 1bc teacher's follow· ing question can be seen as an attempt 10 continue the exchange and allow for further discussion. This reflected a deviation from the uaditionaJ form of question. ing found in most classrooms and served to create an opponunilY for A1ex to reconsider his solution and resolve his incorrect answer. The unexpected novelty of his cJl:pianation was surprising to the teacher and, as such, was the beginning of her becoming aware that children have ways for solving problems that she. in many cases, had not even considered as possible solutions. In these discussions. she also began to experience occasions in which children revealed that they were perfectly capable of correcting their own thinlcing without her direct intervention. The typical pattern of interaction that became established in these early lessons later became taken for granted in those silUalions in whieh the discussion focused on different methods children use for solving problems. TIle pattern involved a sequence: •
6
• • •
• •
The teacher read the problem and called on a pair. although in most cases only one of the partners was to be the major spokesperson. n.e student gave an answer. The teacher repeated the answer andlor requested a solution method. The student gave his Of her solution method. The teacher repeated the student's strategy, accepted the solution, and then asked for a different way of solving the problem, and called on another pair. The next student generally gave only a solution method. The teacher repeated the student's method. and then may or may not have asked for another different way.
During the months prior to Christmas. the teacher and students mutually established lhe routines and patterns of interaction for their working together. initially, the teacher's centrel intention was for children to "cooperate" and "work together" 10 solve problems in smallgroup work. In these settings. she expected children to discuss and solve the problems as ajoint activity and to agree on an answer. Although she began to recognize and even accept the constructivist assumption that children did have a variety of personally meaningful ways for solving problems, she could not possibly foresee the multitude of methods. She still viewed malhematics from her adult pen;pective, in which single procedures were used to find answers. Moreover. as a member of a long tradition of school mathematics, she was still concerned that the students arrived at the correct answer. Initially. she also did not fully anticipate that the individuals within a pair might in fact agree on the answer, but have different ways for solving the problem. It was
6.
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
211
not unusual. then, for the panncrs to find thai arriving at a consensU5 about the way
they solved the problem created a conflict (see also Cobb, chap. 3, this volume; Yackel, chap. 4, this volume). Frequently. the teachers' inlcrvention was merely 10
help a pair resolve fundamental social problems they encountered when trying to work together. In the class discusswftS, it was expected that students would not only present
their answer and their ways ofsolving the instructional activities to others. but thai they would also lislen to the explanations of others. It was anticipated that
diffcrcncc..s in perspectives would arise during the discussion. In order for these diffe�rns 10 arise. t i was expected thal lhe Ie3cher would not explicitly evaluaae students' answers
or direct them 10 the ways of solving problems that were
presented in traditional elementary school mathematics instruction. II is not sur· prising. however, that when children gave what she considered to be an incorTeCt answer to. problem, she was slill uncomfortable in leaving it. A5 II way to resolve
she often devised ways [0 lead Sl1xienlS 10 the conect answer. In addition. on more than one ncrasion in which the answers were va1id, the students' the tension,
methods did not fit expected conventions and were diffw;ull for her 10 understand completely.
A look at an example of a wholeclass discussion lhat occurred just prior 10 lhe monlhs considered for analysis illustrates the. ways she allempted to resolve her dilemma. and provilks a basis for comparison of the laler lessons. This example
also exempliflCS the Ioing and froing that occurred between her traditiona1 ways
of teaclting and an emerging practice. In the ensuing episode, lhe children were solving the problem (14 + 19),presented horizontally, for which Ihreechildten give
the answer as 23. In relating their solutions, each seemin!!ly forgoc to includc one of the tens. Alex. on the other hand, had an answer of 33.
2 Alex:
He says the M$wer's 33. (She writes 33 next to the 23.) Because there's a 10 in 19 and 14 and you tale away the 4 and
3 Teacher.
(intcrTUpts) Okay. So hc's go . . .
4 Alex:
(interrupts) . . . it makes 20.
5 Teacher.
All right Wait a minute. Stop (to Ale:..l. He's saying in take this
1 Teacher:
the 9 from the lens urn . . .
4 off and this 9 off (gestures to problem). I know that 10 and 10 make 20 (�Tites 20). Okay. Let's go (rom there.
6 Ale:.. : 7 Teacher. 8 Ale:..: 9 Teacher: 1 0 AIeJ.: 1 1 Teacher: 1 2 Alex: 13 Teacher.
And4plus9 . .
.
Uh uh. 4 and 9 . . . ? (Underlines the 4 + 9 in the senlence.) 4 and 9, well. 7 plus 4 equals I I , Uh "". And 2 more equals 13. Okay. 13. So 20 + 13. There's a 10 in 13, so I added 10 to 20 (101 gel 30
and there are 3 left. so I get 33. Ooh. Did you sec thai 110 the class)?
212
WOOD
Ale,;'s solution indicated thai his understanding of place value was fairly complete. He partitioned twodigit numbers into tens and ones and combined and recombined these to solve the problem. In addition. he did not seem to know 9 + 4 as a routine fact, so he used a known fact, 7 + 4. and the thinking strategy of add two to find the answer. The teacher's reaction suggested that his solution was also more comptex than she had anticipated. Another child did not understand and commented. '" don', get it." 14 Teacha":
15 Alex: 16 Teacher: 17 Alex: 1 8 Teacher:
Okay. What he's saying is . . . maybe ift . . . 1'11 say it again. I'll try and explain it. He says in the 14 and 19 here is a 10 (points) i a 10 (points). . . . Then he look his 4 and his 9 . . . and here s that's where he got this 13. Now he's going 10 pUI all those numbers together now. What is 20 plus 131 Well, actually, there's a 10 in 13 . . . and you add ilia the 20 makes 30 . . . (Interrupts) Okay. I see what you're saying. (Continues) Add 3 more from thai 13 . . . Okay. So you're saying 20 plus 3 ocrually. (She writes this as a number sentence on the board.) Okay. II's Ihe same Ihing, isn't il?
In contrast. moments later, while still solving the same problem (14 + 19) Holly gives an answer of 23. 19 20 21 22
Holly: Teacher: Holly: Teacher:
23 Holly: 24 Teacher:
Firsl I had 20, then I added 3. i you had 20. Did you tum this into 20? (pointing allhe 19.) Frsl
(Shakes her head yes.) Okay. She lumed mal n i to 20 by adding 1 to it. Then she did what? You took. away one from this side? Is fhal what you did? (Shakes her head yes.) To gel your 3? Okay. So far I agree with you. That makes 23. But what aboUI this poor lonesome critter here? (She poinlS to the I in 14.)
25 Holly:
Hm . . .
26 Teacher: 21 Class: 28 Teacher:
This isn'Ijusl 4, is it? II is a . . . ? (voice rising) 14. Which is a 10 and a4, 4 ones. So what are we going to do now (10 Holly)? (Says nothing.) You're on the right track. So I add 3 more. That's righi, 23 and to more is a . . . ? (voice rising) 33. 33.
29 30 31 32 33 34
Holly: Teacher: Holly: Teacher: Holly: Teacher:
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
6.
213
tn this exchange. the teacher assumed that she knew Holly'S solution method and, tOOs, filled in much of the details of the explanation for her. Holly. for the mosl part, simply nodded her head or gave singleword responses in an attempt to respond to the teacher's leading questions. This shift from an inquiry routirte to the IradilionaJ exchange with the highly predk1able student respon5e$ to the observtt seems like an anomaly. But from I¥ te3Cher's point of view, this is quile sensible. Realizing thai even after the discussion of A1ex's solution it was still possible for students to have Ilt\ inc:ouect answer, as the teacher she fell it was her responsibility to ensure thai
students knew lhe comet answer. In order to do this, she directed Holly's attention
to the point at which she: thought Holly had made an error of forgetting to add the len. It is not surprising. in
these unanticipated situations. that because the teacher
had nol yet learned a more indin:ct way to carry out her perceived obligation. she relied on a wellknown proccd� thai had been successful in the past..
this form of interaction. described as the "funnel pattern" by Bauersfeld (1988) and \bigt (chap. 5, lhis volume). typically the (eacher asks questions about In
i nformation for which the ans� is alrcady known, in order 10 evaluale whether !he student knows the same answer or nol. In this inleraction. if !he student does
not give the appropriate response. the teacher either tells the student or directs him
or her in a stepbyslep manner 10 the correct answer.
Teacher's Comments In an inlerview in midDecember during a projecl meeting, the leacher described her new role as evolving from being an: authofity penon. Penon 10 come 10 for the answeB. 'This year J am not . . and not giving Ihc aruwcr. it's forocd them 10 take on the responsibililY of figuringil out for Ihcmsclva. . . . It's not frustl3ling. it·s clallcngin& . They feci good aboul il They have come 10 the peine when: thcy can kam, you know. tbcmsclves (pauscl in spite .
.
.
oCme.
JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH In December, a series of activities had been introduced 10 the students with the intention oC providing experiences in which len, although comprised of units of one, could be counted as a single unit (cf. Cobb, Yackel, &. Wood, chap. 2, Ihis volume). AlI lhis set the stage for the activities developed that formed the basis for hcJping children make tel\$C ofthc majorconcc:pt for second·grade mathematics place value and methods for solving twodigit addition and subtraction problems with regrouping. Additionally, during this time activities that emphasized other multiple units wen: inlJOduced and intertwined with addition and subtraction.
Multiplication considered in
this regard was an exlension of students' natural,
214
WOOD
ongoing construction of units into groups other than len. move beyond counting by ones
As chil<m:n learned to
to using len as a unit, they also learned 10 fonn
other multiple units (e.g., fours, sixes), Although the activities that were developed were intended to provide studems with an opponunity to learn the concepts traditionally taught in secondgTade mathematics. two things were quite different for the teacher. First, the activities were unique in their design and, hence:, were unfamiliar 10 the teacher as well as 10 the students. In the project meetings we explained to her what students should do as far as the format. but
tbe specific strategies children might use to solve them
were rarely discussed. because they were part of our research agenda. This meant the teacher, like owselves, was left 10 learn aboot these during the lesson assludents talked about the ways in which they solved the problems. Therefore, the teacher
found herself in siluatioll!l in which it was necessary to listen to children in order to find out how they solved problems and then to relate what she learned to what she already knew as an :!dult about place value and the arilhmetic operations. The second major difference the teacher faced beyond the unique layouts on the student papers was that the " malhematics"nQ(ions of tens and ones and the standard algorithms for solving addition and subtraction problemdid not resem ble traditional school mathematics and were not directly presented in the instruc tional activities. Jnstead, numbers were thought of in tenns of single units or multiple units and children were encouraged to generate their own algorithms for solving them. For the teacher, the wellestablished reproducible arithmetical con tent found in the mathematics textbooks on which she had always relied was longer identifL8ble, and the essence of mathematics was being reinterpreted.
no
With this in mind, I began to examine the process of the teacher's evolving practice in detail during the months ofJanuary through March. I n<xed mat she was still faced with the dilemma of trying to create situations in which her studems could develop their personal meanings for mathematics. In order forthis to happen, it was necessary to be aware of certain obligations she had to her students in her new role. This meant that during the interaction with her students it was her responsibility 10 probe, question, and offer suggestions, but nOI in a way thai would hinder or interrtlpt the flow of slUdent thought. In addition, she was not to help students make sense of their solutions by directly clarifying their ideas. Instead, she was expected to provide situations in which children would be allowed to clarify their own thinking. Moreover, she was not to validate using one solution over another (and this was the hardest), but instead to create situations in which children would take notice of others' ideas. From my perspective as a researcher this seemed quite reasonable. given the theoretical perspective, and. moreover, I was not responsible for maintaining the ongoing activity or the lesson or the collective allention of the class. Consequently. because she knew very little about the nature or children's methods, she was unable to anticipate either the direction of their growth and understanding or the qualit)' of their mathematical responses. Close listening to children's ideas was essential, and in fact became even more critical
as
the
complexity of their thinking and their ways of coordinating units of different ranks
5.
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
215
developed over the school year. From her perspective, Ibis created another tension: She was unsure of what the mathematics was that she was trying to teach. All this gave rise to a situation in which she found herself needing to be able to improvise and respond to the situation at hand rather than being able to rely on her previously wellestabished l routines for teaching. This was in contrast to comments she had
i the term as she described herself 10 us: "I am a Creature of nature. made earlier n I like routine. J like to know what is going 10 happen. I'm nol terribly crazy about surprises."
January In the following episode. the activity the children were working on is the familiar balance design with tw(Kiigil numbers (see Fig. 6.1), On this day. the teacher was sitting on a siool in the fronl of the class preparing to introduce the activity. This introductory section typifies the manner in which talking about talking about mathematics occurred during the second half of the year.
I Teacher:
Now re�mber, it's your responsibility if you understand and your partner doesn't see it, to try and do your best to have your partner understand t!trough your explanation. Remember, we talked yesterday; we can't read each other's minds, so you
are
going to have to talk to your partner about it. Altogether I am going to put OUI pages M9, MID, MI l, M12. So that's four, I don't thinkl don'l know if anybody will get through to all of
21
AO. 6.1. BalanceinsllvCliOM.l Klivily.
21
216
WOOD
2 Class: 3 Teachtt
them or not, but liJce I said, it doesn't maner as long as what you are doing is working and . . . (VOteC rising) Cooperating. Trying 10 help your partner understand. cooperate. and learning yourself. Okay, any questions'?
lbc emphasis oflhis introductory di.scourse was di�ed at a situation thai often arose:
in which one member of a pair knew how Ioso1vc the problems and the OCher
did not. In this brief opening. the teacher stressed that in thai situation it was each child's responsibility 10 help his or ber partner understand by explaining his or her solution. Unfonunntely, it was not uncommon for one partner to dominate the activity by solving the problems. leaving the other with little opportunity
10
participate (d. Cobb. chap. 3, this volume), Thus. when it was time (or class discussion, the latter swdenl would acknowledge that he or she did not know how to solve a problem. It was not the teacher's intention that childru soh'c
these
problems in an independent manner, but. instead. she wanted them to talk with one another about their solutions. She believod children could enhance. their under standing if they were given opportunities to ex�ain their thinking; and if cruktren would listen, they could � from one another.
It became necessary during this time (or the teacher to extend the existing social nonns to include the expectation that tlv: studenlS waukt try to undentand one anowr's solution methods. The teacher approached this in a very direct ellpikit manner as evidenced during the introduction
and
to this lesson. n i wruch she
told the children eXICIly what they were expected 10 do as lhey worked together. 1lIese extended norms. however, created an interesting dilemma for her students. as they were obligated to try "l0 help your panner undemand, coopemte" lind III the same time "learning yourself' (Yackel. Cobb, &: Wood, 1991).
After the inuoduction. the children worked foe 20 minutes in their small groups
al solving the problems. which was followed by class discussion. 'Ole segment that follows provides an cllJlltlpk.
1 Teacher.
Now on thi5 page we have a balance and we are supposed to balance a 20. and a 20 and a 20. Now who . . . let's hear from
Peter and Bonnie. What was your solution?
2 Peter: 3 Teacher: 4 8onn�:
5 Teacher:
6 Bonnie: 7 Teacher:
60.
You think 60, Because we agreed that 2 + 2 + 2 was 6, and 20 and 20 and 20 was 60.
All right. They said we knew that 2 and 2 lind 2 made 6. They also know that mis is really a 20, not just a 2 but a 20 in this
case. 20, 20, and 20 must make . . . ? (voice rising) 60. (Simulweously)60. Who did it adifferent way? All right Let's
hear from Ryan and Carol (she means KatyJ. Are you ready to help us out here'? How did you and Ryan get mis answer. Katy'?
6.
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
7 Ryan: 8 Teacher.
217
We got 60. AU right. Now. did you do it differently !han Bonnie and Peter?
They said they knew that 2 and 2 and 2 made 6, and 20, 20, and 20 musl make 60. Did you do it a different way? (Ryan shakes his head yes.)
9 Ryan:
I knew 20 and 20 was 40. And then, urn . . .
10 Teacher:
Okay.
I I Ryan:
And I knew 2 more was 6. Two more added together all thaI madc up to 60.
12 Teacher:
All right. Good Anybody have a differcnl way of doing il. Alex .
and Joy? 13 Joy:
Well, I knew that 20 plus 20 makes 40, and add 20 10 thaI (she hesitates),
14 Teacher:
Add 20 to that?Okay, lhat's the way Ryan and Kaly did it. Good
.
All right lei'S go on to the nell! one, then. It is not surprising that lhis exchange reflected the initial pattern of interaction
that was established early in the year, with two major modifications. First. the teacher now emphasized to the students that they should determine if their way was
similar 10 or different (rom lhe solution that someone else had given before they volunteer. From the observer's perspective, it appeared that each student well understood that he
or
she was expected to find his or her own way to solve the
problems. What was being negotiated at this point was the importance for each
person to decide whether his or her way of solving was the same as or different from those already given before offering a solution to the class as a "different way."
In this manner, the teacher tried to create an opportunity for each child 10 reflect further on his or her thinking as they compare their solutions 10 others'. Second. although she continued to interact in the established manner, she often allowed the children to give a complete explanation before interrupting them. Previously, the students typically gave only pan of their solution and then paused to a1low the teacher to indicate whether she agreed or not. At that time. she often
took the opportunity to expand or extend their comments, and then the children completed the remainder oftheir explanation. As the students became able to beller express their thinking and to give their solution melhod as a continuous complete thought. such as Bonnie did in Line4, she let them finish before commenting. Thus, the manner of breaking the solution into stepbystep procedures was gradually eliminated as the students learned 10 give their explanations succinclly. Ouring the lesson, however, the teacher continued to highlight those aspects. of eitherthe problem orthe solution that she thought were important. In this instance. il was the quantity the number represented when in the tens place (e.g "2 and 2 .•
and 2 made 6, and 20, 20 and 20 must make 60") and the relationships between the . problems in which a thinking strategy could be used (e.g... . . .if you already know,
Joy, that 20 and 20 and 20 make 60, Ixlw can you figure this out?" for the problem (19. 19. J 9)J. Added to this, she also encouraged two particular strategies that were given by the students. One was when they considered quantities as collected
218
WOOD
ObjeclS, collect the tens and add on the ones as single units {as in John's solution to the problem (21, 21. 21) ''20+20 would be 40 and 2 120) more would be 60 . . . 60, 61 . 62. 63)," The other was to collect the tens and add on the ones as multiunits (e.g '1bey say 20. 20, 20 makes 60," ''this 4 and this 4 make 8," "8 and 4 more make . . . '!'), Although using the hundreds board to count surfaced severaJ times during the lesson, she acknowledged it as if it were a wellknown strategy and did not pursue it any funher (e.g "instead of counting with your fingers you used the hundreds board and counted wilh that. All right. that's another way to solve ii" ). The teacher was now well aware of the fact thai in order for children to have opportunities to make sense of the problems and, thus, of mathematics, it was necessary for hertocreate situations in wh.ich she encouraged them 10 figure things out for themselves. Alternalively. she seemed torealizethai it was her responsibility to try to make sense of the children's explanations. even though they might seem erroneous to her. 1bese obligations created certain situations that were highly contradictory 10 her previous practice. She did want children to get the correct answers (and so did the researchers), but she also recognized that the f<x:us of her teaching was on how children got Iheir answers. What was important was their growth in understanding, not their ability 10 perfonn. Certain dilemmas still confronted her during the class discussion: How could she help children 10 reflect on their explanations as they were giving them so lhat their ideas could be understood by others? How could she get the other students who were listening to take nOlice of differences from and similarities 10 their solutions and those of others? The lesson that occurred on January 13 illustrated a pattern of interaction that was beginning to emerge as she attempted to resolve this predicament. On this day, the students were having a great deal of difficulty interpreting the problems during the pair time such that they struggled to discuss their solutions during the class discussion thai followed. This, consequently. created a difficult the class discussion in her usual situation for the teacher, as she tried to faciitate l manner. For the observer, her attempts to conduct the exchange provided an opponunily to investigate the ways in which she was making sense of her activity and thestralegies she was using as she tried to resolve herdilemmas. In this episode. the students solved the problem (35, 451l in the balance design which by now was familiar 10 all the students. Next, the problem was (36, 46110, l, which was difficult for the students to interpret because many were not able to detennine whether 10 add or subtract the 10. Katy had arrived at the correct answer, but her explanation to the class was complex and. hence, unclear. Thus. the teacher continued: .•
.•
1 Teacher: 2 Jamie: 3 Teacher:
4 Jamie: 5 Teacher:
In order to do this problem, whal did you first have 10 figure out? Jamie? Urn. Whal was on the side that was all covered up. Okay . . . first of all you had to figure out what 36 and 46 was. What was 36 and 46? 82.
It balanced out (writes 82 on overhead). They [researchersl could have stuck an 82 on that side and it would have been equal
6.
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
219
to the same asa 36or46. Okay. Together36, 46, equals 82. They could have used an 82 instead, bUl they used two numbers. So
firstyou had tofigure out what 36, 46 was. Then you hiJd 10 on that side and you IuuI to add something to it to balance it out. How did you figure that OUI, Katy? (Shon pause.) WI! know there's 82 all this side. we know there's /0 on that side. Now, how did )'oufigure out what to put in the box? The italicized sentences represent the way in which the teacher anemp(ed to resolve the tension thai existed between her inclination to step in and clarify whot seemed to be confusing for the children and her wanting them to give the explana tion for the problem themselves. Because it had been mutually constituted in these discussions. the children did not expect the teacher 10 direct them to a specific melhod (or solving the problem. bUI rather thai they find their own way of solving problems. ConsequenLly, it would have been a violation of the established nonns if the teacher had done so. Thus. the teacher found herself in a situation in which she was trying 10 find a way to provide them with assistance while still meeting her obligations to her students.
Focusing Pattem of Interaction.
In this episode the sequence of ques
tions. from the observer's perspective, were for the teacher a way of trying to build from studen!s' existing understanding to focus thejoint attention to a point of confusion. The teacher began with a series of questions to summarize the aspects of the problem that she thought were understood by most of the children. Then she drew attention to the aspect of the problem that was difficult for students to interpret. posed that as the problem to be solved. then turned the discussion back to the student to provide the explanation. "Now how did you figure that out, KatyT' In many ways, this is similar to Ainley's (1988) structuring questions. She described these questions as those for which the purpose is to use student's prior knowledge to enable new connections to become clear. In this case, the difference is that the question the teacher asked was intended to have students reflect on the
very point at which confusion existed. The act of focusing can be viewed as a possible intent a teacher may have for asking a particular question in a certain way, and can also be the effect. intended or otherwise, of asking a question. As such,the queslion serves to narrow thejoin! field of attention to one specific aspect. but still enables students to move forward in their thinking. This pattern. in many ways. appears to be reminiscent ofthe funnel pattern referred to earlier, in which a series of directing questions are asked. These could initially be interpreted by observers as leading the students to a specific end as predetennined by the teacher. However,
the difference is that in the focusing pattern a sequence of questions are asked lilal
serve to narrow the joint field of auenlion to the one specific aspect thai is importal1t. bul then to allow the student an opportunity to provide the resolution of the problem. This. then, allows the student in question an opportunity to reflect on his or her reasoning as he or she reexplains his or her thinking and provides an
220
WOOD
opportunity for the others 10 make sense themselves of the unique aspect of the solution to the problem (Wood, 1994b).
February and March class discussions remained very much the same as in January. 1be teacher continued 10 follow her routine of laking two or three solutions and then moving 10 the next problem. Thechildren, however,
During the months of February and March. the
began to find ways to continue the discussion in order thai they might offer more solutions. It seemed that as they developed deeperunderstandings ofmultiple units. including len, and Ihc relationships between numbers and operations. they had a wider variety ofideas about which mey wanled to talk. Each single problem began 10 have the possibiity l of generating many different solutions or ideas about which the children wanted to talk. They soon found that by claiming a "discovery," which meant noticing something different about a problem or disagreeing with an answer. they would have an opponunity 10 continue discussing a problem. Thus, the children themselves began 10 inlerrupt and intervene in the nonnal flow of the discourse. An i llustration of this is given in the following episode. in which the students were finished discussing their solution methods for (7 x 6) and (9 x 5), and the next problems were (I J
x 5) and (II x 10).
I Teacher:
Good. All right. Now, these next two are kind of fun (referring
2 Alex:
to ( l l x 5 ) and ( l 1 x 10» . We made a discovery on the other one.
3 Teacher: 4 Class:
All right. Alex has another d . . . (All are talking andwaving hands hoping to be called on to solve the next problem, (II x 5).)
5 Teacher:
Wait a second. Hang on. Alex's first. Because he said he made a dis . . .
6 Alex:
(Interrupts) 9 times 5. We got 45. And then {pause]. Well, plus 7 limes was 35! So we figured 2 more 5s would be45. 5 plus 5 is 10.
7 Teacher.
All right
S Alex:
And 10 added to 35 is 45.
9 Teacher:
Okay. Good. let's hear from Andrea.
Alex, excited to share his thinking, appeared to know that not only should he give an answer, but he also had to be able 10 tell what he had discovered. He proceeded 10 explain the relationship he and his panner found between (7 x 5) and (9 x 5). This entailed using the previous solution to (7 x 5) and recognizing that (9 x 5) could be solved simply by adding 10 more to 35. As he gave his solution. he proceeded in a manner suggesting that the established routine was 10 provide reasons while g iving an explanation. Unike l the previous month, the leacbersimply indicated her agreement and did not attempt to restate or highlight his explanation. It appeared that at this point it had been interactively constiMed in the class thai
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
6.
221
in giving an explanation the children should provide a verification for their answer that included giving their rationale for me solution. By this lime. it was clear that the teacher was willing to Jet the children take more responsibility for constituting an acceptable mathematicaJ explanation. However. it can be noted that this ex change was still an interaction between the teacher and Alex, allhough the other members of the class simply lisrtned. In addition. the earlier renegotiated expectation for the way in wh.ich they were to work in pairs appeared to have become well established. In giving their explanation for < x 3 18), Betsy announced: =
I Betsy:
2 Teacher:
FllSt we had another answer [71. We worked together and he told me it was wrong and he showed me why it was wrong. Did you hear that? I think that's kind of important. They had an answer, and Duane said, " Well iI's wrong." He didn't SlOp just saying it's wrong. he said this is why it's wrong. And then he went on aDd explained how to get the right answer. So, it's one thing to jusl lell your panner, I disagree, but then you need to tell them why you do. That's imponant.
'The emphasis the teacher placed on agreeing or disagreeing with a partner's answer and being able 10 support one's contention with reasons created an additional oppor tunity for students to learn that did noc exist previously. Comparing their answer.; and determining if their solutions were similar or different provided them with a situation in which theycould monitor their own thinking by reflecting on theirprevious activity.
April As a tina1 example, I have selected an episode that occurred lale in April. The children were discussing the problem (39 + 33 .J to which John had given the answer of72. =
1 Class: 2 Teacher: 3 John: 4 Teacher: 5 John: 6 Teacher:
7 Ryan:
8 Teacher:
Agree, Agree. How did you think that? I just knew that 30 and 30 make 60 and that [inaudible] All right He said, I knew 30 plus 30 made 60, and then what? I added the 9 and the 3. All right. ThaI's ellaClly what I wanted you to say. He said, I added up the 9 and 3. And that's how he got 12. So he's saying 60 plus 12 made . . . gave him 72. That's great. Who did it a different way? . . . 3 and 3 is 6 and, urn. 9 and 3 were 12. J meanyeah. 12 but, urn, I took I from the 3 1the ones of33) (points to the 9 of 39) and then 10 and 2 make 12 and that would make 72. Okay. Who did it another way?
222
WOOD
Two things of interesIseemed to be occurring in the example. First. even though she knew that the students had a variety of methods, the teacher was still concerned about the traditional mathematics that she had been teaching over a number of years. One of the hallmarks of schooling for secondgrade mathematics is the learning of the standard algorithms for addition and subtraction. This tradition is in direct contrast with the project goaI lhat children construcl lheir own efficient. albeit nonstandard, algorithms. In this instance, John's adding of the tens and then the ones was reminiscent ofthc partitioning of numbers that underlies the standard algorithm. The teacher, recognizing the similarity. responded by returning to a previous routine of intemJpting. finishing the explanation, and highlighting what 10 her were the imponant aspects of the problem. Her comment. "That is just what I wanted you to say," which was offset by her nexl S(alement, "He said. I added up the 9 and 3," illustrated the shifting that OCCUlTed in her actions as she tried to balance the tension between the project goals of allowing individual children to construct meaningful personal methods. and the traditional goal of schooling, which is to ensure that students know the accepted practices held by society. In this regard, she often found herself inserting her intentions. catching herself, and then framing these intentions within the children's comments. The second aspect to note is Ryan's solution to the problem. Typically, as we have seen before. he tended to add groups of len. then make a ten from the ones and add lhal to the lens. and then add the extra ones. In this episode, he appeared 10 continue using this strategy with a slight alteration. As he added the one from 33 to the 9 in 39 giving him a 10, he said, "Nine and 3 were 1 2. I meanyeah. 12, but I lOOk. urn. I from the 3 and then 10 and 2 . " From this example. we can infer that the nonns that were extended to include the expectation that students would listen to others' solutions and decide if their ways were the Same or different were guiding his response. In this situation. his explanation consisted of a combination ofinitially agreeing with John's way and identifying the point at which his method was differenl In a sense. he had not considered adding 9 + 3 when he solved the problem. but he realized as he gave his explanation that he also had combined numbers in such a way that he got 12, JUSt as had John. Ryan. in meeting his responsibility for participating in the class discussion, found it necessary to relate his ideas to the solution given previously. Although his explanation was still given as a description of his actions, the fact that he reflected on the thinking of another and used what he understood to inform his own thoughts is an important aspect in the development of mathematical reasoning. In order to take the perspective of others. children need to be able to make inferences about what others might mean and to use their understanding to detennine f i their ideas are similar and different. Shortly after Ryan's explanation. Michael commented on the same problem (39 + 3 3 =>. .
I
Michael:
2 Teacher:
3 Michael:
.
Well. there is also another way to do it. Just add up the 60 and count to 70 and add that 2 more on. Okay. All right. Say that again. now. Michael? Well. that's adds lpause] up to 50, add on the 60. and on the 20.
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
6.
4 Teacher: .s Michael:
223
Oh! I took off the 2.
This cltchange accunuely illustrated the challenge and uocertainty teachers encounter when they engage their students in openended wscussions to allow for a variety of solutions. In this panicular case, the student previous 10 Michael gave a method thar. involved doubling 33 and adding on the remaining ones. Michael's first method. however, was based on a totally different concep(ualitalion, and il was necessary for the IeaCher to switch from thinking about doubles. Not certain thoU she understood, she asked him to rt:ellplain. which he did, only this time giving a solution that was different and difficult to understand. She knew that from Michael's perspective his explanation made sense to him. Yet, in the immediacy of the silUation. she needed lodecide whether to take the time to pursue his explanation further or simply to accept: it in order to keep !.he discussaon flowing for the other students. 6 Teacher. 7 Alex: 8 Teacher: 9 10 11 12 13
Michael: Teacher: Michael: Teacher: Michael:
14 Teacher: 15 Michael:
(Pause.) All right. that would be another way to do il. What did he say? I'm still not real sure. Hc said somcthing about SO. Where did you get lhe SO, Michael? I just changed the 33 into a 34. Oh. Okay (pauseJ, and then what did yoo do'! Well . . . This 33 yoo changed to a 34. Is that what you say'! let me think about it [very long pauseJ. No! Now J remember. . . I changed (ill into a 32 inslead. All right. And then what did you do? Then whal did you do with the leftovers o\'cr there? 3 plus 2 equals up to S. Then 30 plus 20 equals up to SO. 50 plus 20 . . . equals up to 70, plus 2 equaJs up 10 72.
In recapping, although she decided not to pursue Michael's method, another student was listening and trying to make sense of the solution given. and asked for further clarification. The teacher. quite comfonably now, admitted her own lack of understanding and changed her original decision in response 10 what she perceived was an interest in Michael's solution on the paltofthe class. It is also important to notice that, unlike the early discourse, the questionJ she asked created a situation in which the dialogue seemed to have some "genuine communicative purpose" (Stubbs. 1974). In each case, rather than paraphrasing and extending his comments, herqL.lt"Sfioos were such lhal Michael was now the one who provided the explanation. 1bc: mathematical meaning that evolved over the course: of his explanation indicated a change in Michael's solution method. It appeared that initially he added the lens as 30 + 30  60, then counted byODCSto 70 making another ten, and added on the remaining two units. On the surface. his next comments seemed confusing. but in reality were possible changes he may have made in his thinking as he
224
WOOD
reflected on his mathematical activity. His final explanation involved taking 20 from 33 to make familiar combination (30 + 20 50). and then realizing that the remaining 10 plus another 10 (from 9 + 1) equaled 70, with 2 units remaining. maKing lhc: answer 12. Notably, for Michael each refinement was an extension of his initial explanation. but in the immediacy of the situation for the teacher these were interpreted as differenl solutions. As it was not always possible for her 10 understand the students' explanations, me teacher was often caught in the dilemma of deciding whether (0 unravel an individual solution or to just accept it in order to keep the discussion flowing for the other students. It was the awareness of the tension in these situations that enabledtheobser'ver10 begin to appreciate the complexity ofteaching. As ateacher, she had to be able to respond to the ongoing activity of the present situation in a way that created the best possible solution. Simply put, in such settings, opponu nities to engage in any forma] rationaJ planning are nonexistent. II is also not possible for teachers to consider how their actions will affect others; their activity flows with the situation at hand. Allhough significant patterns of interaction can be identified by an outsider on rencction after the fact, this is not the underslanding the teacher has to work wilh as the situation is deVeloping. It is this tension that exists hctween ensuring thai students have individual opponunities to learn and the necessil)' to keep the whole class involved in the activil)' and keep it proceeding in a pnxluctive direction thaI Heidegger (1962) referred 10 as throwness. Moreover, it is the ambiguity that is created n i this situation that makes teaching in this manner a highly demanding fonn of practice. II is with this in mind that we return to the discussion. =
1 6 Teacher:
Okay. He has an idea here, though. He started something. You see what he's done here with taking this 33 here and making il into a 321 Does anybody see what else you mighl do with thai?
Still not sure she understood Michael's solution, she tried to resolve her dilemma by responding with a question that directed the joint attention of the class to Michael's changing of 33 to 32. Although she appeared to have a specific solution in mind, rather than imposing her idea by explicitly telling or funneling she hinted at a possibility and asked the children for their ideas. Her attempt to focus their attention was seemingly ignored, because Peter commented: 17 Peter: IS Teacher: 19 Peter: 20 Teacher:
I have something 10 add to this. Okay. What? Well, it could be you add that I you took to 39, that equals 40 and add 32 to 40 equals 72. See what I'm saying to you? Michael sort of here (points to overhead) when he took one away from the 33 and it gave it over to 39. And IUmed thai into a 32 and that into a 40 and then he was [pause] he convened that imo a 72. So, that's another way.
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
6.
225
CONCLUSION o s in which children talk about their personally II has been suggested that classrom constructed meanings have discussions that reveal higher levels of reasoning than o s (Prawat. 1991; Wood. 1994a). do lhose discussions found in traditionaJ classrom The process by which this develops is claimed by some ID occur "naturally"
(Palincsar & Brown. 1984). However, from my perspective. tbe teacher bas a definite role in the process that refleclS the complexiry of teaching in this setting. In this chapter. I have tried to describe the dynamic process by which
the
teacher's practice emerged during the months from January 10 April. To this end, I have described the "toing" and "froing" that was reflected in the ways she interacted with her students. A tension emerged for the teacher as she attempted to cope with the variety in conceptual undersmndings held by the children and yet maintain established patterns of interaction. These n i teracting patterns relied on
to contribute to the evolving takenasshared meanings. The dilemma became one of how to let children give their meanings on the one hand and, on the other, decide what she herseU should tcil lhem. Because her intention was 10 create a situation in which children were talking, it required a renegotiation
students' abiliry
of the expectations and obligations that underlie the patterns of interaction. During the year, she watched and listened as children discovered and created mathematica1 meanings in the course of their own activity and she began to rea1ize "how much children had within themselvesthe power of their own thinking." Her role shifted from one of not giving information to one in which she created
opportunities for children 10 think about mathematics. She struggled throughout the year to establish a way of teaching that shifted from an interaction involving questioning that was intended to check to an interaction in which negotiation of meaning was of centraJ interest. This created for the students a different classroom setting, one in which children did nOI feel they were in a situation of constant evaluation. Instead. they found themselves in an atmospnere in which their ideas were listened to and in which their teacher auempted to understand their thoughts. She stated, "I've learned to let go of my classroom. Empowering students with responsibility gives them the feeling that they are needed and most important. that they have ownership in what they are learning" (Merkel, 1990, p. 2).
Further, she found that allowing children to talk required a great deal more cooperation and a more commonly held basis of understanding than she had used in her previous mathematics classes. 1be teacher's implicit conceplualiz.ations of children's understanding were part1y influenced by their novel solutions. ability
their
to give clear and concise explanations. and her prior experiences with
traditional mathematics. The differences thatemerged were more than a shift from focusing on the product of children's mathematical activity to an emphasis on their
solution methods. Instead. the departure involved interpreting children's mathe matical activity during the discussion and making quaJitative distinctions in the solution attempts they gave. In this regard. her understanding of the situation developed in the ongoing activity with the children. As such, her actions were not
226
WOOD
based on detached reflective activity, but instead developed as she engaged in the interactive process of Icaching and learning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT This chapter was written while the author was the Snodgrass Scholar in the School of Education at Purdue University.
REFERENCES Ainley. J, (1988). ��ionsorleadx:rs' questioning styles;. Procudin.g$ oftM T... �lflh 11IlunanoNJI · Coriftrt�t "" 1M Prychology ofMawmatics Educurion (pp. 9299), Vcuprem. Hungary: Psychol· ogy ofMachcmatics EdlKalioo. Ball. D. l (1993). With an cyt: on the: mathematical horizon: 0i1e11Vna$ ofteachingdeov:ntaf)' 5dIooJ rn..uhematics. EklfU!fltory Scltool Jo!U7Wl, 93(4), 373397. Baucrsfdd, H. (l91I8). inleraction. collSUUCtion. and knowledge: Allemalive perspectives (or nwhe IT1.l1ia edllCalion. In T. Cooney & D. Grouws (Ells.). Efftr:tive trIIJI/,unali,s ftochin8 (pp. 2746). Reston. VA: Nationoll Cooneil ofTe3Chen; of MalhenWiC$ and LaWmlCC Ertbaum Associatc:$. Carpenter. T. P.. Fc�� E., 1'I:lel3Ofl, P au""" C. P.. &. Locf. M. ( 1989), Using know.eeI", of childml's nwhtmatics thinking in cbssroom Ie�run,:: An cxpc:rinv:nw Cludy. Amt:riCQII &hu:s liONlJ RUMrdt JlJllmuJ, 26, 499532. Cobb, P., Wood. T.. &. Yac:kel. E. (1993). Discourse, nwhcmalicallhinking, and classroom praaice. In E. Fonnan, N. Minick, &. A. SIODe(Eds.), Q",/uu/urullIlIiIIg: &KillJ,It/fldcgger. M. (1962). 80ng attd liIM. (J. Macquarrie &. E. Robinson. Trans.). New York: Harpet" &. Ro.... Hic:bc:n. J &. Wunw:. D. (1992). Links bi:t"'"etII !ellChing and learning place "31",, with undcrstandin& in fint pade. iou.rnaI./or Rntllt"Ch in MatMmotia Educatiall. 2J(2), 9&122. Ld>inQwicz, E. (19M).lLan!ing/rolll chiidrtn: N� t¥gi1llli'Ws/orftuchiIlR fUlllUrirullhilWttg. Menlo Part. CA: Addi5Oll·Wcsle)'. Lampen. M. (1988). The �her"1 role in reinveming the me.mlng of rnm.cnwical knowledge in Ihc dasSJOOItL In M. BdU", C. LaCampagne, &. M. M. Wheeler (Eds.). Proatdiflgsofw rtllth """'I'l/l MUling oflM Psyclw/og)' ofMalM_ticl £duealiollNorth AllUric" (pp. 433480). Oo:l:aIb, IL: Northern Illinois Universily. Lampert, M. (1992). Praruces and problems in leachin& authcnlic m:.lhematics. 1n F. K.. Osc:r. A. Did:. &: J. Plilry (Edi.), £/ftan·t a1Ilirupoto.ribk ItDChillll Cpp. 295314). San Fr.lPCisc:o. CA: .Io$scyBass. .•
.•
s.
AN EMERGING PRACTICE OF TEACHING
227
Merkel. G. (1990). A metanlOfpho5is. School MlllhemlJlics lJIId Scinrct COIla Nn.lJ/" ,,,, 4(4), 12. Naaion.lJ Couno;il orTudlc:n of Mahenutics. (1989). ClUricrJum UIIdtJ.'tlluuli"" JlOIuJarrbf orulwol IMIMmalin. ReslOO. VA: AIIlhor. NaIioaal Council ofTeacbers oCMMhc:rrWia;. (1991). ProfflJwnolsrartdardsforItuching maf�IMIicJ. Reston. VA; Author. Newman. D., Griffin. P., &. Cole, M. (I989). Tilt! crJlU'T1lai"" lOftt; WorAillgfor c:og/liliw cItuIlgt ill school. New yort: Cambridge Univenily Pm.s;, Noddings. N. (1990), Construaivism in mathcmatig education. In R. B. Davis. C. A. Maher, &. N. NoddinI' (Eds.), Cons'",cllvin I;�I "" W IlochiIIg and komiJw of IfItIIMlfItitics (Journal for RcsearclJ in MlIlhI:malics E.duc:acion Monograph No.4, pp. 71&). RauOll, VA: Nliional Council of Ttxhers of Mathematic•. Paiine5al'. A•• &. Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teadUngofCOOPprehc:ns.ionFo$(eMI and tomprdlcn siouMonilonng activilia.. Cog,ulion and irutfll£liOll. /(2) 117115. Prowat, R. (I99I). The value of ideas: Tb!I immersion approach to the: dcVClopmtlll of thinking.
EdMmtio.w RtJttuclvr,1Q;2), 310. Rosenshillt, 8 &; Stevens. R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. G. Winrot"k (Ed.), � Itandbook of �urm:" 01/ lmching (3nJ cd.. pp. 316391). New Yorlr;: �Millan. Sincbir. J &. Coulthard. R. (J97S). 11n.wds (In aruJlysiJ ofdiscOllrst: Tht &gliJh lUtd by ttllClltrs tJIIdpupib. London: (bford Univasity Press. Stmd:. J &; � L (1979). Good ror)'Oll.Zur pntgmatiscbtn und konvmIliondkn onaJysc: von Bewmunllcn im inSfituUonc:lIen diskun; der schuk. In J. Dinman (Ed.), ArNiftll �ur koll>'f'rs(uiollS _lyN (PI'. 235257). Tiibingen. Gennany: Nicmc:yer, Stubbs, M. (1974). OrranWng c/a.rsroom /ali. (Occasional Paper 19). � for Research in !he EduaUOIIaI ScieIlOt$, University ofEdinburgh. Ttevattbtn. C. (1979). InSfincu for human understanding and fot cultural cooperation: Their develop. IDeIll in infancy. In M. von CfOIlach, K. Foppa. W, Lzpenies. &; O. PIoog (Eds.l, H..mnn trhology: Claims tJIId /imits ('1a MW di.rcipliM (pp. 530571). Cambridg<:, England: Cambridg<: Univcnity .•
.•
.•
""'.
VoiJl, J.0992, August). Ntgotiatioll if_MfMlicaJ mt(lning ill C/aSSf/}(Nt1proctUtl. Paper �l\Cnted at the IOlemational Congrwl of Mathem.uia Education, Uniwmty of Laval. Qutbec, Canada. 'lOll Glasersfcld. E. (1987). Learning 115 • wnmvaiw adiviJy. [n C. Janvier (Ed.), Probums "I rrpnsnllatioll in the Ituchillg tJIId IMming of fMllttllWltiCJ (pp. 317). Hillsdale:. NJ: Lawrence Erlb:aum Associ• • es. Weber. R. (1986. April). Tht WlIStraWJ ofq..estioning roW/illts ill mulillg illStfllCtion. Papc:t presented at the annual meeting of Amc� Educational Rcscan:h Association. San FrancilCO. 'I""i illttroctiof&. IItIdkomillg Wood. T. (1994a). Tht illUrrtlOliOtUhipbt.... t tnt lOCialnorms. cO"'''cllril''
IIWldwnafics. Submitled lNIIuscript. Wood. T. (i994b). PaItmI5 of inlmletion and !he culture ofthe mat1v:matics cLusroom. In S. LzI1lWl
(Ed.). CiJnva/PtT�ctiws (HI Iht _�_icl cla.ul'OOm (pp. 149168). J:lordro;ht: Kluwcr. Wood. T Cobb. P &. Yackel. E. (1990). The f;QQle1tuaJ natu� oflCaChmr, �rnui", and �adinl n i stnlClion in one seo;md.grade dauroom. EI�ntarySchoolJounwl. 00(5). 497513. Wood. T Cobb. P.. &. Yackel. E. (1991). Owlg<: in tcaching mathematics: A aISe lIu.dy. A_neon EJh.corionaJ Rtstrurh JoimUJl. 28(3}, SS7616. Wood. T Cobb. P Yackel. E.. '" Dillon, D. (&Is.). (1993).RflhinkingtltmtlllOryldwol mat�malia: flUishtsami iu..ts{1oumal for Res.can:h in M.hemalics Educalion Monograph No. 6). RestO!!. VA: NatiooaJ Council of Te.x:hen of MllMmatics. Yackel, E., Cobb. P., &; Wood. T. (1991). Small group ilMc:rxtions as aswrcc oOumingopponunities in second Ilnidc mathcm.ttics. JDIlmo.llor RutDrr:h ill M<JIMmlllicl t:m.catiOtl. 22(5). 390408. .•
.•
.•
.•
.•
7 T he Ethno graphy ofArgumentation Gatt Krummheuer Piidagoguche Hochschule Karlsruhe
In this chapter the main issue is the analysis of argumentation in the project class. An attempt is made to approach this both from a microethnographical description of classroom processes and by discussing several theories oonceming argumentation. i 1be fitst overwhelming impression one had when observing the interaction n this classroom was the prevalence of situations of arguing and the obviously high regard these argumentations have for the teacher (see also Wood, chap. 6, this volume), This was presumably an effect ofthe underlying teaching experiment and.
therefore, worthwhile to examine in greaterdetail (cf. Cobb, Yackel, & Wood,chap.
2, this volume). But having an argument in order 10 find appropriate mathematical solutions and definitions was not only bound 10 the leaching experiment in the project class: Discussing, explaining. justifying, illustrating, analogizing, and so
on are a1l features of reasoning in many mathematical classrooms. In the project class this was systematically developed and eXlensively used. Therefore. focusing lhe analysis on the
social genesis of argumentation is of !heoretical inleresl and is
commensur.ilile wi!h many silUations of leaChing mathemalics, bound not only 10
the specificities of this class. Argumentation is seen here primarily as a social phenomenon. when cooperat ing individuals tried 10 adjusl their intentions and interpretations by verbally
presenting the rationale of their actions.l Under the specific conditions of a classroom silUation !his aspecl of negotiation seemed 10 have a strong impact on
learning: Argumentatively based cooperation was obviously construed under the assumption !hat there existed a positive relationship between active participation
IVuy of\eD !he word I'fltUmllle or 1'flfir:JtWj is used allIID5l like . synoaym for logic or logical. SuI roliONUily mc&IIII rlfR of a1l wulII the best ehoic:e WI ol. so:t 0( options whudly willi counu as the best is • �olnctOtWion (tee FoUeldai. Wailoe, &. EiSler. 1986). Thill. �ioll.lity is bound 10 man,/ kinds of �OD thai n ec .., .... il'/ CIMClt be: IRIbsu� WIder the critt:ri. 0( rormal·logical onasidcnIlons.
KRUMMHEUER in such social processes and the conceptual mathematical development of the studenls. This assumption about such a relationship is primarily II social construc lion, apparently widely accepted in the community of educ:ators and learners in schools. It is seen here as a feature of a "folk psychology" (Bruner. 1990) of classroom learning. This notion of folk psychology is intended to describe a stance that is somehow independem from the aims of the project. Certainly, the following ethnography of argumentation serves as a report of aspects oflhe interaction processes in the class. and one can draw some conclusions about the verification of project aims. But through the attempt of binding these argumentativeprocesses ina framework about the everyday practices of mathematizing in the class, one establishes with this ethnography of argumentation a theoretical approach concerned with the concep
tualization ofthe relationship of sociological and psychological aspects oflearning.
In the following sections. several episodes from the project class are presented and analyzed. They serve in this chapLer as illustrations of theoretical considera tions. ln order to find relevant episodes. an empirical analysis was done in advance and is not presemed here in detail. The results show a certain circularity of social occasions in the sense that lessons are often structured along the following se quence: introductory phasosmaUgroup activitywholeclass discussion. In the introductory phase. the studenls and the teacher discussed the type oftasks included on the worksheets to bcdone next. Usually the teacherplayed an imponant role in this phase, especially when a relatively new kind of task was given. In the smaUgroup activities generally two or three children worked together on several worksheets. Here, the children were to explain to each other what ideas and ways they had for solving the given problem. Additionally. they were 10 come to a commonly accepted solution (for a further discussion of the social norms in the project classroom see Cobb, Yackel. & Wood, chap. 2. this volume). Sometimes the teacher or a member of the projectjoine.d such peergroup work. In such a case the teacher offered a variation of the idea of group work. The wholeclass discus sion finished lhis cycle by opening the floor for a wider discussion of different solutions and results. Here. the teacher was frequently acting in the foreground by organizing the turn taking or summarizing special solutions (cf. Cobb, chap. 3, this volume; Yackel, chap. 4, this volume; Wood, chap. 6. lhis volume).
This pattern had been called a "minicycle." As one can imagine. cycles did not appear in every lesson and sometimes they were carried into the following lesson. This organization may not have been intended by the project aims. In general. a cycle is a sequential order that can be identified time and again. and is meaningful for the analytical inLerest of this chapfer.2 In the following section. the concept of argumentation is discussed and its
connection to interactionistic andethnomethodological approaches is outlined. The third section describes the COntours of the relationship between the social and the individual with regard to learning mathematics in classroom interaction.
1'he mllli��1es stem
from Jmu.y 21m. January 26. hnu:ll')' 27• ..ad FdJnwy 18. The rlBl millicyck continued over 2 days.
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
231
THE CONCEPT OF ARGUMENTATION Was eU! triftiger GrwuJjiirl!twas sei, rnur:�ide nidI ich.)
In this section, the theoreticaJ background of the concept of argumentation is outlined. The aim is to explore the rationality of the participants' actions in the project class. with specific attention to how they applied argumentative means 10 reach Ihis goal. The concept of argumentation is the main domain of rhetoric thai can be ttoced back to AristOlJe (Billig, 1989; Perelman & OlbrechtsTyteca. 1969). Bound to this tradition, argumentation is seen mainly asa process that isaccomplished by 3single person confronted with an audience that is 10 be convinced. The interactive constituents of such activities are then only examined under the restrictive selting of a speaker and a group of listeners (perelman & OlbrecblSTyteca. 1969)a setting mal is uncommon in modem classroom communication. Recent approaches to a theory ofargumentation emphasize this communicative aspect more suongly, but usually they understand argumentation as a kind of isolated metacommunic:ative activity. and they underestimate the argumentative aspects in basal everyday activities. From an ethnomethodologicaJ stance, the conjunction of acting and showing the rationality of these actions is essential and shou1d not be examined as exclusively separate topics. In a word, the notion of argumentation needs to be enhanced by aspects of interactionistic and ethnomethodological theories.
Theoretical Background of Argumentation The notion of argumentation is examined in this section step by step. First. it is discussed with regard to approaches concerning a theory of argumentation. A provisional definition is given whereby specific features of argumentation pro cesses in mathematics classroom life are taken into account In a next step. the relation ofthis concept to basic assumptions ofethnomethodology is discussed and then refonnulated within this theoretical framework. Then. functional aspects of an argumentation are presented thai show that statements. which together are taken as an argumentation. play different roles in the establishment of an argument. Thus. not only the external relation of the concept of several theoretical approaches is presented. but also the internal structure of an argument. Finally. these considera tions are summarized.
The Notion of Argumentation Within a Theory of Argumentation.
EmpiricaJly. the concept of argumentation will be bound to interactions in the o that have10 do with the intentional explication ofthe reasoning observedclassrom of a solution during its development or after it. This could happen during the lWingenstein (t974, 110. 1:11): "WN! is. !elling ground for somethin, is not anything I decide."
232
KRUMMHEUER
smallgroup work and in the wholeclass activities (inuoductory phase and closing wholeclass discussion) as well. In general. argumentation is understood here as a specific feature of social interaction. If one or several panicipanlS accomplish an assertion like "4 x
10: 10 x 4" or
"31 + 19 is the same as 32 + 18,'.1 they do nOI only produce a senlence: rather, they make a declaration inasmuch as they claim such a statement 10 be valid. By proposing it they are nOi only indicating that they b)' to act rationally. but also that they could eSlablish this claim in more detail, if desired. Usually. these techniques or methods of establishing the claim of a statement are caUed an a'8u�ntil1ion. Thus a successful argumentation refurbishes such a challenged claim into a consensual or acceptable one for all participants (sec Kopperschmidt.
1989).
o interaction, such accompiishmenlS of argumentations With tegard 10 classrom generally do not appear in the fonn ofa monologue but rather as direct {acctoface interaction. Because of the emergent nature of social interaction, argumentations arc usually accomplished by several participants. Such a case
is caned a collutive
argumentation (Krummhcuer, 1992; Miller, 1986, 1987). In addition, the develop men! ofa (collcctive)argumentation does not need [Q proceed in a hannonious way. Disputes in parts of an argumentation might
arise that could lead to corn:ctions.
modifications, retractions, and replacements. Thus, the set or sequence of state ments of the finally consensual argumenlation is shaped step by step by surmount ing controversy. The result of this process can be reconstructed and s i called an argument. In order to sufficiently reconstruct an argument, the participants or observer must recall these interaction processes. Very often, argumentation is understood as a metacommunicative activil)' thai follows an ordinary action when its claimed vaJidity is doubted or challenged. However. with regard to ethnomethodologica1 approaches and to the data of the observed project class, it
seems
more appropriate to
make use of the concept of
argumentation when describing certain aspects ofthe ordinary action. Forexample, when children of the project class tried to solve a problem and accomplish for that aim a comprehensible method of reasoning. then this whole process already contained an argumentative feature. Very often this solution is already an argumen tation and does not need to be secured by an additional and separate metacommunicative procedure.� Two episodes might illustrate the kind of empirical data collected in the cJemenwy mathematics classes concerning argumentation.
"Thcsc: cumplcs stern from the projed: dass and WeTC analyzed in molt: detail by Cobb(,hap. 3) and
Voip (chap. S) in Ibis volume. � is CIopCciaJly lhe: cue when children apply
a
l1IIirled cak:ublion proadun:. sudl as counting 011 the hl.lftdreds board. tkrc. the IC'ncmion or a JiOIurioP also Icada. if �ce i, JiveD. 10 the accompIWvneiu of • �lele arptncnt Obviously. especially in Iud! caIcvIalioII&I ft:btt:d activities. the process of gcltinC • conclusion and thai. of pmduciD.1l a supponinJ argutncnl arincide: "II may weD be. W�1t: I problem is I �CI' o(ealcu.lalion, thatlbe stagE$ n i the arptncnt we pn:scnt n i justir.cmon ofow�1ISion are !he same as !hose we weill ttwuch in gellinC the fftSWCI'. boa IbiswiD noC n i � be SOR (Toulmin. 1969. p. 17). Howevet'. in primary malhcnwks education, calclllaliOlU 0CCUf pcn:iStentiy and. hence. coindd� with qUlllClon ltali .
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
233
Episode 1, January 26lntroductory Phase.
The teacher introduced a worksheet that had todo with missing addend problcmsreprescmed in a stripsand. squares form (for a more detailed description of the activities see Cobb, Yackel. & Wood. chap. 2. this volume). In the introductory phase the teacher discussed wilh the students the ftrst problem of this page, which is shown in Fig. 7.1 (for a more developed analysis sec Voigt. chap. 5, this volume). Students develop several ideas 10 solve this problem. Two of these will be discussed. First is Carol's solution: I Carol:
2 Teacher.
(Goes 10 board) Add 2 tenbars lAke away 3 (poinlS to top of problem). Add 2 tenbars take away 3. Hm. OK. So she says(writesCaroI's solution on overhead projector) add 2 tcnsand take away 3 ones. All right, thai's one solution. I don't know ifit is righlor wrong. bUl that is what she says might work...
Neither Carol nor the teacher staled a numerica) answer or drew the answer as lenbars and squares at the screen. But they presenled a method forhow to find the result, which at the same time was also an argumcnlation. A Iitt1c later Katy offered another cxplanation: 10 Katy: 1 1 Kaly:
I add 17. Wc'rcgoing 10 add 17.
How many do you have to add to
to make
?
FlG. 7.1. A missina adde!Id problem usin, strips and squuu to �III �How INII)' do you have to add to III::: (36) to lei 1111:1 . (53):
234
KAUMMHEUER
1 2 Katy:
Yea, to the top nwnber.
13 Students:
Yea, yes. OK So she says add 17 . . .
14 TC3I:hcr:
Kat)' suggested '"add 17" and got D positive reaction from several classmates
(I J) and also from the teacher (14). Katy stated the numerical standard name of the resull. but &he offered only this number without any further explanation.
Thus. comparing the two e.amples. one would say lhal Carol's demonstration conulined features of an argumentation. although she was not IlSSCrting any con·
crete number as �ll In contrast. Katy's statement was just an assenion thaI seemingly met with approval. But with regard (0 argumentation. she was not ' presenting any explanatory hinl, (Fof a further discusston of these solutions. see Cobb. chap. 3, and Yackel, chap. 4, Ihis volume.) Fr��ntly. the concept of argument is used in the sense thai it is displayed in ocdcrtosuppor1 an assertion. In this case, a person lrie.s to secure the assent ofother participants by delivering an argument thai he oc she hopes will be convincing. In such situations, the concept ofargumcnt is used foraspecirtC part within the process
of argumentation (Kopperschmidt, 1989), whereas in the earlier definition an argument was seen as the product of an argumentation and noC a specifIC part of it. 80th understandings are not mutually contradictory: A developed argument in
the first sense will be applicable as a commonly accepled reason in an argumenta tion that is more complex in the regard reconstructed.
that several separate arguments can be
In this case, the single branches of the argumentation satisfy the
definition given earlier. Often, one says that a single accomplished branch is a "good argument" with respect to the accomplishment of the more complex argu mentation. Thus, one
can speak on the one hand of the product of a minimally
complex argumentation as argument. On the other hand, one can talk about the macrostructure of a complex Brllumentation that entails the accomplishment of 1 SC\"CraI arguments.
Episode 2. January 225maI/Group Worlt
Two children, Andrea and
Andy, were working on the problem shown in Fig. 7.2.
1 2 3 4 5
13 . . . 14 . . .
Andrea:
Okay, 7 and 7. 7 and 7 is
Andy: Andrea:
Huh? Dh . . . let's chc:ck it . . .
Andy: Andrea.:
Right.
6 Andy:
1, 2,3.4. S, 6,7.8.9. 10, 1 1. 12. 13, 14 (counting fingers). Yeah?
And plus . . . add 7
more
. . .
15, 16, 17. 18, 19, 20. (Mites
answer). I thought it was 22. That's why 1 said "huh."
''"ni. doc& lIOII . howe\oOl:rlhII Kary ...... .". Ktilla: ratioully or ��'I" 1_ the � mtit� Ralionalily in � AppIOIda�). 7� auIhor1 II)' 10 keep the dilfcn:llliarion bet� theM: .. .0 kibdl o/lindcr$tJndifll o/� deat by naminl die qummIS . povuof .. arpmaUlion as "'UJUmml� (Pasctlen &; Wiuer. 1992; � aIIO KoppmcI.ImKl t98(;).
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
235
AG. 7.2. Balance problem re�l'lled in
lUI U fl. 7. 7.
"Okay, 7 and 7. 7 and 7 is 13 . . . 14. Yeah, 14." One can inlerpretlhis utterance in the following way: FiISt, Andrea tried to solve the problem linearly (find sum of the first two numbersadd third number 10 it), and second, she tried to refer to 7 + 7 as a known numhcrfact but did not rememberexaclly. She mentioned (in Line I) the numbers 13 and then 14. Andy was not quite sure about this partial sum and asked for a check (Line 2), The check, Ihen, was a counting from 1
10 14 (in Line
3), wh.ieh was agreed on by both children (see Lines 3 and 4). In Line 5 Andrea
continued counting up 7 slarting from 15. She gal 20 and wroce this down as a resul!. Andy seemed to agree indirectly (in Line 6). In this case, the argumentation contained a product of two arguments. First, the children demonstrated thai 7 + 7
=
14. Second. they demonstratedmathematically
incorrectlythat 14 and 7 is 20. In both cases they counted by their fingers. which obviously coold have been unified to a single counting process from 1 up to 21. But the children kept these two starements clearly separate. so that two dislinct arguments were accomplished. which together build a total one. For the purpose of this chapter both aspectsargument as outcome of an argumentation and argument as part of a complex argumentationare of imp:lrt· ance. although the foremost interest in analyzing the interactional structuring of argumentations favors the first conceptualization.
The Differentiaion t Between Analytic'" and ·SubstantiarArgumentation.
If one uses the concept of argumentation in the field of mathematics, one might
tend to bind it closely tothatofproof. The analysis ofargumentation in aclassroom. then, could be misleadingly understood as a trealise on proof. 1berefore.oneshould notice that both the concept of argument and that of argumentation need not be exclusively connected with fonnal logic as we know it from such proofs or as the subject matter of logic. There are more human activities and human effons that are argumentative. but not in a strictly logical sense. As Toulmin poinred OUI. if these
fonnally logical conclusions would be the only legitimate fonn of argumentation at all. then the domain of rational communication would be extremely restricted and argumentation as a possible way of a communication. which
is based on
rationality. would be rather irrelevant (foulmin. 1%9). A logically correct deduction. for example. contains in its conclusion nothing that is not already a potential part of the premises. It explicares aspects of the meaning of the premises by means of deduction. These k.inds of argumentations are "analytic" (Toulmin. 1969. p. 1 1 3).ln contrast. "substantial" arguments (p. 113) expand the meaning of such propositions insofar as they soundly relate a specific
KRUMMHEUEA
236
case 10 lhem by acruaJization, modification. and/or application. Thus, substantial argumentations
are informative in the sense that the meaning of the premises
increases or changes by the application of a new case to it. whereas analytic ones are tautological, that is. a latent aspect of the premises is elaborated visibly,' Usua11y. these kinds of substantial argumentations do not have the logical strin gency of fonnal deductions. which is not to be taken as a weakness, but rather as a sign lhat fJClds ofproblemscxist that are nO( nccessiblc to fonnal logic. According 10 Toulmin (1969), 'The only arguments we can fairly judge by 'deductive' standards are those held OUI as and intended to be analytic. necessary and formally valid" (p. 1.54). A5 Toulmin strongly emphasized. a substantial argumentation should nOI be subordinated orrelated loan analytic one in the .sense Withe laner is the ideal type
and thai one can always identify in substantial arguments the logical gulf in comparison to an analytic one. Substantial argumentation has a right by
of arguing
itself. By substantial argumentation a statement or decision is gradually supponed. This support is nol conducted
by a fonnal. logically necessary conclusion, nor by
an arbitrary edict such as declared selfevidence, but is motivated by the accom plishment of a convincing presentation of backgrounds. relations. explanations. justification. qualifiers. and so on: The very nature of deliberation and argumentation is opposed to necessity and selfevidence. since no one deliberates where the solution is necessary or argues against what is selfevident. The domain ofargumcntation is that of the credible. the plausible. the probable. to the degree that the la1ter eludes the ccnainly ofcalculation. (Perelman & OlbrechtsTyteca. 1969. p. 1) This distinction helps 10 clarify the conceplual framework chosen for the o situations in primary educa analysis of argumentation in mathematics classrom
tion. It is the substantial argumentation that is seen here as more adequate for the reconstruction. Again. this does not imply that such argumentations have to be judged as poor or weak; rather. it is claimed that the impact of argumentations will be reconstructed in a more appropriate manner with regard to folk psychological assumptions of learning when the analysis is based on lbe concepl of substantial argument AI this point. at leasl lwo reasons are given to suppan this decision: Children generally do not act on an axiomatic mathematical system: The mathematical knowledge of children al the primary school level is rather at an •
empiricaltheoretical status (Struve. 1990) and their mathematical statements carry the significance of acting on experientially real mathematical objects (Cobb
Bauersfeld. chap.
&
1. this volume). This may be counting on fingers. or concluding
from an existing concrete embodiment, or taking evaluations of an authoritative person for granted. • In addition. children at the primary level usually do nol exclusively draw conclusions of the analytic kind. Studies aboul the ontogenesis of the ability 10
ISec also Wln�iII (196.1): "1'be propositions of legit are ....OIoeie.. . l'1lerefore the proposilWnI of loP: u.y nomina. ('1'b.:y are the anaIytk proposition)"· (6.1. 6.1 1).
7.
237
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
argue a claim and make deductive conclusions. like partwhole inclusions. in their fully developed verbalized form appear relatively late, from a developmental point
of view. Specifically. Piaget's theory about thedevelopmentofcausality shows thai deductive conclusions are based on a process of several prior stages and even al the latest stadium of "representative causality" reminders of previous stages still exiSl.9
For Perelman and OlbrechtsTyleca (1969). this substantial kind of argumenta tion is the basis for a theory ofargumentation in general. For them. argumentation has something to do with the an ofconvincing and no( with the necessity of logical conclusions: ''The object oflhe theory ofargumentation is the study ofthe discourse techniqLJCS allowing us to induc� or to incfl!lllC the mind's odhermce 10 the theus presented/or u i assellt" (p. 4).
Rationality in Ethnomethodological Approaches.
The previous discus
sion indicates that the rationality ofeveryday activities. such as those in the project
class. should not be measured by the standards of a scientific model of rationality. which in mathematics is oriented toward deductive logic. Specifically.
ethnomethodology emphasizes that the panicipanlS in the affairs of everyday life constitute their model of rationality interactively. wh.ich one might call the "infor rna] logic" (Klein.
1980), emerging in these situations. One of the aims of
ethnornethodology is to explore such interactive constitutions of rational acting
(Garfinkel, 1972). The application of a formallogical or scientific model of rationality for this purpose is vehement1y rejected:
In a word, the (scientific] model furnishes a way ofstatingtheways in which a penon would act were he conceh'ed to be acting as an ideal scientisl The question then foUows: What accounts fO( the fact that actual persons do not match up, in fact rarely match up, even as scientists? In sum, the model of this rational man as a standard is used to furnish the basis of ironic comparison; and from this one geu the familiar distinaions between I1ltional, nomational, irrational, and aralianal conduct, (Gar finkcl, 1967,p. 280) Thus. from the stance of emnomethodology. the rationality of everyday actions is interactively generated while acting in a social setting; it is not an invariant part of such actions. On the contrary. the participants of everyday encounters are continuously concerned with showing and clarifying the rationality oftheir actions for themselves and for the others as well (see Lehmann. 1988), The participants use socalled accounting practices, which are techniques and
methods that help to demonstrate the rationality of the action while acting, In the process of accomplishing an action the participant is already trying to make his or
her actions accountable. The concept of "account" is a key one in the conceptual system of Garfinkel's work. which. unfortunately. he does nO( define precisely.
Attewell's (1974) characterization is helpful: "Garfinkel uses the nuances of
9Sce Inhclckrand f'iI&et(l985), Keil (1979. 1983). Piaget(l928, 1930, 1954), Siepl (1991). WIzina
(198\); . poipant lummary aboIA Piqet', approKh is in Siegal (cr. pp. 394.5).
238
KRUMMHEUER
English 10 express this equivalence between making sense of something and explaining thai sense. 1be word 'account' carries !his equivalence; to account for somelhing is boIh 10 make it understandable and to express thai understanding" (p. 183).
The application of Ihis concept is broader than thai of argumcmation. it enve lopes all kinds of rational processing of eJlperience. The unifying clwaclcr of all accounts is that they make the action 10 which they refer understandable, and the proposed claims in!ersubjectively acceptable (for a funher discussion of inlcrsub jectivity, see Voigt. chap_ 5, this volume). In order 10 do so, one endows it with the "SlaIUS of an imcrsubjective object" (Leiter, 1980, p. 162). One imponnm class of such accounts includes those demonstrations bound to languaging (Baucrsfeld. chap. 8, Ihis volume). to which argumentation belongs. In manyethnomethodologi cal works these languagebound activities seem 10 be the regular practices in demonsl18ting the accountability of the ongoing action. "To do interaction, is to teIJ inlerac:tion" (Attewell, 1974, p. 183). Garfinkel very often replaced the word accountable with words like telling, sfOlyable, or reponable (sec Lehmann, 1988). Argumentation is, therefore, primarily a discourse technique and not a feature of the solely reasoning subject Thus KJcin (1980) could characterize it as the attempt to ''transfer the collectively doubted into the collectively accepted by collectively shared means" (p. 19; translation by Krummheuer). With regard 10 the concept of substantial argumentation, one should add here that the collectively accepted basis as well as the collectively shared means for this transfer might also change through the interactive establishment of such an argumentation.
The Reflexivffy of Interactional ActMties.
For the ethnomethodological approach, it is essential that theaccomplishmenl ofan action and the demonstration of its accountability arc not necessarily separate activities. Garfinkel understood it as the central issue of his studies, that "lhe activities whereby members produce and manage settings of organized everyday affairs are idenlical with members' procedures for making those setlings 'accountable'" (Garfinkel, 1967, p. I). This theorem, which assens lhat in the process of social interaction the partici pants try to make their actions understandable and accountable as well. is often tenned reflaiviry (Lehmann, 1988; Mchan & Wood, 1975; Voigt. chap. 5, this volume; Yackel, chap. 4, this volume). Garfinkel's spelling ofaccountable already pointed out that this reflexivity does not necessarily mean that the rationality of one's actions is explicated entirely or sufficiently while accomplishing these acts. Usually only hints or rough outlines arc given, from which the participants have 10 produce the account by themselves while interacting (e.g., when a child declares that he or she has just used the hundreds board). Sometimes, howe\'er, participants offer their reasoning voluntarily, as shown in the following example.
Episode 3, January 225maJlGroup Work.
Andrea and Andy were working on the balance problem _/6, 6, 6. Both children had already agreed on the answer 18. Andrea offered her argumentalion:
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
239
Okay. Okay. 12. 13, 14, 15. 16, 17 . . . 18. 1 8.
I Andrea: 2 Andy:
You know how I got that?
3 Andrea:
4 Andy:
Mmm hmm.
5 Andrea:
6 and6 . . . 6and 6 is 11 . . 6 more: 18. .
Andrea elaborated a solution by staning with an obviously well·known number
fact of 6 + 6
=
12 and then continuing counting on 6 more steps (in Line
has been already
I). This
reconstructed as their way to solve this kind of problems (see
Episode 2). She ended up with 18, which seemed to meet Andy's approval (Line 2). Nevertheless, Andrea offered to explicate the reasoning of the justpresented
argumentation. In Line 5 she rephrased her argumentation. whereby the previously
obviously problematic addition ofthe third 6 did not appears to be a problem again.
Habennas (1985) described the interactional development from the accomplish
ment of activities 10 the explicit thematization oftheir accountability as thechange from "communicative acting" to a ''rational discourse." The interactional function
of this subsequently rational discourse can then be seen as the production of acceptance for
the continuation of the previous activities. However, from an
ethnomelhodological point of view and also with regard to the observations in the
projcct class, it should be emphasized that the interaction process is not to be divided into a phase of communicative acting and another phase of rational discourse during which an argumentation is accomplished. Reflexivity is the incessant and more
or less
expressively designed conjecture of doing something
and intimaling its accountability. Argumentation merely describes the aspect ofany interaction that is concerned with the expression of the accountability.
The Functional Aspect of Argumentation This chapter has thus far presented a discussion suggesting that argumentation is the method or technique to (re)establish the challenged claim of an assertion. This section revolves around the questions regarding how it happens thai a cenoin
sequence ofinteractive moves serve this way. It is essential here to take into account that an argumentation usually contains a sequence of statements, each of which plays adifferent role in lhc emerging argument. The following discussion examines which kind of statements should necessarily entail an argument and how they work
in relation to each Olher for lhc accomplishment of an argumentation. This is called the "functional" aspect of an argumentation (Kopperschmidt, 1989).
Toulmin (1969) proposed for this purpose a "layout" ofan argumenta scheme that represents the ideal model of a substantial argumentation. He developed it by
analyzing the numerous occasions of "rational enterprise" in the multiple fieldslO at rational communication. The layout describes a common basis for these attempts at argumentation. Usually in a concrete situation it appears only partially and/or in
1'1:01' Toulmin's COIlCCpI of MflCld" sec lhe &eaion enlitkd. '1"oulrrun's Conc:cpl of 'rlCld' and lhe
ConO::p( of ·Framing. " later n i lhis chapter. '
240
KRUMMHEUER
a varied version. It helps to reconstruct the infonnallogic of an argumentation and the kind of accountability developed forthe resolution of a quarrel. This scheme is not to be misunderstood as a method for identifying the differenl components of that model in concrete interactionthis needs 10 be done by a related analysis of interaction. 1be scheme merely points out the different roles thai utterances play in an inleraction when rcconsuucted from the perspective of the emergence of a subslantiaJ argument. Globally, an argumentation functions in a way that the challenged assertion is to be secured by presenting it as a conclusion from undoubted facts. This implies an inferential step from these facts to me conclusion. which also needs to be taken as undoubted by all participants. In the following section the creation of such inferences is first sltKJied in morc detail. As it is shown, beyond the identification of a certain core or an argument, which are the data a conclusion is based on, and the warrant of the entailed inference, there exists an additional means to secure the whole argument by specifically back.ing the applied and warranted inference.
Episode 4, February 18SmallGroup Work.
First, a short transcript from the project class is presented to help exemplify the theoretical considerations that follow. At this point it is not necessary to display the hermeneutic process of coming to a relatively valid and dense interpretation of the transcribed strip of reality. The transcript will only be used for illustrative purposes. The following transcript deals with the multiplication task 4 x 4 Multipli cation had been introduced in this lesson. Previously in the smallgroup work the chi.ldren, Jack and Jamie, solved the problem 2 x 4 ;; 8 just before this (for anaJyses of me social and cognitive aspects ofthis dyad. see Cobb, chap. 3, this volume; and Yackel, chap. 4, this volume). =
I Jack: 2 Jamie: 3 Researcher: 4 Jamie: 5 Researcher: 6 Jack:
_.
What's 8 plus 8? 16. It's 4 sets of fours, 8 (pause) 16. Why did you say what's 8 and 8 Jack? 'Cause 4 sets, urn 4, 2 sets make 8.
y".
(Holds up fingers on one hand) You have 2 more sets. Like it's 2 and 2 make 4, 7 Researcher: OK. OK, very good. In the following discussion, this example is interpreted line by line. Toulmin's layout for this accomplished argument appears at the end of section.
The Creation of an Inference.
As
seen previously, the basic idea of the functionality ofan argumentation is that one tries to support a questioned assertion by inferring it from another statement. The argumentative force, which lies among others in the assumption, is that the inference is widely accepted. Further, the validity of the added statement, on which the inference is based, is unquestioned. If we call the primary assertion C (for conclusion) and the supporting statement D
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTAT ION
I ��jI: L dar a
Because
. . So

241
IconclUSion I
AG.1.3. Symbolic re�lalion Ilfth:: ilrgW!lenl "D. soC." (for data), then we can symbolize this pan of the argument as ''C. because D" or "D, so
C" (Toulmin, 1969. p. 107),11 In a pictorial scheme onc can represent this
relation 85 shown in Fig. 7.3 (see Tool min, 1969).
Data. fact 8 + 8
As we can see in the example. the two boys seem to referto a (number)
16. They appeal to it and try to present it as a foundation on which their assertion 4 x 4 16 is supposed 10 be based. Any argumentation needs such a kind i itiation on which the conclusion can be grounded. Toulmin (1969) of factual n =
=
called these facts data and staled, "Data of some kind musl be produced, if there is
10 bean arxument there at all : A bare conclusion. without any data produced in its
suppon. is no argument" (p. 106).
Utterances. which serve in the functional role of data in an argumentation. can be doubted, of course. In the example there might be some questions about the correctness of 8 + 8 :::: 16.12 The way in which Jack and Jamie established this number fact points to this issue: Jack asked for the resull (Line I), possibly indicating that he did nOI know the solution with certainty. Jamie gave the answer (in Line 2) and after thai the statement was nOl: doubted. By this it was given the status of a datum. For the example one could show this relationship between data and conclusion
in the scheme shown in Fig. 7.4. If there is
no
agreement aboul the validity of such an utterance supposedly
functioning as data, another argumentation would be needed to give acceptable evidence to it This would be a recursive application of the general scheme of argumentation and would not lead to a new functional category of its own.I)
Wanants of Inferences.
Besides the doubting of the factuality of some data. the questioning of the conclusion based on these data can also arise. It can happen that one agrees with the data but does not find them 10 suppon. the assertion. In our example a child could totally agree with "8 + 8
""
16," but could problematize
what this had to do with the assertion "4 x 4 :: 16." Taking the data, the function ofan argumentation s i 10 be committed to acertain step toward the conclusion. This step might not be found appropriate or legitimate.
llBoth CJ.pn:ss ions an: equivalenL For easier readillJ n i the following. onty the second form''C, 50 O"wiD be UKd. 12rbcqucslion � is not whctherthisequation is malhelllMicalty renee!; ralha", the focus is on lbe acce� by !he panicipanlS. Al lhis tinE in the proj:d elass this cqualion does noI belong 10 !he set ofundoubted number facu forall children (see Cobb', analysis, chap. 3. lhis volume). Ilrhc &ri$ing problem of an infinite regress is di5ellsse
242
IWh"·::. I 81
da m
Because
KRUMMHEUER
.. .. So
I
4x4
_
16
conclusion
I
FKi. 7.4. Symbolic: n:�or",Uma!l presmlCd ill�ump� (rom p\Ojed dass.
Such criticism can, according 10 Toulmin (1969), only be rejected if one presents propositions lhat � of a functionaJly different nature than the data, namely " general, hypothetical statement," thal3Ct as ''bridges'' (p. 98), over whichone can lead the particular inferential step. They function like "inferencelicenses" (p. 98) and authorize the step thai is buill in the concrete argument. Toulrrun caUed them "warrants" (p. 98) lind Slaied: ++j15 wk being simply to register explicitly the legitimacy of the step involved and rda it back to a larger class of steps whose legitimacy is being presupposed" (p. 100). In our example. one ClIn interpret the second part of Jamie's ullerance in Line 2 as part of such a warrant. After the accomplished agreement about the data 8 + 8 16, the legitimate question can be asked. what did this addition have to do with the given mUltiplication problem 4 x 41 Referring back 10 the definition of multiplication, which had been given in this lesson before, one could easily reinterpret 8 + 8 as 2 x 8, but not as 4 x 4. The number 8 docs not even visibly appear in 4 x 4. Thus, if there is a legitimate step from the data 8 + 8 16 to the conclusion 4 x 4 ::0: 16, then one has to justify how the eights in the data appear in this inference. Jamie said "It's 4 selS of fours, 8 (pause) 16." Fonnally speaking, he stated a connection between the interpretation of 4 x 4 as 4 selS of fours and 8. This still seems rather opaque. 8uI il contains a more general approach than the datum 8 + g 16. 11 refers 10 a general definition of multiplication in terms of sets, as it has been introduced in this class. Just this slightly inscnllable utterance functions like a bridge builder: It poses a hypothetical connection between the: addition of2 eights and the problem 4 x 4 by refonnuJating the multiplication task as a statement in terms of sets. In Line 4 this becomes clearer, "'cause 4 selS, um 4, 2 sets make 8." Here Jamie explicitly showed wh3t the g in the data hlId to do with the multiplication concern ing sets offours.1t was the result of2 sets offours. By this he added another datum: 2 sets of fours equal 8. This number fact had been found just before, as the two . on the problem sheet. Funher, Jamie declared in Line 6 that boys started ....orking one has "'2 more selS." This utterance worked again as a warrant in the sense that it authorized the application of the number fact 8 + 8 :: 16. Thus, the: BJgumentation up to this point can be reformulated as: It is clear that 8 + 8 16 and that 2 sets of fours equal 8. So. because 4 x 4 can be interpreted as 4 sets of fours, and because one has 2 more sets of fours and one agrees with the datum that '"2 sets of fours equal 8," it seems acceptable that 4 x 4 16. It remains unstated how it is possible to divide the 4 sets of fours into 2 x 2 sets of fours. ::::
:::
=
::
=
243
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
7.
We can expand the schematic pattern of an argument by a box for the warrant,
as shown in Fig. 7.S. This skeleton of an argumentation containing data. warrants, and conclusion will henceforth becalled the "core" ofan argumenl Its fOfTTlaI shape is "0, because W so C." Formally, this is the minimal fonn of an argumentation. Toulmin (1969) wrote, "Provided that the correct warrant is employed, any argu·
men! can be expressed in the (onn 'data; warrant; so conclusion' and so become fonna1ly valid" (p. 119).
On the surface of spoken language. it is generally nOI possible 10 differentiate between data and warrants. Mso. as the example shows, in the interaction the participants do nOI necessarily structure their contributions according to the fune
tiona] categories of the scheme. Additionally, the distinction is often difficuh to make because data and warrants relate to each other. 1be data cited depend on the warrant being chosen. One should, therefore. keep in mind that dala is supposed to "strengthen the ground" (foulmin, 1969, p. 98) on which the specific argument is supposed to be constructed. Warrants, in comrasl, are rather general, "certifying
the soundness of all arguments of the appropriate type" (p. 100). Backing the WatTant.
In a particular case the soundness of the step from
data to conclusion can be ratified by warrants. Butone still can ask"why in genuai
this warrant should be aa:epted as having authority" (foulmin. 1969, p. 103). Toulmin called the functional category securing a warrant its bachng. "Standing
behind our warrants . . . there will normally be other assurances, without which the warrants themselves would possess neither authority nor currencythese other things we many refer to as backing (8) of the warrants" (p. 103). This new concept is clarified first by the example ofthis chapter. The argumen tation of Jack and Jamie had developed to the point where there was agreement about the data 8 + 8 '" 16 and "2 sets offours equal 8." The warrants are that 4 )( 4 can be interpreted as "4 sets of fours" and that "there are 2 more sets of fours than in the previous task 2 x 4 8. So, 4 x 4 ;: 16 can be taken as a conclusion of the =
d.ra
8 + 8 '" 16
sets or fours make 8
two
B e c a u se'" • So
I
4 x 4
=
16
I
conclusion
data
S i nce 
� ... 
C:I
>
4x4" is like 4 sets or fours there are 2 more
", or
"�
AG. 7.S. ElI� symbolic I'lepre$elltation or argumen! including WIIm1III.
244
KAUMMHEUER
Possibly urged by the questions of the interviewer (Line 3), Jack gave an explanation (Line 6) by holding up fingers on one of his hands ''you have 2 more sets. Like ii's 2 and 2make4."1bemiddle part, "you have2 more sets," had already been identified as a warrant. 1be nonverbaJ action of holding up fingers of one of his hands and the utterance "like it's 2 and 2 make 4" can be interpreted here as a backing of this WarTlUll. The last warrant states that in 4 )( 4 are 2 more sets of fours than in 2 )( 4. lack's backing ofthis is that be refcrTed to the fundamental insighl lhal oneean additively decompose a number. In lhe panicular case, this means that 4 x 4 can be decom posed in 2 x 4 and again 2 x 4. He did not say this in a generalized way; he used an analogy, remarking with the expression "like ii's 2 and 2 make4." Additionally, he demonstrated this fundamental approach of decomposing a number by using his fingers. Among second graders. counting by fmgersorsymbolizing numbers and/or one oftheir additive decompositions is one ofthe most undoubted and most ratified strategies of proving an arithmetical statement. Thus, this can be taken here as a backing. lOne diagram can now be completed (see Fig. 7.6). Backing refers to global convictions and primary strategies that can be expressed in the form of "categorical statements" (Toulmin. 1969, p. 105) like understanding addition as a counting procedure that can basically be demonstrated by fingers. Backing CJlplicitly binds the core of an argument to such collectively accepted basic assumptions. Toulmin's layout of an argument is oudined here so far" and in !he following summary. Two additional remarks may be allowed here: (a) In the speciftCca5Coftheexample, different backings can be offered to the given warrants, some of which might even be assessed as more relevant from a mathematical point of view. For example. one could have tried to express as a backing why it is possible 10 split a set of 4 sets of fows in 2 x 2 sets of fows. One could have demonstrated this iconicaJ1y by referring back to the dot representation of sets during the introductory phase, as shown in Fig. 7.7. In this case. the whole information of the conclusion is already included in the backing. In such cases. Toulmin (1969) called an argument "ana1ytic": "An argument from D to C will be called analytic if and only if the backing for the warrant authorizing it includes. explicitly or implicitly. the information conveyed in the conclusion itselr' (p. 125). Thus. the concrete argumentation of Jack and Jamie could be reformulated by applying another backing, which would tum the originally substantial argumentation into an analytic one. This might be one of the reasons why the researcher reacted in such an enthusiastic way in Line 7: By replacing the backing by one like the mentioned one.16 the accomplished argument would appear as one that tentatively adhered to mathematical standards. I·Malhematically. 1his can bo:justified usins the bw ofdistribUlion: 4 x 4 (2 + 2) x 4 .. 2 x 4 + 2 x 4. tn the example it is IlOl mc&nt thai. Jack wu arguing in this way. Hi$ badting was ralhcr an anaIol)' IUId nOlI a deduction from an uioma6c ta..... Obviously. in this case il is possible to invent different backings. One IhDuId not mi� them lip (sec relllled diWoluiOll Ialer in this c:haptcr). 1511 should be mclllioncd hc:rc: that Toulmin's bywt COIIIains two more cale£Orics. soaIled "quali fim" and "rclIuttiliH (see p. 102). which .n: IlOl OIIllii>ed here. 16See also rOOllOOll� 14. =
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
7.
8 + 8 ,. 16
•
Because
IwO setS of
I
f0Uf5 mate 8
data
• So
Since
I

245
I " I 4 , ..
conclusion
"4)1;4" is like 4 sets of rOO" , , thI:Te � 2 more " f" • •
"
I
On account of '" • '

"" " "
..,
I
{holds up flngcn) Like ;l's 2 and 2 make 4
FIG. 1.6. Compkted schematic ��talion ofarrumenl from da.u example.
• • • •
• • • •
• • • •
• • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FIG. 7.7. Dol IC.,.CSC»n illu.suaDn& bow 10 iJllit . 51:( of4 setSof4 inlo 2 x 2 setS of 4.
(b)
As one can easily see, the accomplished argumemation in this episode was
a collective one. Here. it was mainly Jamie who gathered all data and made the conclusion exclu5ively by himself. The warrants were added by both children, and lhe backing was solely produced by Jack. Figure 7.8, which conlains the insertion of the speaken' names in the scheme, might elucidate lhis.
As
one might see by this graphic presentation, bOlh boys made essential contributions by their statements 10 the devc!opmcm of this argumentation. AI· though in the interpretation given here the main contributions of Jack and Jamie
relied on different components of the argument, one could gainsay that this argumentation was only based on one or the children's mathematical abilities.17
17For!hl: rd.jonshipbel"eeII lhe$etwo boy$ and iueffect OI1!heir Ic:amini:.Cobb's ease studies. chap. J, ws vollllDC.
246
KAUMMHEUER
..,... .!8 .8=1. amie
J
IWO sets of fours make 8
Because
f..� So
dola
I
4 . 4 _ 16
+ Jamie
conclusion
Since 
• "4704" is like 4 5C:1S of fours •
Jamie
0 •
there: are 2 �
0
J"""
5e1Sof fours
•
On account of
'
., • 
,' , (holds up fin
...
gets) Like it's
2 and 2 make 4
:::> Jac(
AG. 7.8. GllIphicaJ represo:nl3l.ion ofclass elampJc with addilion ofspeaker names.
Summary: Argumentation One main assumption of microsociological theories is the reflexivity of social " inleraclion: The participants do not only coordinale their individual goals and imentions by adjusting their aClions and by negotiating their definitions of the silUation. but they also try to demonstrate the seriousness and accountability of
their participation through the same actions. 19
With regard to lhecompiexilY ofeveryday interaction, one should avoid the idea that this ethnomethodologicaJ concept of rationalilY can be sufficiently subordi nated under categories of (annal logic. or that il should be described by the violations or deficiencies of formallogical reasoning. The emerging rationality in everyday interaction has its own dynamics and rights reflecting the complexity and variety of social affairs and the everprcscnt human endeavor of giving structure 'J1J to their lives together in a reasonable way. One common and obviously also
more
frequently successful way of giving
structure is by using language; thai is by chOOSing verbal means in order 10 express
the sense made in this,momcnt and the reason for this specific sensc.making. These
IISec !be mic:r IlCCOOQ tntilled '''J'h:: Ref1e�vity of I"'tractional Activities." "Sec tho: earlier sc:ction enliikd "RaIooality in Ethnom:thodological Approaches:' lOSec the mict" section entitkd rbe Diffemulatioo Between 'Analytic' and 'SubstaOO:...• Argumen ucion.M
i
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
7.
247
languagebound methods or techniques of expressing the reflexive claim of acting ralionaIly will be called argumenJalion. Its aim is to convince oneself as well as the other participants of the plOpttty of ooc's own reasoning and 10 win over the other . participants 10 this special kind of "rational cnret:prise. . The finaJ sequence of state mmts accepted by all participants. which are I1'IOI'e or less completely reconstructable 21 by the participants or by an observer as well. will be called an argumefIL Ideally an argumentation in everyday affairs contains several statements malarc related to each other in a specific way and that by this take over certain functions for their interactional effectiveness. This functional aspect is described here in accordance with Toulmin (1969). The fundamental approach of Ihis functional analysis is lhat lhe claimed validity of an assenion or statement is established by an argumentation in Ii way lhat lhe questioned assertion appears as the conclusion of other assumed undoubtedly \'a1id statements. This system contains. if suffi ciently elaborated: • • •
•
A conclusion (C). the validiiy of which was doubted. Data (0). on which !he conclusion is grounded. Warrants (W). which give reason for the legitimacy of the applied inference from 0 IOCn Backings (B). which support the wanants by giving categorical statements about principal convictions leading !he thinking of the arguing individua1s.2l
Schematically one can represenl lhis system as shown in Fig. 7.9. II should be mentioned that the different categories in Toulmin's layout cannOl, in general. be recognized on the surface of spoken formulations: they must be identified by an appropriate analysis of interaction. Additionally, not all of the positions of the scheme shown in Fig. 7.9 have to be filled in a concrete argumen tation. This scheme represents a general layout of an argumentation, which might vary in concrete interaction. It helps to reconslfUCt !he emerging rationality. that is. (infonnal) logic ofeveryday affairs.l4
CONTOURING THE RELATIONSHIP BElWEEN ARGUMENTIZING AND LEARNING After developing the concept of argumentation and its functional structure, its
connection with learning in mathematics classes can now be outlined. To this end. three main issues are discussed: 21.see theartier sed.ion entitled "1lIe Notion of Al'guml:nwion Wilhin a Theory of Argumcntalion.� 22.see the earlier 5«1ion entitled '1"hc: Creation of an InfernlCe.R 2l.see the earlier KCtion entitkd wBacking the Warnnt:' lI.see the earlier lIC'dion enlitled "1lIe FllJletionai As;ped of Allumenwion."
248
KAUMMHEUER Because
data
So
conclusion
Since
warrant
On account of
backing
flO. 7.9. Schcmalk Il'pn:sellwion ofan llflllmentation liystem. • • •
The individual. TIle interaction. The reflexive relationship between the two.
1be first section shows the way in which argumentation relates to the individual
process of the definition of the situation. Those individual processes of sense making are usually prestructured and socially founded. The concept of framing is
developed for the purpose of describing this s i sue. Ultimately, argumentations are based on those fmmings and can, therefore, be characterized as framing dependent. But there are parts of an argumentnamely the components of its corethat are not directly bound to aspecitic framing. This allows one 10 more precisely describe what argumenl8lively accomplished agreements look. like. Additionally, it is pos sible 10 clarify the already mentioned problem of infinite regress of arguments in the case that an agreement cannot be found regarding presenlc:d data.
Based on the clarification of the kind ofagreement generated by argumentation. the second section describes the related interaction in more deWl with regard to its o interaction is taken into account. impact OD learning. Here. the nature of classrom
For this PUIpOSC, the concept of ronnat of argumentation is inuoduced to describe
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
7.
249
a rype ofpanemed inleraction thai is concerned with argumentation in mathematics classes. Finally in the third section, this new concept makes it possible to describe the relationship between the social and the individuaJ as a reflexive one. On the one hand, the child's avail for the accomplishment of a collective argumenlation depends 00 his or her reliance on certain generalized fonns of arxumenls that he or she knows and to which one can refer. 'These are called, with reference to the terminology of rhetoric. topo;; that is. the student's conceptualization of what is argumentatively commonplace. On the other hand, the student's experience of fonnatted argumentations qualifies him or her to recollect specific arguments as similarly structured, and to cognitivcly construct a related lopos.
The FramingDependency of Argumentations
TouJmin's Conceptof�IeJcrand the Concept of"Framing." As
the final
remark to the example in the second section has already shown. in specific cases the core of an argument can be ensured by different backings, which might change the characterfrom a substantia1 to an analytic one. Beyond that, a majortopic arises that Toulmin described as the "fielddependency" of arguments. These fields can be identified as certain societal institutions, such as lega] couns, scientific con gresses, seminars at a university. medica] conSUltations, and so on. In all of these social events certain domainspecific standards of reasoning exisl that cannol be reduced 10 one specific logical type.u Referring to the example of Jack and Jamie, the field in which the two boys' argument could be located is that of the commonly shared experience of concrete counting activities. This seems 10 be a colleen'Ie basis forthe arithmetical reasoning of primary school children (see, e.g., Saxe, Gubennan. & Gearhart, 1987; Steffe, von Glasersfeld, Richards, & Cobb. 1983). The field in which a mathematician could more likely try to address the alternative backing is that of the axioms of set lbeory for positive integers. Toulmin's distinctions of fields are very global and he himself suggested studying this fielddependency in smaller units: ''The distinctions [between differ ent fields] we have made so farare very broad ones, and a closer examination could i prove certainly bring to light funher more detailed distinctions, which would m our understanding of the ways arguments in different fields are related" (foulmin, 1969. p. 42). In pursuing this proposal, it seems appropriate to embed Goffinan's (1974) concept offraming. Framing is defillCd in general as the schematized imerpretation of a social event, which emerges by processes of cognitive routinizatioo and interactive standardization (see also Krummheuer, 1992). The concepts of frame, framing. script. and so on are widely used in cognitive science. They referin general to the cognitive constitution of meaning, and claim that an individual tries 10 create USee Toulmill (1969, p. 13). Initially be even defined ··f"elddepmdency� by n:rcrma: to "'logical ."..
"
250
KRUMMHEUER
a meaning for a situation according 10 prior experiences thai considered as similar.
arc
recalled and
Frnming provides a mt3J1S of "COIlSb1.ICting" a world, of characlerizing ill flow. or segmcilting evcnls within this world. and so on. f(we woe not able to do such framing. we would be lost in a ITIU1c ofchaotic expcrienc;e and probably would oot have swvivcd as a specie! in any case. (Bruner, 1990, p. 56; see also MiJller, 1984, chap. 2.2) By introducing Goffman's frame concept in ordertoexplore ll'\Ofe detai1ed distinc tions in the concep of !he rleld of an argument. two essential new facets take shape: •
•
lbc: perspective has been turned from the rather macrosociological approach of Toulmin to the microsociologica1 approaches of cthoomelhodology and inter<w:tionism. lbc: social phenomenon of fields related 10 institutions has been converted into a rather individualrelated concept. that of framing.
Whereas the first point is somehow comprehensible as a goal of doing a more i contrast, demands more explication. detailed analysis. the second issue, n From the interactionistic point of view this individual construction of onc's own world (see Bruner, 1990) happens in consonance:!6 with the constructing 8!;livities of other individuals by the social means of negotistion. Thus, framing is nOI only an individual routinization of sense making, but also a social standardization of Ihese individuals' processes by which a takenascommonlyshared reality emerges. This is also more or less emphasized in more psychological approaches.11 In Goffman's conceplualization offraming, the social aspects ofthis process are broadly developed (d. Krummheuer, 1992) and. therefore. appropriately applica· ble for the purpose of differentiating Toulmin's field concept. Framing within this sociological contextrefers to Schiitz's ideas ofthe "natural attitude" (dit: natUrlicht: Einsttllung) and the "unquestioned given" (dar frog/os Gegt:�nt:,· Schutt & Luckmann, 1979). After becoming accustomed to a certain kind of framing, the strip ofreality interpreted accordingly appears fortbe individual as nalunll, evident, somehow lOgical. The production and the impact of an argument. as well, have to be judged in the light of framing processes, which are the predominant and embracing processes of sense making. This means arguing is framingdependent. I two small s0lutions were presented to illustrate proposals for the solution of the problem, "How many do you have to add to Ill: :: 136] to make 1ID1::. 153)7" Carol offered, "Add
Episode 5, January �/ntroductory Phase.
In Episode
� won! coruorranc:t is oftm Il5ed ,ynonymously with agrtt.vN. Here. lhe I1IIher music·rdaled connotation is meanl: MI plcasin, c:ombinatioll of sounds simullltlOOUyy produa:d·· (Ke Wcbslc:r·s Diaionary). nSec. (Of cumple, Schank (1976): �It is imp055b i le 10 make KlISC ofne.... inpvll ....ilhoul lWlmc K./ISC ofthcplaceofthese inpuu in lhe world" (p. 167). Abo interesti"c here is Broner's reecpcion of Ba t deu·s Khcmc cooa:pI (sc:c: Bruner, 1990).
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
251
2 tenbars and take away 3," Katy stated, "I add 11." After this, Jamie presented the following arxumentaeion: 50 Jamie: 51 Teacher: 52 Jamie: 53 Teacher:
54 Jamie: 5S Teacher: 56 Jamie:
That there was 36. OK. thai'S very imponant (writes 36 down next 10 strips and squares), Ta tum thalpictuTe inlo a number. OK. So we have 36. And I agru with all of them. You agree with all of them, uh? OK. What's this number down here if we had 10 write mal in numbers (writes 53 next to strips and squares). And just like I put 20 lake away 3 more is 11. Say thai again. Did you hear what he said? (Looks at class) Say that again. Jamie. 20 just like we had these 3 and these 2 together. ThaI would be 20 altogether. Take away 3 would be 17.
The interpretation of this solution affords special anemion. Jamie started with "that there was 36," The teacher agreed with that very strongly and wrote the number 36 under the strips and squares pictufC III::: [361. This can be seen as a confinnation of the datum, that there is a picture, which is to be conceived of as tbe number 36. Here one can see !hat the way a picture is to be taken as data for an argument can be disputed: Does one have to pretend that the picture is a numeral, such as when the teacher said, "Tum the picture into a number" (Line 51). or is it also possible to take the picture purely as an image? Jamie's approach, as understood here, was as follows: He first compared the images ofthe tenbars and recognized a difference of2 tenbats between lli::: and 100:. ('These 3 and !hese 2toge!her"). Then he compared the single squares, where he realized 3 mon:: in m::: (see his statement in Line 54: " I put 20 take away 3 more is IT'). This leads him to !he conclusion that 17 is the result. His solution was still image dependent, although it contained numbers: He deduced !he number 20 from the comparison of the tenbars of the images. but at the same time he offered a numerical subtraction ''20 lake away 3 is 17:' In this sense, his solution was a combination of Carol's imagedependent and Katy's image.independent argumentations. This can be seen as a switch between different framings: One part of the argument. which dealt with the lens or lhe lenbars, seemed to be iconically or imagedependently framed, whereas me orner pan. which was concerned with theonesor the single squares, seemed to be numerically or imageindependently framcd.21 In general, the fielddependency of an argument is, as already mentioned, primarily connected with the backing of a warrant. The core of an argument can be validly presented despite different possible t'rn.mings.� The warrant is just the 11",
this w.y he rauio:wi tho: nllmc:riI;aI fKU of addition and lubtraction to tho: nwnba" ....gE from .. be xm AI very fundanrotal knowledge for JeCCIId graders. o to 20. which IlSIIaIty c i this episode. 1geasiQlly, this ted Jamie: to hil framinslWitching qunw:nt n
252
KRUMMHEUER
explication of approprialcly applied rules of inferences. Basically. mis is a fram ingindependent action. As Toulmin (1969) said, warranting the step "0, so C' leads generally to a "(onnal" validation (p. 119) in the sense that the pcrfonning of the concrete inference is legitimized by the outlined principles of the warrant. Conversely, the backing of a warrant refers to categorical statements, which now can bedescribed moreprecisely as framingrelatedconvictionsand certai nties: "An argument expressed in the fonn 'Datum; warrant; so conclusion' can be sel OUI in a Connally valid manner, regardless of the field to which it belongs; bUllhis could never be done, . . . for arguments of the (onn 'Datum: backing for warra1l;l so conclusion'" (p. 123), The Structuring ofArgumentatively Accomplished Agreements. As al· ready outlined, during an argumentation process the framings of participating individuals do not necessarily have to be the same or nearly the same. From an interactional poine of view, they only have to fit insofar as the running framing processes of each individual do not lead to framingimmanent contradictions. emotional rejections. cognitive oversophisticaUons, or cognitive oversimplifica tions for the individual. Inleractionally, this fit is the essential characteristic of a consensus emerging through interaction. With reference to Goffman (1959), this is called a working con.HltLfus: ''We have then a kind of interactional modus ,.ivendi. Togcther the participants contribute to a single overall definition ofthe situation which involves not so much a real agrec:menl as to what exists but rather a real agreement as 10 whose claims concerning what issues will be temporarily honored" (p. 9). As the elaboration of the example in the last section already showed. the core of an argument can appear to be acceptable under different framings. lbe different framings, especially between the teacher and the students, seems to be a typical occurrence in teachinglearning situations (see Krummheuer. 1982. 1983, 1992). A woric.ing consensus under the condition of a framing difference in mathematics classrom o s can be called a 'tI'Oric.ing inruim. Obviously. they are very fragile and transient, but their persistent accomplishment seems to be a crucial part in the process of learning (see Voigt, chap. 5, this volume). The Ftnffs Regress ofArguing. By their specific way of framing, partici pants ofa social group constitute a central element oftheircuUure (GoHman. 1974). They are part of the LLbetLfwdt with itsas unquestionably given and naturally seenplausibilities. Argumentations are founded in these cenainties. ln panicular. the backing is bound directly to them. Now recourse can be taken to the earlier mentioned problem of an infinite regress of securing doubted data by running a new argumentation. Pragmatically. this regress stops when data can besensibly framed by all pankipants. This happens wnen they frame the situation in a consonant way or wnen they refer back to the embracing plausibilities of their common Lebenswdt. Framings function as re sources of sensemaking processes and have an implemenled horizon of selfevi dences. Lebensweft, as the ultimate resource of sense making, cannot as such be
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
253
challenged. As an unthematic and unproblematic horizon, it always selS the claims in which a question can arise. As Willgenstein
(1974) phrased it "Wer an altem
lWei/eln wollle, thr wUnk ouch nicht zum Zweifeln kOl1llMn. Das Spiel des Zwei/dns selbsl setll schon GewijJheil vorous" (Nr. 1 15),lO
The Format of Argumentation Definition of the Concept.
Coming back 10 the functional role of argumen
tations within an interaction, it is essenlial lo see the crucial role !hey play for the accomplishment of a working consensus when this process is assumed 10 be rationaL Argumentation had been introduced as the communicative techniques or
methods used 10 come to such an agreement The way in wruch such an agreement can be n i teractively accomplished must now be slated more precisely. From the newly developed perspective, this can only consensus is
mean
that the emerging, working
based on the construction of an argument that is acceptable to a1l
participants.
TIle minimal (i.e no more reducible) request is the conjoint acceptance of the .•
core ofthe argument. This leads. as outlined earlier. to a formaJly vaJid argumentll
The unspecified backings. then, make sense in accordance with all actualized
framings. This condition of the acceptance of the core of an argument actuaJly appears to be the maximal one, when the consensus is of a working interim type.
Due to the underlying framing differences, the possible attachable backings do not
make sense to all actualized framings but only to a single one. The SlalUS of the
concept of format of argumentation. which will unfold in the following, is con cerned with this problematic situation of accomplishing a conjointly acceptable argumentation under the condition of a framing difference.
This concept is tailored to the analysis of interaction pnx:csscs in primary
mathematics classes. Its full poignancy is, therefore. only recognizable if some, as typically conceived. empirical peculiarities of the interaction processes are taken into account We have 10 consider that classroom interaction is: • • •
Mostly organized as collective argumentation.
Typically accomplishing a working interim. Genernlly proceeding along specific pattefll'l of interaction.
TIle concept. now, is supposed to take this interactionaJ atmosphere into account
when describing the accomplishment of commonly toheshared argumentations. A fonnat of argumentation is a pauerned interaction in which the argument emerges. One can easily see how the three conditions
core
of an
are involved in this definition.
Because this concept: »"11 you Iried 10 doubt e\let)'thiDJ you would IlOl Jd as fat .. doubling 1lII)'thlna.: The pm:: of
doubrinj: itself �uppo!IC$ ceru.iNy.�
JLnu. is • sequcm:c of uttc:ranca f\LllCliofIAIly eoI\taining: the stn/CtII.fe 0, since W so C..
254
KRUMMHEUER
• Describes an interaction, the performed argument is based on a collective •
•
argumentation. Refers only to the core of an argument that is compatible with the argumen tative potential of a working interim. Is bound to patterned interaction and hence, by definition, the third aspect is also taken into account.
Implications (or Learning.
This section is concerned with the theoretical implications for learning. The concept of formal, which is referred to in an earlier definition, was introduced by Bruner (1983) in his later studies of language acquisition. His approach is bound to the fundamental insighl lhat learning a native language is incxlricably interwoven with learning its situations of application. A child, for example. docs not learn the words in order 10 request a cookie: he or she primarily learns the social event of a request, where these words fit in. According to Bruner, "in order for the young child to be clued into language. he must first enter into social relationships of a kind that function in the manner consonant with the uses of language in discourse" (Bruner, 1985, p. 39). For Bruner, this coupling of learning something and interacting in situations that are suitable to the learning object is not restricted to the acquisition of one's native language. Bruner characterized the social relationship as a format. Formally this is a patterned interaction, usually containing an adult in the role of a teacher and children in the role of learners, that functions as a principal vehicle ofthe Language Acquisition Suppon System.)l But the importance of this concept for theoretical implications oflearning anses ratherby extending this formal definition and hereby making it not only applicable for the acquisition of language. A fonnat is:
• Contingent in the sense that the interactional movesoflhe participants depend on each other. •
•
•
•
An instance of a plot in the sense that the goals of the participants need not be the same. Developing or moving toward coordination of the goals, not only in the sense of agreement but also in the sense of division of labor. Turning after a process of routinization into something seen as having exteriority and constraints. AsymmetricaJ with respect of the consciousness of the members about the issues going on.))
The auempt to specify these extensions to the concept of fonnat of argumenta tion makes some of them become more lucid and important.. whereas requiring others to be modified. 325« BnIIlCT (1982, 1983, 1985). He SUIt": A ront\lll is
•
Slandilrdiud. initially microcosmic
interac:tioll paltl:m between an adull and an infant lhal conlains clcnlllCal«l roles tllllt e\o'CnllIAUy become revasibSc·' (1983, p. (20). ))Fw rllMercbbcntion. sa: Bnmer (198!i, p. 8).
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
255
The maIler of contingency becomes a very crucial point. because severn) functional aspects have 10 be considered for the development ofan argumentation. Formatted implementations of an argumentation are used to order the utterances in a way that the relevanl lhree lopics
types of arguments that arc at hand for them as if they had a kind of an objective status. The fonnaued arguments are an experiential basis for the individual's cognitive constructton of a topos, a central idea following section.
that will be formulated in the
Often, fonnatted argumentations are generated by participants of qualitatively
different mathematical "capacities," such as when the teacher is involved. In this case the teacher very often proposes a guideline for the production of appropriate arguments. This generally conforms to his or her framing and, thus, one can usually
describe him or her as more competent (d. Wood, chap. 6, this volume). But this asymmetrical pattern is not necessary for the accomplishmem of a formatted
argumentation. Additionally, when students work togethcron several problems that they solve in a similar way, a fonnat of argumentation can emerge with the described impact It is a mailer ofempirical reconstruction toelarify the importance of symmetry or asymmetry in conjunction with the concept of Connal. Bruner's empirical data is gathered in the motherchild interaction as a basis for language acquisition in early childhood. Here the asymmetry is obvious. With regard to the numc:rousoccastonsofsmallgroup work in the projeci elass, the issue oCsymmeuy becomes more noteworthy. Summarizing, the: concept of format of argumentation within a theory of learning mathematics is concerned with the conccptualization of the suitability of socially accomplished regularities for cognitive development In addition 10 the notion that social processes accompanying the individual cognitive processes are
patterned and hence somehow recognizable and easily memorizable for the: indi viduaJ, the more important issue is that the argumentatively acoomplishable agree ments can only be: reached in a formal way. 1bc: format of argumentation is related to the CCIr'C of an argument. and this means lhat the crucial differenccs in the underlying framing remain tacit. The development and restruclUring of a framing, which are seen here as lhe impact of a successful cognitive learning process, arc: still the purely inclividual achievements of sense making. (The kind of relationship
256
KRUMMHEUEA
between a (annat of argumentation and the individual's learning is discussed after the following example.)
Episode 6, January 21WhoJe.Class Discussion.
In order loexemplify
the concept of(onnal ofargumentation. a larger part from a wholeclass discussion
is p�nted and analyzed. The worksheet shown in Fig. 7.10 is on the floor. For the first problem, Katy proposed the solution: I
I knew 4 and 4 is 8 and 2 more fours and all that together makes
Katy:
16. 2 Teacher:
3 Michael:
4 Teacher:
Exactly. She says (!mew 4 and 4 is 8, 4 and 4 is 8 and 8 and 8 are 16. (Points to screen.) Is there anybody that did it a different way? Totally different than the two we just ralkcd about. Mi chael and Holly, did you come up with something? Well 8 and 8, well [sound out] we added those 2 fours together and that made 8 and 8 equals 16. Okay. so thaI's the same way Katy had done.
Clearly one can see here how Katy accomplished an argumentation in order to secure Ihe assertion that the answer to the first problem was 16. First she referred to the data that "4 and 4 is S" and mat there were 2 more fours. Then she concluded that, "a1l that togemer makes 16" (Line 1). The teachern:phrased herargumentation by demonstrating in more detail why this inference was legitimate: She seemed 10 show more clearly where the two different sums of 4 + 4 came from and that one had toadd them together. Insofar, herrephrasing contained auxiliary utterances lhat functioned as warrants. Thus in sum, me con: ofan argument had been collectively outlined.
4 4
4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4
4 4 4
4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4
flO. 7.10. BllIana worksheet forwholeclass diKuDion.
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
257
' she asked fur a special kind ofargumenta For lhe second probJcm. 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 . ...
tion: As we soc:, she hereby referred lO a specific formal ofargumentation:
10 Teacher:
How many of yOll used the first one to get the second one?
Petetdeveloped an explanation that seemed to include a more globaJ view than lhe teacher was asking for, but by this it elucidated the relevanl fonnat very well: Well,
20 Peter.
all the problems you just add more fows. They just put
more fours than the first problem. 21 Teacher:
All right
22 Peler:
So it must be 4 more.
23 Teacher:
What would that be?
24 Peter:
16 plus 4 equals 20.
25 Teacher:
All right . . .
Peler's utterances arc: interpreled here in the way that he saw that all the given problems varied from the fU'S1 one by more blocks of fours. In Lines 22 and 24 he explained how this insight could be used to solve the second problem: "So it must be 4 more .
16 plus 4 equals 20." The rather sophisticated use of mathematical phrases is srriking at the first glance. He began with a fonnulation that denoted an . .
inference. "So it must be" and he continued with a mathematically exact sentence
"16 plus 4 equals 20." As the processing of the following problems shows, this mathematical enunci ation did not becomestandard, but the entailed fonnalofargumentation. which laid out the reference to a prior problem, was established fairly well.
Holly and Katy presented an argumentation for the third task, which is on the bottom left of the worksheet.
30 Holly:
We aah . . . we just Mh, could be added all like we started on
4 and then we go on and added the 4 and then we go oyer here and added lhe 4. the first one: and then we added the
31 Teacher:
32 KaIY; 33 Teacher:
All righi, whal did you get for a solution to this one? Oh . . . we gOI 30, no, 24. OK.. 241 Any problems wilh this? EYeryone agrees? (Looks around at class.) OK!
Here. one sees how Holly and Katy logether presented an argument according
10 the outlined fannatofargumentation. Obviously this format was well established
in this class. After this, Linda presented a solution for the problem 4. 4, 4. 4, 4, 4. 4. 41_on the screen ofthe oYerhead projector in fronl of the classroom:
40 Linda: 4 1 Teacher:
We knew that this 4 here was 16. . . . now listen 10 what Linda has to say. This is how they came up with the solution.
258
KRUMMHEUER
42 Linda:
We used this for the 16 and . . . (points to last problem on the screen).
43 Teacher:
OK.
44 Linda: 45 Teacher.
. . . and this was 16 and we knew that 16 and 16 is 32.
All right. They saw this as one sel (draws a ring around fours on overhead projector) and Ihen this sel of fours has another 4 fours and they said lhat's 16 and thai's 16 and they said 16 and 16 is 32. All right! ThaI was a good solution! Who hasa differenl way of doing it?
Linda identified in the balance picture IWO blocks of four boxes of fours (Line 40). The result of one of these blocks was already known 10 be 16. and the number fac116+ 16: 32 was a1sowell known (Line44). The teacher rephrased this solution by pointing out on the screen how the 8 boxes of fours were divided in 2 sets of 4 boxes. After Ihis, she declared the presemed solution 10 be a good one (Line 45). Hen:, again. the same format of argumentation had been accomplished. The given image of boxes of numbers was separated in subsets of already known and/or previously solved problems, the results of wruch then had to be added (cf. Voigt's discussion of thematic patterns of interaction, chap. 5, this volume).
Topos and Formal This section deals with the relationship of the individual's reliance on an argumen tation and his or her avail of the interactional accomplishment of this argumenta tion. Because of the framing dependency, the conjointly accomplished argument might be assessed differently by the contributing individuals. The argument, or more precisely the core of an argument, does not only mean something different to each participant with regard to each of their actualized framin ; itis also, therefore, differentially important and convincing for each of them. Thus, the way the individual atlempts to influence the emergence of an argument is, at the same time, the way he or she lays out his or herconfidence in this argument. This reformulation ? of the notion of reflexivit is utilized here with regard to the clarification or the relation between the sociological and psychological dimensions of learning. The development of an argumentation is intended to ensure me claimed validity of a statement. One can perform this by trying to adopt an argumentation that was already successful in prior cases. This means that one wants a concrete argumen lation in which the participants individually recognize structures of more general argumentative accounting practices. Cognitively, that means that each individual constructs a structural similarity among several argumentations experienced in different situations. In metoric, this abstract pattern or general form of similarly
�
).011 should be �Icd heft' that the issue is liubuanlial arxwnemar.ion. as described in the sediOti entitled '"The Diffm:ntililion Between ·AnaIytic' and ·SubitanfiaJ' Atiumc:RWiOtl.� l�or the ootion of n:nexivily. iCC the earlier sectioo emitled � RenexiYity of Ink:ractiOtiai Atlivities.'·
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
259
structured arguments is called a I(}pos or locu.s:l6 "Loci are headings under which arguments can be cJassifJCd. 1bey are lWOCiated with a concern to help a5pl!uer's inventive efforts and n i volve the grouping of relevll1ll material. so that it can be easily found again when required" (Perelman &: OlbrcchtsTytcca. 1969. p. 83), This concept is used here as one thai is bound 10 the individual. It is (he indhiduaJ's invcnlive effons and his or her achievement to group relevant material i the terminology of this chapter, is the rc:conslruction of severnl arxumenl&· that. n lions thai are experienced as similarly structured ones. Here. it is assumed that the emergence of several similll1ly fOfmaUed argumentations will stimulate lrus cog nitive process. Now one can describe the relationship between the contribution ofan individual to the accomplishment of an argumentation and bis or her cognitive development as a reflexive one between lopos and (annat: On the one hand, the child tries 10 contribute argumentatively in a .social inlernction by offering uuerances thai are sensible for him or her with regard 10 a specific available Copos and may possibly lead to the collective emergence of a fonn.ntted argumentation. On the other hand. il is ws po.njcipation in a sample of similarly formaned atgumenllllioll5 that leads him or her 10 COnstrucl cognitively a topos. Two episodes might help clarify this reflexive relationship. The first example illustrates how two children know a specirK: fennat of argumentation but cannot cognitively make use of it. This means that for this fonnal no individual topos is available. In the second exampie. a student recognizes twodifferent argumentations as similarly fOfTnaued and obv iously seems to be: able to apply it as a topoS.
Episode 7. January 22Sma1J·Group Wotk.
An adult spoke to Andrea and Andy just in passing. 1be tWO children were wotking on the problem 17. 7. 7. Prior 10 this episode. they had solved the following problems: '11. '11. '11. 111.
11 11. 11 1 1 , 1 1 . II 11. 11. 11. 11 '6. 6. 6. and now 71 "' .1 .7. 1 Resc�hcr. That·s one of inlerest. Now you've gol this one: 6. 6. and 6. is 18. Can this �lp you do this next one? Yeah . . . 8 Andrea: 9 Rescucher. How? i I lower than 7, and 7 is I highet" than 6. Well. 6 s 10 Andrea:
:l6ln Ihli c:lllpkr. Ihc word lDpOI J i poerrned. Tbo: aIlemaIlvc: pl'ffm:I"ICC (or I"ns in .orne oIlhc rollowla, QIIIOWIoM i, IlOl c:t.DFl nThis c:piJoIk iI • ctiR:cI COIIIi:IIuariooI 0( � ) ill Ihc =tion C:IMide4 ""The Rdlu.ivify of Inb:raaiDllal Aa;'itict.
260
KRUMMHEUER
I I Resean::her: So, how woold you . . . how would you use Ihis 10 help you figure this one out?
12 Andrea:
Nope.
1 3 Researcher: Nope? Did you do it, Andy? Or is that too tough? 14 Andy: II could help, bull don', know . . . NOI that much. I S Andrea: 16 Andy: . . . how. It could. I know it can help. 17 Researcher: OK. let's try the ncxt one.
The researcher appeared and asked whether the solut)on of the problem before
could help solve this one ([jne 7). Andrea answered spontaneously "Yeah" (Line
8) and explained in more detail (Line 10) ''Well, 6 is I lower than 1. and 1 is J higher than 6," In response 10 the researcher's additional question asking whether lhis could help 10 figure out the problem (Line 1 1). Andrea answered, "Nope" (Line 12). Additionally, Andy CQuid not give any consuucli�"e hint as 10 how this could help, although he also seemed convinced thaI this would be a possible way of solving (Lines
14 and 16).
It might be th:lt Andy knew about these ki nds of argumentation. Possibly, he learned about them in prior wholcclass discussions. Also, Andrea's spontaneous
answer pointed in the same direction. II seemed lhal they knew aboul this kind of argumentation bul thai lhey were cognitivcly nOI ready 10 apply a IOpoS, which could have helped them to develop n cor:responding llll!umentation. The children's recognition and belie£that there existed a useful and rorceful way of argumentizing by referring to preVtoUS problems signified experiences with aJEumentalions fonnatted in lhis way. Cognitively, il appeared that neither ofthem had made much
sense out of this mode or atgumenlll!ion. Presumably, they had yet to develop a capos thai could be seen as based on this experience. Episode 8,
February 18SmalfGroup Work. JackandJamieworlcedon the multiplication task 8 x 4. Before they had solved 9 x 4 36 and 10 x 4 = 40. :::z
I Jack:
Look! Look! Just take 4 from thai (points to previous problem 9 x 4). lust take 4 away from that (points to previous problem
9 x 4) 10 �I that (points 10 problem 8 x 4). See! to add 4. then
add 4 10 mal.
2 Iamie: 3 Jack:
4 Iamie:
Just take 2 from there (points to previous problem 10 x 4). Take
8 away from Ihen: (points 10 problem l O x 4). No. Take away, urn, 4 from there (points 10 9 x 4). 8 from there (points to 10 x 4). That makes 32.
S Researcher. How did you gel 32?
6 Jack: [Almost ilUlUdibJel Take away 4. 7 Jamie: Just take away 8 from Ihal (points 10 10 x 4). 8 Researcher: From which one?
9 Jamie: to Jack:
This one (points 10 10 )( 4), 10 plus, take away, 10. limes.
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
261
I I Jamie: Tunes 4. 12 Rcsc:an:her. And how dKl you do it, Jack? Did you do it the same way? 13 lack: Yeah, same way. 14 Researcher: OK. BUl l used that and (points to 9 x 4). Take away 4. It makes 32. 1 5 Jack: Although the two boys at the beginning strongly disagreed with each other', solution proposal. al the end Jack called his appro3Ch the "same way" (Line 13). Jack proposed (Unc I) 10 refer to the prevK>us problem (9 x 4) and to subtract 4 from its ruult. Jamie sugsested 10 go back to another previous problem (namely
10 X 4). and to subtract 8 from that (Line 2). 10 Lines 3 and 4 both children insisted
on their idea. and Jamie attached the resull 32. It seemed at this moment as if lhe IwO boys asswned they were working on different kinds or asgumentalions. Atthis point. the adult researcherintervened andasUd fortheirdilfemat approaches
(Line 10). Jamie leplCt5 10 him (l..jnes 1116). The rcsearcl1cr then asked Jack whechrr he lhoughllhat he Pl¥beid an argument in the "same way" (Unc 13). Jad; ag:rcr.d but added dw be referred to another previous task (ljne IS). Cognilivdy. he seemed to recognize a simil';ty between these two appoaches.. This meant that he had cogni lively COOSIr\JCCed Of applied a topos with regard to this similarly formatted argumen tation (scealso Ktummhcuer & Yackel. 1990).
learning and Argumentizing in the Mathematics Classroom One nssumption of folk psychology suggests that the argumentative presentation of mathemaJics allows children 10 learn more easily and more rc.t1ectively. SUU'ting with this assumption. the previously swed theoretical elaborations assert that, especially under the condition of. framing difference. which isseen as constitutive for leachinglearning situations. the argumentatively generated collaboration in mathematics classes is based on an agn:ement aboullhe core ofan argument rather
than On the framingdependent backing. Ccnainly conceptual mathematical leam ing a150 has to do with the changing or restructuring of the actualized framing, bul the functional category of an argument. whjch directly is related to the individual's framing. does not seem to be the interactive focus of collective qumcntation, At first glance. this position nUght be seen as aclaim that learning mathematics happens by chance. A closer look suggests that one has to give up the idea thai learning mathematics can take place in a "direct way," As 8auersfeld (chap. 8, this volume) oudines, learning happens in an indirect way by participation in an approprialcly developed classrom o cuJtu.re.1be less direct aa::ess an individual tw
to the socially constituted reality. the less one tw direct access to the cognitive structure of hs participants through social interaction. 'lltis is merely the canso quence ofthe rellexive relation between the individual and the social perspectives. Although llTgumenration motivates students 10 �nstrucl lhcir framinss.. mere is usually no way to force cognitive reconstruction by argumentative necessity. This
262
KRUMMHEUEA
substantial arguments. One Ilfllumenl is not as convincing as another one for an individual. and one can assume that cognitive development would be man: stimulated when the accomplished and similarly formatted argumentations have a strong, convincing force for the studen!. In such a case the obvious motive for the individual is to cognitiveJy construCt new lopoi A
again elucidaces the need for
clarification of the concept of the force of an argument might be: helpful at this point. The tofU of an argument refers to Toulmin's functional ClItegories: The core of an argument must be soundly deveJopc:d if il is to be strongly convincing. The
participants agree wilh the concrete inference according to the oullinod wanant
taken as presented. In other words, the warrant explains the soundness of the inferential step. This asp«t will be called "explanatory relevance" (see
KrumrnheueT, 1992: Miller, 1986). It is, as aJready mentioned. framingindepen dmL For the involved individual. cognitive capacity and/or emotional eagerness determine whether this inference is com�hcnsible to him or her or not. But, additionally. cognitively understanding the explanatory relevance or an argumen
i ply thai the individual fiods this argument totally convincing. Its tat;on does not m intemaJ soundness cannot be doubted. but it does not count ror a single individual ir il does nOI sumckntly clarify the relevance according 10 his or her emerged
fmning.JI This " framing specifIC relevance" refers to the attached framingdepen dent backing or the core or llll argument. Obviously. in mathematics classes the accomplishment of acceptance of an
argumentation with regard to the explanatory relevance already seems 10 ben major
topic or their regular in�raction. 1be demonstration or the soundness of an argumentation. especially in arithmetic. makes great cognitive demands on the students with regard to both its convincing presentation as well as the individuaJ comprehension. Moreover. under the condition of an emerging work.ing interim. this seems very often to be the maximum thai s i attainable."
The assessment of the argument according to its framingspecific relevance
generally differs betwccn the participants. 1beir art;culation is not impossible. but the ambition to expand the agreement toward this aspect of an argument cndangen
the accomplished working interim. It seems that what can be done in mathematics
i classes. typically when establishing a working interim by argumentative means. s to secure the explanatory relevance of an argumentation. Thus, under these class
room conditions the agreement about a concrete argumentation is an agreement
about its formal validity.
In a cc:nain sense the cmptwison formally valid agreements reflects on the level ofclassroom interaction that, from a broader viewpoint. could be seen as the basis
for human cooperation in postmodem times in general. Collective argumentation
can be secn as a paradigm for the search ror tNth. Funher. rational negotiation
.JI� Win&mAda·. qII(* frolll the btpani", of this thapcr� 10 the fore. With n:cpnilO IIv; .. :hend the il miahl tit; dilfltlllt. JOmctimes CYCII too difflC\llL for tum Of her 10 u " n p Iy.m 01JWeI\'leftlS formilll the core 01 lUI. � Oil ill ase II.. COR. is inlaw:tionaIly rMifled u rornlAliy v&lid. !hen ,till h • tc:11if11 pOWId for �iq il IKlI lUl.ythill, I decideM (W'IU,.:_in, 19'74. no. 27tl. lIIEpisOlk 6 1A the SCCIion CDlitkd MAn &leM migbl be tUm u an uampk 0I1tis.
child'. frwnia.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTAnON
7.
263
appears as the locus of truth. In times in which ultimate certainties and authorities lost, the concept of truth is bound 10 the argumentatively rarified consensus between interacting subjects. which necessarily can only be a fonnally validated are
one and. thus, only a procedural one (Habennas. 1985; Toulmin. 1912)....... The interactional restriction of collective argumentation in mathematics classes
turns one's view toward the fact that in such teachinglearning situations commu
nicative problems exist thai cannot easily be coped with by argumentative means. The discussion about the legitimacy or appropriateness of acluaJizcd fnunings is beyond the pD(cntiality ofargumentative resolution. Of course, formatted argumen tations do nOI exclude the individual framings, but they do nOl emerge thematically !1 in lhe argument The skillful presentation of different solutions by students in the observed project class was one of the most overwhelming impressions. It gave much food for !hough! and, among others. resuhed in this chapler about argumentation. Pragmatically, the variety ofarguments generated for one wk seems to enable the class to cope with the tension of different framings. On the one hand, the option for arguing under different framings was given by the request for developing different solutions; on the other hand, the competition for different solutions involves, at least implicitly, the comparison of different framings. The difference in underlying framings could have been pointed out more fre
quently and more poignantly in the interaction of the project class, although doing this would have endangered the working interim that emerged. In such situations,
the participants and.. here especially the teacher, should try to push the communica tion as close as possible toward this point of breakdown, thus enabling a change in
the individuals' framings while making the variance offraming explicil As pointed oul by Bauersfeld (chap. 8, this volume), languaging relies on everyday language
description, metaphorizing, and modeling rather than on the schematized
use
of
foster the generation of differently fonnatted and competing argumentations as well as their commenting
particles of mathematical tenninology. 'The attempt to and comparison by
means
of everyday languaging is necessary for the support of
conceplual mathematical learning.
Summary: The Relationship Between Argumentizing and Leaming This chapter can be understood as an attempt to accomplish an argument about the relationship between argumentizing and learning in mathematics classes. The ClSce also Bauersf"eld·s elaboration aboul lhe ��ity mllSion.� chap. 8, thl.i volume. •IThe tgReIllelll llboul the core of an IWgUImIt w. said to be: the formal validation (ICIC the 5eClions; cnliUtd, ''ThcCrulionofan Infcn:nc:e··and ��k:aOons forlnming'1. The�on fonnalvatiiblion migtI also be: one IeIfiOII why SlUdcnu' ma&hema&icaI knowledge il often r.uht:rfOC\lSCd on � and aIgorilhmic aspeds and JessfOClllCd on WilU!pluaI �fIeaiOrt. As. my own studies on � level show, generally SruclenlS' activities _ based on fnnings with IUdI IlII "'aIgontumcmc<:hanicII" charaac:r (see B..ersfeld. Krummbeuet, &; \Q&t,I98S; l
264
KAUMMHEUEA
notion of argumentation appears. then, On two levels; First, it has been used for the description of observed collective activities in the project class (argumentix.ing); second, this concept can be used as a means for characterizing the relationship
between these collective activities and leaming mathematics. In the next section
the results of this exploration at this second level are outlined. Toulmin's layout,
which was introduced (01" the analysis of the functional aspect of argumentation according 10 the first level, is reapplied, but this time for the presentation of these results. In conclusion,
some
limitations of this approach as well as some im·
plications for the teaching and learning of mathematics are discussed. Arguing and Learning.
According 10 Toulmin's functional analysis. the ac
complished argument is relatively complex: 1be whole argumentation can be
and two subordinate arguments (which suppol1 the appropriateness of these data). For elucidation. the main argument is outlined here firsl, followed by the presentation
divided inlo one main argument (which is based on two parts of data)
of the two subordinate arguments. 11le whole argumentation is also presented pictorially. according 10 Toulmin's scheme. II might be helpful 10 refer to the layout
shown in Fig. 7.11 while reading these summarizing comments. 1be main statement is that succesf s ul, conceptual. mathematical learning is reflexively based on the active participation in the formatted acc:omplishment of !he core of an 4rBumetlt that is aoceptable for aU participants.'l 'This relationShip is
secured by presenting it as the conclusion of two basic insights (data) about the character of argumentation in mathematics classes.
I . Generally.
in the inlerllCtion of mathematics classes. the main focus of an
argumentation is on the accoIlpiishmen l tofan accqxablecoreofanargumcnt.0
2. 1hc students contribute 10 the acromplishment of a collective wgumenwion according 10 their available topei ofarguments and vice versa: The participation in such collective argumentation fosters the students to develop novel topoi." 1be appropriatel'lCss of these two ssues is clarified in more detail later. First, it is i
taken as data of the main argument. The. inference
from
these data to the main
assertion is legitimized by the
poslulate that through interaction there is no direct access that innuences the individuaJ framingdependcnl aspects of an argument like the backing. However. i embedded in the individual's construction of a the development of a new IOPOS s new framing. This strict emphasis OD the individual cognitive construction of his or herown reality is a basic assumption ofany constructivisttheoretical approac:h.4j
Taken together. these aspects represent the main argument. Its pictorial layout
(Fig. 7.1 J ) shows the functional relation o(thc different statcmcntsoncc: again. Still GSa: !he ICCtiOII cmt.led "Dermitioa or !he ConcqII." 0Sa: !hi: .,roan cntidal 1be Swaurinc orArJIlmenIali"W'Cly ACClOmplilhe:d Acreemm�.� "Sa: !hi: 5CClim cmt.led 'Topos and FotmII.M �'Sce !hi: � mtitled �1mpl.ialiOlll for Lumia(' ...d �l.c .... inc.d ArI _ _ ion.R
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
CI· ....... ..
O'�r.1I1
intel"octloa "
."....... . ."
.... � rn ..In, .Iff..eo• •
_I
'!Jog, .ore 1>1'
I
,......eal
511«
.
Con: it '''''' '''
...nln.
iadcpndu,
JalO.l.. O.
�
ac
.,
"
O. ..,....
;
�Io.lcal
 " _,OI io
llea
w.,.tl..
J\
(.)
./' .....
"""""
265
.,
eo...cpo...1
.,
...."'.....i••1
....,., ..
Toalfbi.", Ioyo."
'" ............
"""
(r......'
co.......
.,
yot;.ta,joa)
I ,
rdluinly booed
 �
p'r,lcipatin
,. ,he for.a.1t
A,••"'....'I". •
.
ciusroom
II lflI<.oIl,
o.""lopIIIeIII
.
tontribal;"" to
..,.._.,lIi_ "cOord,., • Slln
.. . ilabl. ,.,..
I
&lid ...,lable ,.,.,; <""mb,lIe I•
Iho ,nlenO'tin ..lIOfId.... '" •, ......",.'1"" O•
co.e
No dl.....
i"I....';�• OCUli 10 Lbo
(b)
'''101; _ FOI'mlUed ltl"o ._ oo.. .n , .d.... of LOpDi I.
51:..
 �
fo,m,",d
'" ... KCCplCd
I
•
or
o.
Ie
...,
I
It
s.... .........""' of coa'''''''' '.I" 'bo.,i..
�
Et h"omell.ooIoIo,ie' ..... " r.ned.I,)'
Topol II "'" illdiyM!.., ",
,.....liuJiOll • c"II«,i•• Ir ...... .io.
....,cor.'
AG. 7.11. Schematic n:prac:nlMion of an argumml.
open is the certification of the approprialeness of the two Data (a) and (b). This is clarified in the following. The argumentative support for Datum (a) is that generally in mathematics classes an agreement is only accomplishable with regard to the core of an argu ment.<16 This has to do with the constitutive fact that mathematics class interaction is chlU"8clerized by aqualitative framing difference, especially between the flll.ming
266
KRUMMHEUER
of [be teacher and those ofthc students."" The inferential step from lhis empirical fact to Datum (a), which functions in this subordinate argument as a conclusion, is supponed by two different conditions: It is possible to interact on the basis of framing differences. The kind of emerging agreement can be described as a working interim. Thls stresses the point that such agreements tend to be fragile and transient. This consideration is based on fundamental concepts ofclhnomcthcxlology and inleractionism such as working consensus and negotiation of meaning:" The functional analysis of argumenl by Toulmin reveals a certain part of an argumentation. which is framingindependent. the so<:a11ed core. This leads to a fonnal validation of an argument and keeps the framingspecific relevance of an argument apart from the emerging agreement..09 •
•
The datum of the main argument can be seen as the conclusion of the fact thaI interaction in mathematics classes is often patterned in a way that can be described according to Bruner's concept of format. This kind of interaction helps the students to recognize similarly structured argumentations and to develop a topos for them. Topos is seen here as the individual's cognitive construction of a generalizing category of similarly structured and interactively successful arguments.jO But, on the other hand, the availability of cenain lopoi enables these students at the same time 10 contribule 10 the accomplishment of an argumentation. Funher, the mutu ally dependent relationship between the construction of a novel topas and the contribution according 10 already available IOpoi refers 10 the fundamenlal ethnomethodological position of reflexivity.jl Finally, looking at the whole argument one can identify two initiatory presup positions (see the left margin of Fig. 7.11), namely that classroom internction is based on framing differences and that argumentation processes in mathematics classes usually can be reconstructed as formatted ones. These statements function here as data of the two subordinate arguments. Additionally, one can distinguish several theoretical basis positions (bottom line of Fig. 7.11) on which the whole argument is founded. These are the: •
• •
Ethnomethodological notion of reflexivity. The notions of argwnentation and topos. The constructivist notion of the individual's construction of reality.
Altogether, then, it is apparent that access to the individual's cognition through interaction is first indirect and second reflexively bound to the contribution of these
·'Sec the seaion entitkd '"Toulmin's Concept of 'Field' and !he Concept of ·Fnuning.·.. "'See the 5CQion et1titled '1lIe StlUCluting ofArJumentatiYely AccompIi.!.bed Agruments." "'Scc the 5CQioo entitled "TOlilmin'S Con<.:epI of 'Field' and !he Concept of ·Framing.·.. � (he section" entitled "The FonnaI of Afgumentalion'" and ''Topos !Wld Format."
}ISec the =tion enlilled "'The Rdloexivity of Intenction.al Activitiei."
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
267
cognizing individuals to the emergence of the related interaction.'1 The nellt section elaborates on lhis topic in more detail.
Limitations and Implications. It should be noted that !he previous elabo rated argumentation both relalivizes and concretizes the assumption of folk psy
chology maintaining that argumentiz.ing helps conccpuaI mathemalical leaming.
Beyond the notion that this relation is a reflcltive one, it also had been pointed OUI that under the framing condition of mathematics class imeraction, argumentation
is usually focused on the accomplishment of the framingindependent core of an argument. Esscmially. this means that argumentatively emerging working interims
a kind of formal validation. checking whether the accomplished inference is acceptable 8CCOI'ding to the actualized (but nol necessarily entirely explicated) and
IU'C
different framings of the participants.
ConceptuaJ mathematical learning, however, has 10 be seen as the individual's
conslfuction of a new framing. There is no direct access by (collective) argumen
lation or any OIller kind of interaction to this individual cogniti\'e process. It is the active panicipation in a more or less evolved culture of argumentizing thai can be
taken by the student as an experiential basis for his or her cognitive processes of
sense making. Thus, learning is indirectly influenced by interaction.
This kind of a cul� of argumentation can be characterized on the one hnnd by regularities, commitments, and obligations for the participants. in order 10 conlribule
positively in the reaccomplishment of such regularities in similarly defined situations. Such fonnaIS of argumenwion help students to recognize different problems as
similarly solvable and thus possibly enable a reorganiz.at.ion oftheircognitive � accordingly. On the other hand. this culture should be open 10 the development and presentation of alternative argumentations that are acknowledged as legitimate. but different fonnats for collective argumentation (see Voigt, chap. 5, this volume). This second implication is to be seen as a practicable but also vulnerable way
of coping with the interactional problem of collectively arguing without having a commonly shared basis offramings. II is not as much the explicit discussion of the difference ofthe framings, but rather the implicit and continuous intonation ofthese
differences with the option andlor necessity of metaphorizing and languaging by
everyday descriptions (see Bauersfeld, chap. 8, Ibis volume). Thus, conceptual mathematical learning has as much to do with the establishment of different fonnally valid mathematical argumentations as it is related to a developed, every daylanguagebound plalfonn for indicating the framingdependent convictions
and cenainties in each individual's inlelprelation orthe accomplished argument. The danger exists that, in favor of the fonnally valKi demonstration of arguments,
As a consequence, it leads to a relatively mechanical and calculational orienled understanding of mathemalicsDa conse quence that has always been criticized in mathematics education. the latter aspect is easily neglected.
'l.see � seaion cnlitled ·'l...euning and A1Jumcntizing in the MtihcIl1lli($ al$SlOOm.� ".see rOOlnotc 52.
268
KAUMMHEUER
REFERENCES MeweU. P. (1 974). EllmorncthodoJocy siDce Garflllkd. 'TMoryaNl Society. I. 179210. Bauerllfeld, H" K1umrnbeuer, G., &. Voigt. J. (19&5). llIIt;ractional � of leamina and teachina ma1hematia and rclaed microcthnographical studies. In H. G. Sianer &: H. Vm1Wldcl (&Is.). FOIUIdatiOfU and IMlhod%gy of 1M ducipliM lfIIJWm6ticJ tduCDtion (didoctics of tnalMlMIicr) (pp. 174188), AIItWerp: Ua.iversity ofADrwerp. Billig. M. (1989). Alggilg l aNl IJrjllWlg. A rluloricDl llpprtX/dl fO locinl psyclrofogy. Cambridge. EnJIaDd: Cambridge Univm>il)' Press. BtI,IDU, J. (1982). The formau of bnzuage acquisition. AmuiCDII Jo�moJ ofSemiotics, I, 116. Bruner, 1. (1983). Childi rail. ulll1ling 10 rut IivrgWlge. Oxford. England: Oxford University Prt::s.s Bruner, J. (19SS). The role ofmltrattioo formau in 1&oguagc lIajuisitiolL In J. P. Forps (Ed.), WngUQgtaNl social sjlrll/ltimu. New yort: Springer. Bn.J.IIe1'. 1. (1990). Acu offMQllUIg. Cambridge. MA: Harvanl Univusily Pn::s.s FoIlcsdaI. D.• WallDC', L.• &: EIsler, J. (1986). RaJiOtlllJ, A'XlUftf'lIkJ1ion. Ein Gnmt/blrs ill A'8lUftf'nla· lions
in sociolin,wirrics. New York: Holt, Rilletwt &; WIllIIOD. Ooffman. E. (l9S9). 7k �wu{lri(m ofulfin n·�rydaJ.. New York: Doubleday. Ootrman. E. (1974). F_ OJW.tylis. A clulpru on rN orgtlllillJrion of UJH!ri�"u, Cambridge. MA: HMv¥d UniY'el'5ity Press.
Habermas. J.
(1985). 'TMon'e ., .lDmmuniklil'<'1l ll HtlIItk/iu
[Theory of communicative: acting1·
FfllIkfun: SuhrUmp, 2 Bde.. 3. Auf!. lnhcldet. B &; Piaget. J. (I9SS). C"""'rll of10gu.:oJ rlliN:ing.frotn cllildllood /0 adoluc�lIn. New York: .•
Basic Books. Keil, F.C. (1979). Se/JlOllric andconapDIOI.>'f!Io�"': An OfIrologicoJpt'sp«li�·r.. Cmtnidgc. MA: Harvard Univc:n.ity Pn:ss. KciJ. F. C. (1983). On the: emetJente or scmanIic and collCeplual distinctions. Jownwl ofuptrilMnUlI Pzychology: WMroJ, 112, 3S738S. Klein. W. (1980). ArJumc:ntation uoo AfgUIl"II:ItI [ArJumc:ntation and argumc:nl]. uilSdrifi fiJr U/uruurwissttUc/wf11UldU",wirtii. J1VJ9. 9S7. KoppetKlvnidl. J. ( 1989). Mtlhodik. de, A'IIUIIt'IIIa1I�I� [Methodology of the analysis of argumc:nWion]. Stuttgart.: Fmrnmann·Holzboog. Krummllcuer. G. (1982). Rahmcnan.ly5C l.um Unterrichl einer Bchlcn KI.ue Ubcr �Tcr· mumformungen" [Frame analysis of an lIth·grade dau aboot ''lnlnsfomwion of lermsH]. In H. B.ucnfcLd. H. W. He)'IIWI,II O. Knimrmc:uc:r. J. H. 1..oR:n.z. &. V. Reiss (Eds.l. AIIlI) l ·st'1I VI1'I UIII�rricAlJlwwJt/ll. Cologne: Aulis.
Krurnmhcuer. G. (1983). Cas Albeil$inlerim im Mathc:nwikuntenidll (The working iRlerim in mathc:. matics cJasses]. In H. Bu:rd"cld, H. Bussrnann. G. Krumrmc:ucr, J. H. Lon:nz. &. J. Voigt (Eds.), urntll und ullfOl ''Of! MruNmalik. Anolyull Dim UnJtrriclwlltmtklll ll. Cokla;ne: Auli$. Knlrnmhcucr. G. (1989). Die mc:ns.clllichc Scilc am Co�er (The human ,ide on the cOlUpUlCr]. Wcinhcim, Ocrmany: �UlSCher 51udicn \Utag.. Knlrnmhcucr. G. (1991). The .wy,is of IOciaJ inlerxtion in III "inlCr.:bVC" computer mvironmc:nl. In F. Furinghctti (Ed). Procudingl CI/IN Fi/Utfllll PME Corrfmllu. /I (pp. 262268). Assilii. ltaly: Pro&ram Commlucc oflbe ISth PME CoIlfctellCe. Krurnmhcucr, G. (1992). urntll mil "Fonruu. Ekmtlllt riM' illltrtwiollistiswn UmlhtorU. DiJhtitrt arI Btispitltll 1fItJlMmtlliJChtll Unltrricltu [U:amin& with �fomwN: ElcmellU of an �
7.
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF ARGUMENTATION
269
i� theory or kamin,. DiscIl$Sd with eumples of I1'IIIlbelcal lllti classes). WcinIrim. GcrtnuIr. 1kwI;ha" SwdicnVC'liq:. KruIlllDhaJcr, 0., & Yacul, E. (1990). The emetgence of nwhematical qu.mc:nWion in the: small p:IIIp illlerXtion of � vaden. in G. SooUr. P. Cobb, &; T. N. de: Mendicuti (Eds.), 14th
COll/�rt"n of W IflltrMliOtUJl GIIHlp for 1M Psycllology f1/ MalIttmlJlit:J EtIIlcQl/Ott. 1/1 (Ill'. 113120). Oaxtepcc. Mexieo. Lehmann. B. e.. (198S).RalioMlif4liIIIAlltag? ZMr KOtIStitvfiO<'lIittNu¢m HilnMwill tkrPtrspdJiW! i�rpnllltn·t'SoVologit (Rationality in eYeryday affairs1 The cOll5lilu1ion of sensible acting under the pe:npcctiyc of inkLspective IOddoaYl. MllrIRcr. Getman)': WUtnarIII, leiter, K. (1980). A prinltrO'l tUutmrwlllodoloD Cbford. Fq!,nd; (b;fonl Univm.ity Pret.J.
Mdwl, H., &. Wood, H. (1975). 1M lWlutyo!ttIwJlMlltodoloty. New York: Wiley. MiUet, M. (1986). Kolldrivt UntpfVWSII [CoIled:i¥e procesrl ofkamiDJI. Frankfun: S1Ihrbmp. Miller. M. (1987): ArJummladoll aDd cognitioa.. in M. Hickmann (Ed.). Social aNI fiutctiOMl llpprtKJCllu 10 language aNI Ihouglll. San Diqo, CA: Academio;, MllIler. K. (1984). RalrJrwfWlllg ltly dt:l Dis/061. AspdJt fUr Spmc/rwnultou ill AlllGguilWllliOflDl [Fr.uoe analysis of dialogue: Aspects oflancuage tompftbcnsion in everyday lltltuage]. Ttibingen, Germany: Nan. PJ5(:hen, H� &. WiF". L (1992). ar AMI)'H fHIdtl&ogiscller Ngwnelllalimvfl (The lII&Iys\s of peo;bJOgical wgumcnwion]. Wrinhc:im. Germany: DeIltSoChcT Studicnvcl1q. fm,1man, C. &. O\tftc....� . L (1969). T� II,.,.. rloewrit. A IrrtllUt orr Q'1fI'mmUJtioll. Notre Dame. IN: UnivenifY ofNotR; Dame � PiageI. J. (1928). Judgmml aNi rrfIJOfIing ill 1M thUd. I...ondon: Routledge &. Ktlan Paul. Pia&et. J. (19lO). 1M tlJild'st01lCtptiOfl ofphysia>1 t"lUQiiry, L.ondoII; RoutIedgte.&. Kepn Paul. Pia&et. J. (I9S4). T1tt t
""""'"
.•
Wmp'naein. L. (1%3). T"",f.ll/l&I Logic(JPhIJruophiclU. (D. F. Pean &. B. F. t«OuillCfS, TransJ London: ROUlkdrc &. Kepi! Paul. WittGCD5Icin. L (1974). Obu CKl+1flhtil (On cert&irll)'l. Oxford. En&land: Basil Blatk\ro<eU.
8 "Language Games " in the Mathematics Classro o m: T heir Function and Their Effects Heinrich Bauersfeld
University of Bielefeld Mathcrlotics tdwcation �gi1U and procnds in lan'UQg� ti a4I'altCU a1Ul stumbks b«ausr o/langlUJgr, llIJd its OlllComes art O{rDl cusUNd in languoge Durkin and Shire (1991. p. 3)
ABOlff lliE lliEORETICAL PERSPECfNE Communication in classrooms has been investigatedfrom many different pc . spa:tives (see overviews in Cazden, 1986, and Erickson, 1986). However. pragmatic studies of the specifw:ity tolhedisciplineare rare, and these few aredevotc:d toIhe materi;1I l15pcctS (Durkin &: Shire. 1991; Pimm, 1987) ralher than 10 the functionaJ aspects of language or 10 patterns ofspeech production(Krummheuer, 1992; Maier&: Voigt. 1991). Bruner (1990) found too much c:oncem in researdt with what people say compared with what they actuaUy do and he found it "curious that there are so few studies that go in the olherdireclion: How does what one dots reveal whar: one thinks orfeels or believcs7' (p. 17). Admittedly. it is diffkult 10 conduct investigationsin the shadow ofa discipline undergoing fundamental change like linguistics: "How can one have a scienlifK: study of an iU«fi.ncd cnlily?" (Davis &: Taylor, 1990. p. S). In particular. we know much from m;crosociologicaJ analyses about the quick· action switches and about the current, instantaneous structures of communication 271
272
BAUEASFElD
o from the famous mad of moves "elicitationreactionevalu8Iion" in classroms {Bcllack, Klicbard, Hyman, & Smith, 1966;Mchan & Wood, 1975),lO the functions
indexing. reciprocity. defining the situation by framing (Goffman, 1974; Krummheuer. 1992), panems 0/inJeraction (Bauersfeld, 1980; Voigt. 1984). and of
so on. Linle s i known about longterm effocts: How do the actually functioning om structures ofthe mathematical discoUISC in the classrosas they are identifiable from an observer's petSpectiv�melle or become constituted across time (Gar
finkel. 1967; Heritage, 1984; Mehan & Wood. 1975). forming the specific history o with this teacher and these students? What are the effects on the of this classrom participating individuals' (both students' and teacher's) biogmphies in general and on their individuaJ maihematiring in panicwar? The following reflections
are 10 serve as a critical theoreical t orientation for
analyses of languaging in the mathematics classrom. o They have developed more or less
our discussions in the join! project, but draw as well on our (the Gennan group's) previous analyses and theoretical discussions. A brief summary across
is given ofcore convictions from philosophy of the sciences, language, linguistics. sociology, ethnomethodology, and R:lated fields of reOection on languaging. The interest here is with the processes of communicating and their impact on personal development, rather than with language as an object Of as a given medium that can be used. We prefer to speak of "Ianguaging" instead of "speech" or "speaking," Dotions thatevokc theconnotation oflanguage use. With this orientation, we follow the late Witlgenstcin (1974). Further, we hold the conviction that for different analytical purposes different
perspectives and theoretical backgrounds can be useful (see HonnlU1n, 1977, p. 3, also p. 92 about Camap). Related problems of compatibility are discussed when
necessary. However, the positions of social interactionism and ethnomethodology on one side and the radical constructivist principle on the other side seem to be compatible. 1be primacy debate aOOtll the individual versus the social can be regarded as surpassed in recent linguistic debates. Both perspectives are accepted, necessary,! and useful, although they are not simply to integrate. This chapter neither pretends to produce a covering theoretical approach (for constructivists an impossibility anyway), nor does it pretend 10 aim at an integrated theory.
THE "REALITY IlLUSION" (VON GIASERSFEW): THE "OBJECT GIVEN" VERSUS PERSONAlLY CONSTRUCTED AND "TAKENASSHARED" ISSUES Posilivisl history or cuJtu� sees language as gradually shaping itselr around the contours ofthe physical wond (Rony. 1989, p. 19) .
.
.
IAlthou&h Lennan (199'2) I't:CCndy swcd: M[ SUgcW thallhcanswcr may be folJlld in lhe primacy of
the social over the individual" (p. 246).
"LANGUAGE GAMES'
8.
273
Since Plato, the philosophy of language has followed the conviction thai names/words fit in with objects: "Names are nalUral, not conventional" (Platon, "Kratylos"). Consequently, the signifying or denoting functionnames are taken as labels for objec:lShas dominated over the refening function. Like PlalO. the laler Aristotle was also convinced of the congruence between reality and human cognition. Not long before Kanl. the philosopher Christian Wolff look an early cOrultructivisl view, particularly of language: "Objectum Physici sun! res naturales, quia Physic; actiones, quas fanquam PhysiclU swcipit, in iist/em tumilllUltur, nee ultro cas pTOgrediufltur: " (The physicist's objects are
natural things, because the physicist's actions, which he takes as a physicist. are terminated in these actions and do not reach beyond: 1728, § 949, p. 684; author's translation). In other words: Things become "objects" only through the activities of a subject; what else they might be, aside from the subject's activities, we cannot say. In recent words: "The objectivity of objects is based upon the subject who relates h.islher activities to them rather than upon the objects themselves" (Picht, 1987, p. 125). The usual descriptions of "employing a perspective on an object" as well as ''using language for describing something" carry two underlying presuppositions: •
a
Object is taken as something neutrally given or existing, as an entity one can look at "objectively" and one can describe adequately. lAnguage is taken as a similar entity like the objects, existing objectively as a means for arbitrary descriptive purposes, which by themselves do nOI change the object (e.g., adding paint or a wrapper to an object).
From a radical constructivist's position, these presuppositions do not hold Von Glasersfeld named this core: concern ofradical consuuctivist's critique the ''reality illusion." It was Vygotslcy who fIrst discussed the developing power of cooperating in a subculture, and the relation between language and thinking. In the years 1931 and 1932 he investigated the influence of collectivism on peasants' thought, together with Luria and colleagues. The fInal report could not be published because it fell victim to Soviet censorship. Bruner described this: The principal finding ofthcir studysuppressed for years, and finally appearing
not in the form in which Vygouky wrote it bUl only in Luria's book (1979) of many years laterwas that participation in an agricultural collective had the effect of promoting growth in the thinking of the peilS&llts involved. which took them from childlike, primitive (anns of thinking to adult forms of thought. Collectiye activity, in a word, led peasants along the way to adult lhinking orbelterto socialist adult thinking, which in Vygotsky's account was a more rational, more "scientific" form of lhinking. Such was lhe dogmatic romanticism among lhe leading figures In the official Russian establishment of the lime that they took Vygotsky'. conclusion as a criticism of peasants for their pre.scientific thinkingand banned the book. (Bruner, 1984, p. 94)
274 This in itself is a demonslraZion of the construclivisl principle:
1be reality s i
gcncraled in the head and is not an objectively given ontological reality. Augustine's correspondence lheory oflanguage has innuenced writing for more
than 16 cenlllries. including the younger Wiugenstein's '"l'ractatus" (192211972). In that. he had claimed an apriorislic isomorphy between the logic of language and the logic of realities, which philosophical analysis can discover; 2.1. We picrure fads lo ourselves 2.2. A picrure has a logioopictorial form in common with what it depicts. 4.01. A proposition is a picture of reality (concerning senlences). learning words, therefore, is giving names to objects. For our purposes, the source ofWingenstein's fundamental change is of interest. Wiugenslein had passed regular teacher education and taught in different rural schools in Austria from 1920 through 1926. His biographer Fann (1971) supposed:
"Without exaggeration we can say thai Wingcnslein's early theory of language. as developed in the ivory lower, has been brought back to the fum grounds lhrough
his school students" (Fann. p. 50, aulhor's translation). lhe fundamental revision of his thinking, printed in his ';Philosophical Investigations" ( 1 945/1974). has
influenced lhe following generations of philosophers. linguists, and other scientists: "Experiencing a word, we also speak of 'the meaning' and of 'meaning it: . . . Call it a dream" (Wittgenstein, 1974. p. 216). "For a large class of casc:sthough not for allin which wecmploy the word 'meaning' it can be defined lhus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language" (Wiugenstein, 1974, § 43). And even "A sound is an expression only if it occurs in 3 particuJar language game." (§ 261). '"The term 'Ianguagegamt" is meant to bring into prominence the fact that sf)t'alcing of language is part of an activity. or of a fonn of ife" l (§
23).
From an interactionistconstructivisl observer's perspective, a speaker's utter ances can function for lhe listener like "pointing at somelhing" only, or beller as directing the focus of attention, whereas the construction of what might be meant, the construction of references. is with the listener. The speaker's utterances and intentions have no direct access into the listener's system. Whatthe listener's senses receive undergoes spontaneous interpretation in several areas of the brain (Roth. 1992). These interpretations have emerged
across
many social interactions, en
counters through which the person has tried to adapt 10 lhe cuhure by developing
viable reactions and trying to act successfully. What we call undersumding appears from this perspective as the active construction of such meanings and references
i teraction within the culture. Russel's famous "set of supported by the social n three"a prime minister, a head of cabbage. and a donkeycan serve for quite different objectivations according 10 the perceiving subject: as one object (3 model
set for three), as three sufficiently separabJeobjects, as a satirical pointing al certain revealing similarities. and many more. Additionally, these ascriptions of meaning
are necessarily specific 10 the perceived situation. Bruner, who in his last books
called himselfaconstructivist. finally adopted the same view: "Language is . . . our principal means of refuring" (Bruner & Hasle. 1987, p. 87).
8.
"tANGUAGE GAMES"
275
In terms of Luhmann's (1984) systems theory. accordingly, recognizing "some thing" is making a difference and, rhc:refore, recognizing is an "objectivating practice." In their theory of autopoietic systems, Maturana and Varela (1980) limiled the function of language to the referring function. They identified "linguis tic behavior" as "an historicaJ process of continuous orientation" (Maturana & Varela. 1980. p. 34; see also Fischer, 1991). There is no lransJXlrtation of informa lion by language means between systems. Due to the closed nature of the systems there is active (internal) construction of meaning only. according to the present conditions of the perceiving/constructing system. The key function of languaging is orientinghelping the listener or system with an orientation within his or her internal language system. 1be focus of attention, our "looking at.'· cuts something out of the perceived
diffuse continuum and makes an object of it. This
process does nol necessarily
result in the same consequences with all persons, because it is a h.istorical, situated, and individual process. Only across social inleraction and permanent negotiations of meaning can "consensual domains" emerge, so that these "learned orienting interactions" can lead an observer to the illusion of some transport of meaning or information among the members of the social group. What we call nalural lan
guage, then, is understood as an evolutionary "system of cooperative consensual interactions between organisms" (Maturana & Varela. 1980, p. 31); a definition that, by the way, allows us to identify language with animals too. If we speak of "describing something for somebody" we only metaphorize the process ouLlined
h=. Our accustomed and nonreflected ways of speaking about things, as we themat ize them through languaging, facilitate the transfer of the reality illusion onto all k.inds of mental constructions, ideas, systems, SlruCtures, and hierarchies, not only onto "physical objects." However, in every case it is our personal activity that defines what "it" is for us. lbere is no direct access 10 the " ii," and, particularly, there is no discovery and no direct reading either of a text or of a diagram, chart, or picrure, and there is no direct taking up of infonnation. Even more radically, Varela (1990) claimed that there is no infonnation at all, there is only subjective . knowlng.,
Consequences for Classroom Analyses In the realities of mathematics education in schools and universities, lbe AristOle· lian perspective still dominates nOi only in the treatment of embodiments ("Just look at it!" and"Youcansee it!"), but mOte general in meorganization ofcJassrom o senings and the classroom communication as analyzed in several microsociological investigations. The failure of the classical methods of teaching can be interpreted as a manirestation of this classical principle's failure: l1lc: teacher knows and
2rhe break with the hdilionaJ aMI)'$is ofpen;eption can Ilso be b1iCed back 10 Witl�nsIcin (19S3), who probed the difference between sttfng IQ.f1:Ie\hiDg and �lIg it
Abn/IamJaI. I991, p. IS9).
QS
JOmethil!&,' (Bcducl I/.
276
BAUERSFElD
teacl1es the truth, using language as a representing object and means. Because there
is no simple ttansmission of meanings through language, the students al1 too often learn 10 say by routine what they are expected to say n i certain defined situations. Mostly they are left alone with their constructive acts of interpreting, undcrsumd ing. renecting.and n i tegrating. Thekey issues, thai: is, whats i beyond the techniques. the "structuring of the personal system's structures" (extending a word from Mehan� unsupported and u.ndiscussed; they are emerging in obscurity. The reproduction of the reaIil)' illusion. the belief in verbal transport of knowl edge and direct learning and teaching, still is a very common feature in the early school yearswith devastating consequences. Under the pressures from limited time, prescribed curricula. and external conlrOi, and driven by their own engage. ment. ambitions, and anxieties, the teachers are inclined 10 replace the necessary dealing with the students' subjectively constructed meanings with the convention alized exchange of symbols with poor takenasshared meanings and definitions. ''There is abundant anecdotal evidence lhat much of what happens in school is driven by a need to maintain bureaucratic and institutional nonns rather than scholarly norms" (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle. 1993, p. 193). In particular, the tcachets' internalized obigation l to maintain a smooth, productive, and steady flow of the classroom processes functions toward a curtailment of the negotiations and toward their replacement by routines for the direct production of wanted actions and related verbal descriptions. Too many teachers fall victim to therealilY illusion: "recitation" (Hoelku & Ahlbrand, 1969) and the "funnel pattern" (Bauersfeld, 1978, 1988), in which inslnlction dominates over interaction. The effects are well known; mathematics is not only the most hated school subject for many students, it is the most ineffective one as well.
THE REPRESENTATION ILLUSION: UlNGUAGE AS A MEDIUM BElWEEN PERSON AND WORW VERSUS SOCIAL CONVENTIONS Whereas the positivist sees Galileoas making discovcryfinallycoming up with the words which were needed 10 fit the world properly
. . . the Davdsonian sees him as i
having hi! upoo a tool which happened to woft bener for certain purposes than any
previous tool. (Rorty. 1989. p. 19)
Traditionally, classical linguists have treated language as an object, as a kind of an objectively existing medium between person and reality. The interpretation of language as a given object carries ideas of correspondeocel and representation. If lo.vidsoll ruc:ud specifICally 10 Rony·. c:ritique <_ the motto) of his �o;vhermce theory� aod die !claud notion of ��� (see Davidsoll.. 1990. cspc:ci_Uy the added puqraph. �After
Ihouglu. pp. 134137). H
8.
"tANGUAGE GAMES·
278
BAUERSFELD
1be discussion refers as well to r.echnica1 Janguages and their limited domains. Technical languages have been conSlJ'Ued as artificial means for use in the limited and reduced situations of technical worlds and other humanmade scnings. The price paid for their unequivocal denotations and logical relations are their high closed nature and ex.clusiveness and, especiaJly, the exorcising of metaphors and figurative use of words. The sharper these criteria arc made, the more difficuh access to !he introduction into the technical language becomes. Mathematics can serve as a paradigmatic case. It took a development of more than 2.()(X) years until Goedelcould point alsome fundamental difficulties and before a fundamental crisis shook the malbematical community (see Davis & Hersh, 1980): The closed descriptive systems are not selfsufficient; they inevitably rest on the richer natural language behind. There is no understanding and no access without the flex.ibility and metaphors of everyday languaging. lbe consequences from this perspective are farreaching: "Truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon \'ocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are trulhs" (Rony, 1989, p. 21). This includes mathematics and its truths as well, they appear as humanmade conventions. Compared with the traditional view, this alternative perspective clearly carries a dramatic shift, which Rony characterized as: "To drop the idea of languages as representations. and to be thoroughly Wingenslcinian in our approach 10 language would be '10 dedivinize the world'" (p. 21).
Consequences for Classroom Analyses If there is no chance for any direct derivation from either what you see to how to say it., or from what is said to what you are expected to see, then teaching will be in severe trouble. There is no simple pointing at something and naming it ade quately, because what is seen and recognized can be reasonably different with each of the students. Teachers often forget these differences by requesting "lust look at it!" as if an array of beads or sticks or any other didactic31 means such as signs, models, or embodiments were setfspealcing issues. 1bere is no directdeveloping insight from any kind of organized reality experiences in the classroom, because all of such new encounters are shaped and interpreted by the students' subjective domains of experience and related speci31 language games (Baumfeld, 1988, 1993). AI any stage the child is an infonned child as the teacher is an infonned expen. However, the individual "infonnedness" of the child can lead to con trafunctional or misleading constructions from the perspective of the teacher's alms. Because the individual focus ofattention putsa certain order over the continuous and chaotic flow of the sensations, our interpretation orthe sensual intakewhich is a drastic selection alreadyfunctions like throwing an organizing net over it and generates objects in the flow, supported and guided by learned language games. This process is a historical silUated, and persona) process, and by far i1 does not lead 311 people to the same reactions. Both sllxlents and leacher, therefore, have
s.
"LANGUAGE GAMES·
279
difficulty mutually understanding the other's utterances in the sense the speaker means il. To the extent that the teacher and srudenlS jointly develop and deepen a
specific and differentiated language game, based on takenassbared experiences, activities. and objects, there will be bener chances for a sufficient mutual under standing and an effective interaction. Assuming that there is a fit between language and world consequently leads 10 the possibili!y of discovery: Once you have the language means, you can discover something (in the sense of unveiling a hidden object) and can describe the propenies adequately. 1bere is no discovery unless the discoverer has welldevel
oped perspectives, in tennsofboth language and experienced imaginations ofwhat he or she: is going to hum for. or betlerof what he or she is going to make: an object. Discovering in Piagetian terms means assimilating the unknown 10 available interpretive structures, and, if necessary. accommodating these across the develop ing new experiences. thus generating new objects} (for the person).
THE ILLUSION ABOUT LEARNING RULES: DISCOVERY LEARNING AND
META COGNITION
VERSUS
NEGOTIATION OF MEANING The tenn ''\anguagegarlU"� is meant to bring into prominence !be fact IhaI lhe spMkitlg of language is part of an activity. orofa form of life. (Wittgerutein. 1974. § 23)
The classical understanding of school learning is as an acquiring of knowledge, supported by teaching, as a uansmission of (cultural) knowledge. In its most sophisticated forms, teaching followed Plato's midwife model: to help what is already n i the student's mind be born (see Struve & Voigt's (1988) microsociologi cal analysis of Plato's "Menon" and their related critique]. In more recent descrip lions, it appears as the organization of discovery learning (for a critique, see Bauersfeld, 1992b). However, knowing a rule does not imply the knowledge about when 10 use il; the same applies to a word and more general 10 knowledge itself. The growing awareness of the problems with leaching knowledge, then, has produced typical repair strategies in cognitive psychology: If knowledge rests on preknowledge, then a teacher wiIJ have 10 know what the child already knows. Consequently, this had been tried.. arriving at repair approaches or. in the: case of chances for the child 10 demonstrate his or her preknowledge. arriving at discovery learning issues. Funher. when learning something appeared 10 not
arranging
cover the needs, the rccommendation
for "learning of learning" as an adequale
1lQ is.perhaps. the most �ood 5bt�_ rqanling radie.l <:On$U\If;tivism (.Iohn$on. 1991). The �ob5erYcr/describef" does nO! KCMIUe any objective entity in the alemal world (as many critical COll1/Delll.l(or$ have wtacicaUy rema.te4). He or * indeed creIIIes whaI the W5(IO"I!:dling 0Il1$i1k" mcam forrum or bee. and 1M: is. by principle. the only � the de5aibcr his fOlhe object at all, and more tteMrally 10 the world.
280
BAUEASFELD
teaching had been given. Additionally, arriving at the insight that the adequale use of knowledge requires "knowledge about knowledge" has led to leaching ap proaches with procedumJ knowledge (Ho{stadteT, 1980; sec also Anderson, 1983), conceptual strategies. mClwowledge (Campione, Brown, & Connell. 1990; Weinert & KJuwe, 1986). and so on. Such a categorical framework seems to suffer from a typical lack offlex.ibility: The lreatmenlofissues as given object£, as knowledge, that is, the making an object of it
(Verdingfichung), obscures the nature of the related processes as currently
perfonned and as highly situationspecific accomplishments (Griffin &. Mehan,
1981; Mchan & Wood, 1975). The key dif'fcnmce is with the concept of knowledge as an object and the alternative interpretation of knowing as a current perfonning.
l back n i to the processproduci dichotomy; it is the This is not merely faling difference between the use of a product in a process versus the flexible fixation of meanings in the current flow of social interaction. We, therefore, avoid the notion of knowledge (lite concept is as weak as its relative infonnation), and prefer to speak of knowing or ways of knowing. From our perspective, the failure of the cognitive models and their repair s i
predictable, because me attempts for repair do remain in the range and limits of the same background philosophy. It was only recently that cognitive science repaired the learning model by accepting the specificity ofcomexrual conditions and speak ing of shared knowlt!dgt!. situaud learning, or situaJed action, thus beginning 10 integrate tbe social dimension (e.g., Norman, 1993; Resnick, Levine, & Teasley,
1991; see also Bauersfeld, 1993). Growing up in isolation, the actively constructing and creating human being neither develops personality nor arrives at language as we know it. Further. enculturation, ifviewed as the ruling force for the developmem ofpersonality (see Leont'ev's "activity theory" in Bauersfeld, 1992a), does not produce sufficient explanations for individual creativity and the pennanent change of societies (and their languaging). With this statement we are in accordance with French POSlSlrucruralist psychologists like Walkerdine (1988), who regarded "the individ ualsocial dualism . . . as a false dichotomy" and with Ernest's related recent critique (Ernest, 1993). but also with recenl issues from pragmatic linguistics (e.g., Davis & Taylor, 1990) and with Mead's social intcractionism. Considering the intimate interrelation between the individual
and the social
i terpreted as an observer's description of the leads to the concept ofculture, when n processual Sb'Ucture ofa social system. Two characteristics ofthe broad (and as for the rest vague) concept are of relevance:
I . The indirectness of learning through paniciplltion (becoming a member). 2. The pennanent constitution and change of the culture through the activities of the members, including the newcomers. For the following reasons the two characteristics are of imponance:
�GUAGE GAMES·
8.
281
I. Whatdoes itmean to become anactive memberofasocial group. and, especially, to participate in their discursive prnctice acceptably? As. it is with cultures, their members learn through participation. through iving l n i and withil This kind ofleaming appears as the subject's pemlancnt although mostly coven constructive effort toWard viability, in order to become accepted and to do things as they have to be done. Bruner (1991) KJentified his conccpI. of cultun: "as implicit and only semiconncted c knowl
edge ofthe world, from which, through negotiation. people arrive at satisfactory ways
ofacting in given contexts," and this he contraslCd with the "sll'UCtUl'alist perspective"
from which people derive particular behaviors to fit particular situations" (p. 90). The oftenused notions of culture as implicit knowledge (we woukl prefer 10 say implicitknowing, pointing at the subject's
on culture as "a set of interconnected rules,
momentary flexible production) or as a stock of themes (Luhmann. 1984; for the concept ofthemes seeVoigt. chap. 5, this volume) poinlat thesemostlyindirectlearning processes, which accompany all everyday activities, including languaging.
2. Acombined inlcractionistconsuuctivist view, on the other side, has to take into account reflexively the fundamental interrelation as well: both change mUlu
ally, the members and their culture. 1be everyday practices of the members reproduce or constirute the culture; without members there is no culturaJ process. However, members nOIonly livetheirculturethrough lheircreativilY and deviant inventions they actively contribute to develop and change it. Thus, culturesand
particularly the subculture of a specific mathematical classroomhave a history like members have their specific biographies. The experiencing of resistance and constraints from outsidethe radical con structivist notions for describing the subject's encounlers with the world (von
Glasersfe1d, 1991}necessitates more delailed analyses in order 10 understand the social nature of learningteaching processes, particularly the development of language games and their specificity to different mathematics classrooms. '"The mastery of knowledge and ski l l requires newcomers to move toward full partici pation in the sociocultural practice ofacommunity" (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29). The overestimationif nOI absolulenessof the social, on the other side, neces sitates correction as well, as recent further developments of activity theory demonstrate (e.g. Lektorsky. 1993, and many more articles in that periodical).
With this specialized (or reduced) understanding of the concept of culture we can speak of the cuJrure ola marhematical ckwroom. Again, how do teacher and students arrive at takenasshared ssues, i such as activities, objects, language games, and social
regularities? With an answer we could then laCk1e questions like: Whal characteristics distinguish classrom o cultures n i which mathematica1 learning and personalilY devel aims, and what longteml effects with regard to students' mathematical leaming will emerge from different classroom cultures?
opment have served
our
From quite different investigations, answers to the first question poinl at:
Slarting with open tasks, that is, tasks that open the chance for students to employ and develop their own interpretations when engaging in the task (see Cobb, •
chap. 3.
this volume).
282 •
BAUERSFELD Wholeclass discussions. in which the teacher serves as a peer in languaging
and problem solvingorwhcn intervening in smallgroup activities (seeWood. chap. 6. lhis volume), Ample chances and space for students to demonslratc their own way of thinking, such as when in smallgroup activities. when working in pairs under the •
obligation to mutually explain eachothers' ideas and solutions, or in teacherguided wholeclass discussions (see Yackel, chap. 4, this volume). "People can help each other learn when they use their differences in a join! activity. Much schooling
n i
America has a contrasting focus. namely, finding reasons why each others' contri butions are inadequate" (Breda & McDermott, 1992, p. 35).
• An early introduction to the: practice of argumenting. not only as a preparation
for later mathematical proving, but also as a more general developing of rational discourse in the classroom. lhis would also serve as an adequate treatment ofevident reasons, ambiguities, and contradictions (see Krummheuer, chap. 7. this volume). •
Encouraging a flexible and multidimensional languaging, through casually
making an object of the languaging itself and panicularly through furthering figurative speech, such as metaphors and metonymies (see Bauersfeld &
'
Zawadowski, 1981: Pollio, Smith, & Pollio, 1990).
Issues common in these findings and analyses are cenain descriptions (thus drawing attention to meanwhile shared theoretical convictions among the authors) of: negotiation of meaning as a fundamental characteristic of the classroom discourse, from which takenasshared issues are constituted oremerge in terms of languaging and objects; arriving at mathematical practices such as social conven tions; and taking into account the necessary asymmetry ofclassroom discourse with the power on the teacher's side as a matter of principle. From an interactionist constructivist perspective, neg()(iation of meaning in social interaction functions as a staning point for the development of an effective language game, and is, from a longterm view, the only way for the adaptation and relative congruence of the
students' subjective constructions toward reliable shared elements in a consensual domain?
Consequences for Classroom Analyses From the alternative perspective, experimenting with more sophisticated ways of teacherstudent interactions appears to be necessary in order to provide bener chances for the emergence of more sensibility and differentiated reflections of the �Pollio d aI. (t99O) poinw:l at the neglect. "that cognitive psychology has o:k.aIt with figurative Jang� 115 lui; mportaD! than li!erallanguagc largety becaWIC ofIIl1 implicit bias towards rationalistic i philosophy and bee"'$!" of an unwillingJlC5S to o:k.aI with issues or ambiguity, novelty, �Il!y, IUId
contc:u" (p.141). 71n oilier to I.votd mlsundcmandings, it mlglt be n� 10 suue b::re that the previous isting l should no! be taken as complete or represeNati..e or as I� condition ror suct:eSS, nor do we claim uclllSiveness or a.bsoluit; truth ror the offered thcomicai background. The inlcnlcfionisleollSll1Ktivist position CI.Il be only ODe among ocher competing pcn;pectives.
8.
"lANGUAGE GAMES·
283
own experiences, and especially 10 provide for 8 related enrichment of the class
room culture:. No wonder, therc:fOf"C, thai with the spreading awareness ofthc object
illusion there is a growing awareness of the
necessity
to complement instruction
by discussing issues and even negotiating meaning in the classroom discourse (see Greeno, 1991; Resnick. 1989; Schoenfeld. 19871), Putnam. Lampert, and Peterson
(1990) stressed "1he imponance of talking about mathematics," demanding ihal o should provide ample opportunities for students to verbalize their "classroms thinking and to converse about mathematical ideas and procedures" (p. 138). The
practice of mathematics education is changing accordingly, albeit slowly. At least
there: is much more experimenting and invcstigating than before. However. because most ofthese recent recommendations still have their backup in theoretica1 models
from cognitive sciencenow extending their bases intosociopsychologicaJ dimen
sionsthey are made for fostering understanding. improving the use of embodi
ments, leaching problemsolving strategies (meiaknowledge), and so on. "Verbal
discourse constitules an important means of revealing individual knowledge"
(Putnam, Lampen, & Pelerson, 1990, p. 138). Indeed, but speaking of " more discussion" or of "negotiation of meaning" can Sland for quite different ideas and realizations in the classroom, according to the founding philosophy of the speaker or writer. What about the teacher's role? When language is (forthe subject) "an acti\'e molder of experience" rather than
"a passive mirror of reality" (Leary, 1990, p. 357) or an adequate representation of it, then the qualities of the culture a person lives in become critical. The tOlality of
everyday experiences forms the basis for the personal developmen[, interactively. and in all dimensions of the senses. This s i true not only with the eyecatching specialties of different cultures, but also with that what is not thematized or treated within that culture. From an observer's penpective. such missing qualities have no
chance ofbecoming takenasshared knowledge oreveryday use. unless an outsider invents the "new" issue. This is particularly true with Ianguaging. As Barthes (1980) said, "je ne puis jamais parlerqu'en ramassant ce qui traine dans la langue [Always I can speak only by picking up from what is lying around in language)"
(pp. 2021). Consequently, the function of the teacher becomes crucial. For too long education has neglccted the funclioning of imitative learning, which indeed
happens in every classroom as the most common fonn of learning in a culture (TomaseJlo, Kruger. & Ratner. 1993). As an agent of the embedding culture. the teacher functions as a peer with a special mission and power in the classroom culture. The teacher. therefore. has 10 take special care of the richness of the classrom o culturerich in offers. challenges. alternatives. and models. including
languaging. Coulmas (1992) discussed the following economic principle: "Speaken adapt their language 10 the realized needs" (p. 325); "They do nol invesl more energy than necessary in order 10 serve the actual communicative purposes" (p. 324).
'comm:nringon �soIuOOns 10 rni.\ed IICU of"�bme�ion5:'Schoenfeld(1987) P''e meccncral
m:ommc:�iOII: Di$CUSsing your solmion methods ....ith your fludc:nltdiKwsing ...·1Iy you chooIe the. � to njud problems thII you do. and compIring the mcthoik you chose with the me(1w;)ds
they chosemay be �mendolnly IIscrlll to them� (p. 29).
284 Consequently, what is Dol a functional pan in a culture cannot contribute to the developing of linguistic means with the members. If you cannot ru:ognize what you do not expect to see (no descriptive means availableno disposition for recognition), then you also do not see what is not in the focus of your attemion (no eye catching, no curiosity, no peculiarity, and no deviant experiencing). This is the
complement to the critique of discovery illusions: Poverty and emptiness are not the origin of diversity and differential refinement.
What emerges from the everyday practices in the mathematics classroom is not very different in its nature from the impactoreveryday life in our culture. and what SchUlZ (1975) described as the epoche of natural anilUde. II is just done, and it is usually taken (or grankd without refloc:tion. Both insights found a strong argument
fordcmanding: What is taken as natural at.school as well as the nonrenectcd effects
of the everyday practicesthe missing as well as the enacted parutequire the
most careful analyses for their functionality in relation 10 the goals of education.
ASPECfS OF CHIWREN'S IANGUAGING IN THE MATHEMATICAL CLASSROOM To be is 10 conmJI1icatc. (M. Baktllin. quoIed in LeklCnky & Enge.strOm. 1990. p. 1 1 ) If we had to identify common ground among the theories ofVygotsky, Piaget, and Bruner rtgarding the function and developmenl of language, the answer would be
lhe fundamenta1 influence of social inleraction. Even Chomsky's neglect of the development ofJanguage ha5through other researchers' critical pursuits and lheir followup srudies.given prominence 10 the role of context and to the social conditions. Because the inlere5t here is wilh consequences from converging and powerful lheoretical bases rather lhan with differences' among their foundations or distinguishing peculiarities. we add a few remarks onJy in complementing the preceding chapler. Children enler malhematics education at school with more or less weJldevel oped mother tongue languaging. What perspective on the world.
is new, then? Mathematics opens a new
The inlerest is no longer with properties like type of
malerial, use, color. importance, like and dislike, and so on. What counts is the answer to "how many?" Further, dealing willi the different "how many" issues (numbers) develops into an exceptionaJ situation (the math lesson) with speciaJ materials (representations), very speciaJ manipulations and signs (operations and number sentences), and a related special language game. II is a very strict game
'vy,oukY'$ po5i1.ion has beeA mIlr=! much
IDIR
c:.n:Mly ooer the WI: lew yan (ICe Kozulin. 1990; Moll. 1991; v. dcrVcer &: Vabifw;r. 1991). Abo, ill his \at yc.ars Snmerc\c.wedtlis ptupectiw:
($a: Bruner, 19&4; 1985: 1990; Bruner&: H»k, I987). Forr=laccowU ofPiql:t'swOlt._O.non.. 1992. and Wood, 1988.
8.
"LANGUAGE GAMES·
285
with strange rules aOOul whal is allowed and what is not, and the child'sanly access iolO this new subculture is active participanon. Linguists will agree that there is no language development without social interaction or personal construction of meaning. Hence, how does a child arrive at saying "Five!" and writing ') + 2 5" when exposed 10 a picture of three birds '
""
silling on a fence and two more birds approaching in the air? Because language is nOI simply ''the storehouse o(human knowledge" (Luria,
1979, p. 44), lhc students
have to build up a whole network ofviable activities beforesomcthingcan becalled
an object or s�\len or minus.
"In communicative encounters involving reference. however ritualized, one clement of the 'ceremony' is nol rued. 1be unknown is the referent to which ajoint
focus ofattention is 10 be achieved by the two participants" (Bruner. 1983. p. 122). This is especially difficult for beginners in mathematics lessons, because no one can see "five." There are only (already convenlionalized) objects like birds. sticks, or beads. as well as related practices, Across sets ofchanging objects the child then
learns to point aI. one object after the other and say successively "one, two, lhrce, . . ." The imitation ofbo!h sounds and acting leads to !he genenllion of!hecounting practice, later elicilCd by: "Find out how many." Thus. a possible answer is !he emergence of regulations across the interaction on both levels; as conventions on !he social level. and as a routines and habilUal interpretations on the individual
level. A oncIOOne correspondence is not given by nature. For many children. this is not an easy achievement During a research project
in a Gennan school, a boy late in fll'Sl grade seemed to produce number sentences quite haphazardly, such as "3 + 2 4," "4 + I '" 3," and so on. Sitting aside wi!h '"
him for some rehearsal, it became clear !hat hejust m i itated the finger tapping and
recited the first number words. bo!h fainy fast. He had not reaJized !hat he nceded to keep a onetoone cOlTCSpondence between finger and number word. Preschoolers do produce a lot of different interpretations when asked to com ment on a picture. a certain array of rods or blocks. or other representations (Bauersfeld. 1995: Radatz 1990). It is the teacher's continuous insisting on certain standard descriptions that relatively soon forces the child into a narrowing adapta tion of these originally open varieties to the expected standard utterances and
takenassharcd intcrpretations. The repetition of !he desired words by !he teacher and whole class (often like a Tibetan pmycr mill). and the relaled negative sanctioning even of minor aberrations in talking or manipulating. have a strong selecting power over the children's productions. Certain problems arise wi!h the structuring of the internal processes: How does a child learn 10 correct an inadequate habit of constructing meaning? Teachers can easily correct the products, but there is no direct access to the individual (internal) processes of constructing. Thus, on the surface of the official classroom commu
nication, everything can be said and presented acceptably, bul the hidden strategies ofconstructing may lead the child astray in olhcr siNations or in the face of even minor variations. Relatively speaking, the only way oul is to maintain a classrom o culture in which students get as many chances as possible 10 prcsenl lhcir kIeas and inferences. nol
286
BAUERSFELD
only by verbally commenting (for many children Ihis would be very difficull), but also by acting them out in actions and demonstnltions. The opening for such multidimensional ways of negotiating of meaning, as favored by interactionislS. demands a peculiar awareness and attention from the leaCher for two reasons:
I . Most of what a child learns is done so indirectly. The effects emerge across the child's active panJcipation in the cullure. Simple causoeffcci analyses have no chance ofmaking these processes sufficiently transparenL Although there is 00 doubt that the �her has an important peer function in these processes. it is nOI only through his or her verbal production. 2. 'The children's pre and nonverbal development is much richer. as recent research studies with very yoong babies have shown (Bauersfeld, 1993), "Certain communicative functions or intentions are well in place before the child has mastered the Connal language for expressing them linguistically" (Bruner. 1990. p. 71). With good reason, Sicgal (1991) warned against oVCfCStimating the cffects of official classroom talk and against intcrpretations of children's vcrbally presented knowledgc that appear too casy: "Children's dcvclopmcnt is better characterized by development towards a conscious accessibility of implicit knowlcdgc rather than a simple lack of conceptual knowledge or coherence at different stages" (p. 133). Related to figurative means in languaging Pollio ct aI. (1990) criticized Piagct, who held that an utterance is figurative only if "it represents a deliberate and purposeful deviation from literal usagc based on a deep understanding and its ramiflcations."1bey developed a more functional view, accepting a figure as valid if it "serves a communicative purpose. either reOectedly or unreOectedJy" (p. 157). This is in accordance with our findings. Children combine verbal means from different language games as soon as the related domains of SUbjective experiences are in an activated stale simultaneously. Thus, their current language production combines what is at hand in the present state of mind in order to servc the perceived demands of the situation. In other words: "'The most significant mechanism for metaphoric construction seems to rest in our attempt to make the abstract world understandablc" (pollio et al.. 1990. p. 161).
Consequences for Classroom Analyses Following educational principles like "learning by doing" and "discovery learn ing," teachers try nOlto give away 100 much support and help. This tendency can limit thcir peer function in languaging to a minimum. ((be psychoanalytical practices ofC. R. Rogers are famous for not giving away the slightest hint, through the techniques of simply rephrasing the clicnt's utterance into another question.) By questioning and waiting. lhey expect the students to find their way by them selves and to arrivc at the wanted descriptions. In a given reality it would suffice to give space and freedom for activities in order to elicit students' exploring and
8.
"LANGUAGE GAMES·
287
discovering of nature or the prepared structures in socalled "structured malerial" for didactical purposes. The engaged active learner would then arriye at the truth, according to Newton's classical view of nature by answering the researcher's questions. Bul. ''The world does nOI speak. Only we do" (Rorty, 1989, p. 6).
Teaching and learning are intimately related issues; Sieinbring (J99J) spoke of
"coevolutionary processes" (p. 87). How will ianguaging in the classroom develop and differentiate if there is no peer and no model in function? Banhc$' (1980)
statement, "Always I can speak only by picking up from what is lying around in language" (pp. 2021). points at a crucial issue: Children pick up elements of languaging. imitate and fly them when communicating in similarsiluations, change the ascription of meaning according 10 the experienced reactions, and thus in time learn to fill these imitated elements with cenain takenasshared meanings specific to me situation. To function as a model does not mean that the teacher has 10 say everything by him or herself. Forvcry young children, Bruner (1983) described the "scaffolding" appro3Ch as a means fordeveloping languaging: Mothers introduce litt1e answer response games that lhe child enjoys and easily adopts. Soon, the child Lakes over the leading role and now plays the game with mother, but with changed roles. In o , the teacher may introduce a special charactera puppet, the elementary classrom a colored stone, something special that can be mo\'edwith a special function:
Whenever necessary, the teacher or the children can ask the "lesbut" whether a
clUTCn! utterance can be said "clearer," "in a more understandable way," "0 bit wittier" or more humorous, using "something similar" (metaphors), and so on.
lesbut's answers should somehow appear stereotyped as in, "Yes, but we can also say. . . . .. Once the children begin to take over the lesbut's role, the teacher can learn a 101. about the children's capacity for playing with language. In time. children
can learn thai an utterance is not "easier" or "more understandable" for everyone. In this way, a new field for negotiation can be opened. The means have the key function ofiuming the students' auention toward Janguoging itself, that is, toward
how things can be said. It should serve for enrichment and differentiation. rather than for simple corrections in a knowall manner. The consequences from this complicate the teacher's professional task: The child's acquiSition of language requires r3I more assistance from and interaction with caR:givcn. than Chomsky (and many others) had suspected. Language is acquirro not in the role orspc:ctator rul through use. Being "exposed" 10 a flow oflanguage i s 001 nearly as important as using it in the
Further, there
midst or "doing." (Brul'lCf,
1990, p. 70)
is no help from mathematics itself, that is, through rational
thinlcing or logical constraints, as teachers often assume. Mathematics docs not have selfexplaining power, nor does it have compelling inferences: for the learner there are only conventions. As Wingenstein (1974) put it "Am I less certain that this man is in pain than that twice two is four? . . . 'Mathematical certainlY' is not a psychological concept. The kind of cenainty is tbe kind of languagegame" (p. 224). This means that certainty arises with the social conventions ofusc. Thus, we
288
BAUERSFELD
have come back 10 social interaction and the culture of the classroom: "Look on the languagegame as the prinwry thing." (Wiagenstein. 1974, § 656).
REFERENCES AIIdtnoa, J. R. (1983), TlwQrdIi�c"ur o/copiliott. Cambridse, MAo: Harv.d UniYCm.y PR:s.s. � R. (1980), ucoft/Ld:JifJII /tNrill$'.'Jlt oflile ,/auroom New Yon:: Teacbt;rsCoI1eae Press. BIedo. E.. &: McDcnoou, R. P. (1992). Teae...... ,datina;.andlelmin" EdYCaJiotwJ Raftll'Clwr. 21(5). 3135. BI'III.ICf J. S. (1983). CItiId'J ,alk: Ltamillg 10 l.uUmguagt. Oxford, £n,land: Odonl University 1'It:s.J. Bruner. J. S. (1984). VYiolA::Y'S zone ofpro�imal developmellt The hidc!cIl a&e1lCl.a. IJ1 B. ROlOff &: J. V. WeNCh (Eds.). CIrJIdrt,,'J IMmiltl I" 1M t/lIU of proximal /kwloptMlIl (pp. 9397). 5&n Fnncivo: kl5&l::y.BIU. B IUlII:t. J. S. (1985). Yfiouky: A hUwrical and rorK:Cpluai pc:rs;p«tivc. In J. V. Wensel! (Ed.). CW/lIrt, ,olMlJUlicllliatt, tJNl coglli/Ion (pp. 2134). Cambrid&e. MA: Cambridae University f'R1iS. Bl\lnet. 1. S. (1990). Acu of_arJiIIg. The JlTllMJk",·HIVYtlrd 1«/lITU. Cambridae. MA.: lUrv&ld Univcnity �. Bnmc:r. J., &: Haste, H. (Eds.). (1981). MiWIIg IlfIUTM ,JUId'J cOlIS/noeli'm ofw world. london; Methuen. Campione. J. C.. Brown, A. L, &: Connell. M. L. (1990). MdlCOlllition: On the imporuncc: of undomtandip8 wllat )'O\l are doin&.ln R. I. 0wIcs&; B.. A. Silvcr(&ls.), The Imchin, and aulUUrg ofmlUhoMrit:alpmblllfl sohollt, (pp. 93114). HilIJdaJe, NJ: UWR:ooe ErlboIuIl1� ..
. •
.•
.•
s.
UNGUAGE GAMES·
289
d . ... 1t4dUt!, Cazdm. C. (1986). 0aIu00m disrourx. In M. C. WilU'DCk (&1.). HIJIIdbook. oj ,..,MfJ, (pp. 432462). New yon.:: MKmiIl•. CouImu. F. (1992). Oil \HrucJwtt >IIillkrSptPCJte£iM IIIrgcJuozjolot/I1CM SftuJW [The mess with
1"1\IlF: AsodolinpbtiewdyJ. Frmkfun: Sulrtamp.
I)nidlon, D. (1990). A wI.... UIOII ItI:ory ofmnh and knowledge. In A. M&lacfIooNsi:y (Ed.), Rtadillg Rurry (pp. 120138). 1..oI:Idoa Baa l BlackweU. Davis. H. G.. &: Taylor, T. J. CEdI,), (1990), klkji""" w.putiu. Lomon: Roudc:dgc. £>Ivi" P. J� &: Hen/I. R. (19RO). 1'III! � aptMflCL BosIon: Birthiufer. Durkin. K.. &. Shire. B. (EdJ.). (1991), &ulg1¥.I� ill mot�molics t""wtiDrt&MI�" rutd prvctkt. Mikon Ke)'MIl. En&1and: Open Univenily Pre5s. Erickson, P. (1986). QumtitIIiYe III£thodI in rae&rdI on tt:ac:hift&. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), H/JIIdbool. O/rtl«lf'C"
l..iR \IerIq.
F"1SdIu, H. R. (Ed.). ( 1 991). NdopofUU'M worit iIIf b,..,MpouWduUitik fA...,.......;· alhrory ill the foeus of crilique). HeiddbelJ: Carl ....uer. GarfUlkeI. H. (1967). StwJiu in tlluttNMfIIotJoIDn. Ellglewood ours. NJ: Prmtia;.Hall. Ganoa, A. F. (1992). Sodol iIlIupcrimI ",",1M 1k.·dlJfHl'Ol'of�t'OIId copililHt. HiII5dak. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum AAociaIu. Gofflllll\, E. (1914). FtuIM a.wl)'riJAoI tsstIJ 011 tk fH!lI1IilJUiotl ofuptritllCt. Cambridge, MA: HatVw Ullivasity Pnss. GreellO, J. G. (1991). NurmafClISe as Jilllaled knowing in I OOIICpl C lW dmu..in. Jo�malfor Rutarr:" itt MOllltlrllllics EducOlion. 12(3), 170218. Grimn, P & Mchan, H. (1981). SC'nte IIId ritulJ in dlSJlOOllt discotne. In f. CooInw (Ed.). Corn�rJt1tioNJJ routiM (pp. 18721]). The tu,ue: MouIon. Heritqe, l. (19S4). GtltfinklaM tlhtJ.otMl/wdDloO. Canilridge, EQaIand: Polily Press. HGtrnann. H. (1977). PtyeltolDglt tkr SprDl:1It [P,ychololD' or IanJul&eJ. Berlin: Springer. Hoctker, J., II. AhltnD4. W. p. (1969). The penislenc:e or� m:itlllion. A_riCWI EtJucofiON;JlRtStarr:" lmurllJl, 6(2), 145167. HofsudlU, D. R. (1980). G6dt/, Esclltr, &eh;All tltmoJ 80kktt braid. New yo.t.:: VinlqC BooIa;. Jobn5on. D. K. (l99\). RccllimltlJ re.ali1Y. A aitiqlE of Mltlln', nl mlOlOiY of the obJetvet. MtrholoKim. 5(9). 731. Koz:ulin. A. (1990). \y""uI:y) JU)'CItoIoO; A biOJrtJplty offtka.r. LondoII: �.,.WhuWw:af. KrutmJheucr. G. (1992). UrYIDI l1li1 �Formol�EJt_"'t tUIl' WtrokJiollinucM" Ltflllhtorit [Learn;nJ with rormatElo:tnCIIlS of an intenw:timi$C theory for k.mingl. Wcinheim. Gcnnany. .•
DeutschuSrudien VerIq. Lave, I., &; WenJa". E. (I99I). SinMJJtd 1«lI"1Iitt,; LtptimDU JWriplltroJ pGnicifJtJtiofL CaDtlridp:.
En&tand: CambridJe Universily Ptus.
Leary. D. E. (1990). Mt�1 in lire ItiJlOry
uk\or$ky. V.A. (199]). RemIrU on SOI!II: philosophjcal problems of aahily theory. MultidoopliNJl)' NnllJktrtrfor Activity Tlwory. 2(1). 48SO. l..cklORky. V. A &: En£eSll6m. Y. (1990). Mm'ity; � ,lkorin. IOItfltodofoD d probkms. OrIllldo. FL: filii M. DeubdL I..ermaa. S. (1992). The functioa of Iu\aIII&e in rwlic:ll COIUIrIICrivism: A VypskyID penpectiYe. LD W. Gea;lin & K. Graham (Bdl.). Pf"OC«du.,SO/llttSixttmm P/tI£ O>njtnllCt (Vol. II. pp. 4047). Dwbam: Uaivm;ityofNew Harnp5/Ilrc. l...IahmIm.n N. (1984). So::iDlt SYlltJrVGnuodr/J tiM,iJlilt_iItm TJrto.v ISociU ,,51'" 0UlIinc: ofa aenctal tbeory]. Frankfurt: Subtbmp. .•
290 Luria. A. R. (] 979). TM MIlliIg I O/IM mind: A PUJDrItl/QCCUWlf ufSovi" psycho/o8Y Cambridge, MA: HaNn UniYmity Pn:u. Maier, H .. & VO;II, J. (1991). Inlerpn:lalive Unlerricl!tsrorsc:hulIl. Ullftfsuclu"'BIt' UUII MafMmotihulltr"chl lloll:rp(!;t1vt: research Oil 1eachinl llllO kwning: inveRigalions in the nwhe maries cl.usroom1 (Vol. 17). Cologne: Aulis Verlag lkubner. Ma1ll\1ll&, H. R.. &. Van:1.t, F. J. (1980) • .wropoitsis 01Id cogniliotl: TM rtaliwtion of 1M In·iIIf. Dord=hI:. Netherlands: Reidel. Mehan, H &. Wood. H. (1975), The 1talityo/tlMofMlltodology. New York.: Wiley. Moll. L C. (1991). lrygol.riy4lld rtWauiOll; Insrrw:riotWlm,pJicGtiOtU anJappliallitNuofJ«iohiJlori.•
calpsycholoD New York.: Cambridge Univallily Pn:ss. NOftIW), D. (Ed.). (1993). SitUlkd acdon. Cognim" Sci"lu (Special issI)Ic , 17(1). PicIL G. (1987). Aris'ou�1 "Dt Anima. H Stuttptt: KIenCona. Pimm. D. (1987). S�aWt, mIlWmaIl'clllly: C�/il.HI in _,lwMIks dtJSsroof.flS londoa: Ro...lc:dgc &. Kcgan Paul. Pintrich. P. R.o Man:, R. W., &. Boyle, R. A. (1993). BeyOlld oold COII«pIu.u chulge; The role of motiv.ionlll �Iicf, and cbwoom cooleAlIllll fKlIn in tIr pl'llCloS C ofcona:pflW change. RniCIII of EdJ.ratiorwi Rartllrll. 63(2), 167199. Pollio, H. R., Smith, M. K.. &: Pollio. M. R. (1990). Figul'3live lang\la� and roglliliYC: p5)'ChoIogy. WngU"Rf ami C08m/i�f Procuus. .5(2), 141167. Pwwn. R. T LarqJen. M.. &' l'I:lCl$OII. P. L (I990). Allcmalivc:pcrspeaivt'$on knowing mathematics in elcmt1l!ary $Cboo�. In C. B. Cazdcn (Ed.), Rrdf.... ofn!toreh in fducmiflfl (Vol. 16. pp. 51I SO). Washington. DC: American Educalional Resean:h Associ.uion. � H. (1990). Wu klInnen sich SchlileT liNer Rechc:nopcl'3lioncn vtnlellm IS!�nts' lm agiJIaI:ions in arittunmc.al opetMionsj. MIlIMfflilliMM Unt,micllup,fU!J. JI(I). 31. Resnick., L 8. (1989). KfW",Vt8. /tlU'fling. amiins/rue/iOtl. HiIl5dale. NJ: UwmlCCErlt.umAs.soclatcs. Rank... L. Levine. J. M &:Teasley, S. O. (1991). Pu s p u li, ...s rlfI lltand coXnirimt. Washington. DC: .•
••
American
F'lycholoJical Aswcialioo.
Rony. R. (1989). Contin�lIC)'. iron),. amJ lo1.iJnriry. CanWidge. MA: Cambridp Univcni!y f'rnI;. Roth. G. (1992). Kognitioo: Die F.ntslChun� von BedeUlling im Gehim lCoenilion: The genesis of meanin� in the linin). In W. Krohn &. O. KOppeL'll (Eels.). Vit Enulthllllt; ....".. Orrillllt; ll . O�IiOll IUId BtlkulIUIg [The gC!leSi! of Ilrlkr. orpnlwion and meaning] (pp. 104133). Frankfu.n: ,_.
Schoenfeld. A. H. (Ed.). (1987). Cogniliw lc�nu amJMalMIIIlll ia ,ducQlio/l, Hills
Lawrcnoc ErlNurn Awxiates. SlCinbrina:, H. (1991). Ei� andere EpiSlcmologieder SchulmathcnWik�Kann del l..chrcr VOft seinen Schiikm lemen [A.no!het e�IOOIOiY of school �: Can lCachers leam from their itUdmts7] MrlIhtmaDcO Didoctica, 14(213). 6999. Struve. R &. Vai&:!. J. (1988). Die UncarimlWlClIe im "Meoon".Di.aloeA.naIyse lind Krilik auf dan Hillfe!'iJUnd von lnlCiUtionsanalysal des heutigen MalhemalikunICtrichts [The !eachin& episode in Pblo'$ dialogue Menon"�ArWysis md critiqUl: ba$ed on anatysea of lhe n i lCraction in reWl! rTWhematics cJuwoomsJ. Jow"",1for MdlMMalIMidotrjk, 9. 2592SS. Tomasello. M.. Ktupr, A. C., ok R.na. H. H. (I993). Cui!unIlwning. Btllm·jorul & Broitt SciefU:tI. .•
16(3), 49SSn..
van der Veer. R &: Valsiner. I. (1991). U"dmUJllding '1'lI"uky: A lfIlutf.".1)'trlrci:l. Oxford. F.nglmd: . •
Buil BI�U.
Varela. F. J. (1990). KognitWMWi:lstfl.K/tuftKo8"U/OfISItchllil ICogni!i>To sc:ir:nceCoani!ive !"y thoklgy). Frankf\ll'l: S�.
Ikligt.l. (1984). illltroJ:Jionsmluler IIIIdROlUiJInt im MalMmatWutttrricAl [PaucmsoriNaw:tioo aDd l'OUIinc:s in mMhclnllks ,burocms]. Wciahci.... OcrmanJ: Beltz VQ1q. yon Cil.,fdd, E. (1991). RodjrolCOfUITUCtWUm ill matlw_iutdvt::asiOtt. Dordrel:ht, NethettaDds: K1uwc:r AtldC"mic. •. Walkefdine. v. (19118). n... magic ofntuOlt.. London: R oode Wcinat, P. E., It. Kl�, It H. (1986). MtI«ogniti(Jft. motil'fl/iott. 0IId IUlNrstllfldillg. Hillsdale, NI: l.awreooe ErlNum �
Wltlgelllll, la L. (1m). TrOC/ll,..,. /ogiw·pIti/osopllicn Loadon: Routlcdp It. Kegan Paw. (OrigirW wortr.: published 192I)
Wlll&tlISIall, L. (1974). Plti/osopllicuJ j'I\"f'srigaJionJ. .. ·otk published 1945)
O1ford, England: Suil 8bckweU.
Wolff. C. (1962). PhilosopltiD primtl J� OttIOiogia. Hildcsheim. Gtnnany: 0I1!11.. (OriCinal 1l'OCt
published 1723)
Wood, D. (l988). HUM' t:lljldrtll lltillk Ulld Inlnt. Oxford. England: Basil Blackwell.
GLOSSARY
Abstract WIits oforre: A cognitive con·
AUlMrlry: The relationship CONtitutcd
slruel developed to aca!unt for young childrell's arithmetic activity. SQJdenls' abil ity 10 cnumtrale the units created while counting by putting up fingers indicates that lhcunilS areabstract in quaJity. Sec also Tm
between individuals establishing a power imbalance such thai: one member is viewed by au partidpants III more competent math ematically or socially. Mathematical and social authority do not necessarily coincide. As leamm oollabonlle. the type of power imbalance affects the realm ofdevelopmental possibilities. Seealso MathmtaJiaJItDdhoriry.
as a �rical
composiU, TDI (IS an abo .ffrDCl compoSik lIIIa.
....CX'DUlltabiliry: An underlying 3Swmp lion oftheinleflClionist approach maintain ing that each participanl of an interaction tries to dcmarutrate Ihc ralionality of his or her conttibution. In the process of acting, the individual is trying (0 indicate how his or her ldiOfl iS 8Ca1UIIlabJe. Sec also ...."... •
"""""
Accounli1lg prat:rices: Tt:c:hniques and methods U5Cd 10 help dcmonstnuc the ratio nalilY ofan .:tion or s11lemc:n1 while acting or speaking. See abo AIJUIIIt'ruarion.
AliumDllation: A primarily social proceu in which cooperating individuals uy 10 adjuSl lhcir interpretations and inltr actions by verbally presmting rationales for their actions. (b)Thc lCI:hniquesor methodl used to establish the validity or claim of 8 StalC:ment. During an argumentation. if one participant explains a �Iution. the implicit message is thltthe claim is valid. A IUCoec,. ful argumenlalion refurbishes a challenged claim illlo a consen5Urable or acceptable one for all participanLl. See also CoU�ctiw
arJwnctIolion..
� Reant of «ve/opmental possibiJiJin, Social aUlhoril)l. p�
&lance task: A format used to present arilhmetical laSks in the projed claHroom that depicu a pan balance with Kven!! i to fill in boxes. The task for the children s the empl)' boxes 50 !hat the sums on each side balance. In this book, the symbol "" is used tOKparatethetwo sides ofthebalance. Thus, the first two tasks in Fig. 2.1 (p. 20) IlIe denoted as "S, 9' ," and "10. _/17." BasisformawlMlictll oonununim/ion:
A synonym for consensual domain. Sec COfI.U!nsuol domI.Im. Coliabomliw alJWI'IDIIaIion: AtJpmIen tation that is interactively oonstiruted by several members of a group. The develop ment of the theoretical constructs and em piric:alanalysesreported inthis book can be called t:oll«tiw tUJlIIfICIion. II1I CllUction·based sOUuion: A cognitive
coostruct used to account for solution strat
egies in whicb lbe implicit metaphor ap
293
GLOSSARY
294 pears 10 be that of menially manipulating
labol1illUon only occur when the chik1ren
imagined collcctiolU. Collectionbased s0
make takenasshared interpretations of a
lutions typically involve partitioning two
wk andeach other's mathemaLicaJ activity.
digit numbers into a "tens pan" and a "ones
See also IrWinc, collaboration..
pan." See abo CoIUIIUlgba.red �olUlions. CollLc'i� ar§WMnla1Wn: A ptocess of
£1icililtUm patttrn (BaueJSfdd. 1999): A pallcm of dassroom disoourse in which
argumentation involving .several people who
the teacher uses questions to discern if stu
om conjointly engaged. See also Argumen
dents are following and 10 lead them to a
union.
desired solution method. In genel1illl, the
CollLct; lI;sm: A theoretical position thai emphasizes the n i fluence ofparticipaLion in social interadion and culturally organized activities on an individual's psychological development The collectivist position is eumpLified by theories developed both in the Vygotskian tradition and in thesociolin
guimc uadilion. In both cases, matheIlUlti cal 1eaming is viewed asprinwilya process
of enculturation. See also InmvidUlJlism.
COflSelUuai domain (Maturana &. Var
ela. 1980): The range ofunderstandings!hat
are taken as shared in the sense that each membcroflhe social group can producean acceplJllb e interpretation or act acceptably. COII.lructil'ism l (von Glasersfeld,
1987):
A theotecical perspective mat characterizes students as active developers of their own i ways of mathematical knowing. Learning s a process in which students organize their activit}' as they strive to achieve their goals. ColUllillgbasul solutio": A cognitive
COOSlrUCl used to characterize solutions thai. appear to involve the curtailment of count ing by ones. See also Co/Jectio,,·basM so
JuJiOll. CultulY!: Theobserver's desaiplionofa social system, or the participants' implicit
process can be characterized as foDowing three phases: teacher asks openended questions and then begins to give dues, srudents begin to guess what the teacher is looking for (and teacher may oblige
by
giving panial amwen), and teacher reviews what students should have ieal"md. £thrwtnt"thodology (Mchan &
Wood,
1915): A srudy ofthepattemsofintenactioo that emerge in a classrom o , such as the famous triadic "elicilalionreactionevalua
tion" pancm. Thisapproach is related 10 the interactionist perspective. which focuseson the role!. obligations, and expectations of the panicipants and how they are implicitly negotiated. ExpUmaJiOft: A rationale that is offered volunwily. Although this concept is fre quently used as a synonym foraIJW7Il'"ta tion. i t is used here i n contrast to jUJrijicaliofl, which refers 10 the attempt to aplicate one's thinking when challenged by other participants.
Framing:
The schcmatized interpreta
tion of a social evenl or object. Framing emerges by prncesses of cognitive mutin iulion and inleraClivc standardization. 'The concept refen to the cognitive constitution of meaning whereby an individual tries 10
knowledge of social practices within the
creale a meaning for a situation.
culture. Learning is mainly seen as the cog
HabilUJ: A gencl1illlive mechanism en abling a teacher or studentto act adequately
nitive process that leads to competent mem bership in the culture, Direct coUaboratio": A sociological consuuaused to chatactcrize an n i teraction in which smallgrouppartners e;ll;plicitly co ordinale their attempts to solve a taSk. In general. interactions involving direct col
as a member ofthe classroom culture, even in situations never before e;ll;perienced. The concept o{h&hilus links theindividualto !he social dimeruions of the classroom culture.
The individual's habitus is formed by his or ber participation in social practice. The in
GLOSSARY dividual can leam 10 participate adequately
295
and to actin accont with catain regularities without being explicitly taught and without
autonomous learneras he Of she participates in social inter.lCtion, This position is exem· plified by neo.Piagetian theories that view
knowing wnal the regularities are. See also
social interaction as a
Social MP'II'U.
conflicts that facililalC OIberwise autono
H iddm Cflrriculuttl: TIle ulterior or im· plicit goal of a teacher or instructional de
sautee
of cognitive
moos cognitive development. See also Col·
lectivism.
signer. Eumples in the experimental
Inquiry mathematics microcullun: A
classrom o included the development ofin·
classroom cullUre in which eJ;pianations
Idlecrualandsodalautonomy(Kamii, 1985),
and justirlQtions can;' the significaoce of
rela!ional beliefs aboutmalhemalics (Skemp, 1976). and I4SIt involvement nlther lhan ego involvement as a form of motivation (Nicholls, 1983).
Hwulmb board: A IObyIO grid Ia·
beled 110 on the top row, proceeding
acting on mathematical objects. See also School mathematics microcuIJurr. Intersubjectivi/y: A mutual or takenas· shared undcrstanding of an object or event achieved through the social process of ne· gotialion
(as
opposed to solely individual
through 91100 on the bottom row.
""j.
lIlusuHI ofcompelmce(Gregg, 1992): A siwation in which a teacher and student
Linguistic processes that are spedaJ to each
lAnguage gamflS (Wittgenstein. 1974);
developa solution togethtt, with the SNdent
classrom. o When the teacher and Sludents
following the teacher's directives, See also
negotiate laken·asshared meanings and
Elicitationpat/em, RUlIm ofdevelopmenral possbili i ties. lmage·inMpculent SO(UliOfl: A cogni tive construct used 10 characterize solutions
signs, they are immersed in language
games. Through language gamt5, the indio viduals produce objects whose exislCnce depends on the signifying language game.
that do /lOt appear to involve a reliance 011
Mo/hmra/ical au/horiry: A sociological
siwationspocilic imagery. See Imagesup
construct describing the role of one small·
ported solu/ion.
group partner who has beenjudged by both
lmagtlsupported solution: A cognitive construct used 10 characterize solution strat egies thai appear 10 n i voh'e a reliance on situation.specific imagery (such as refer
pannef5 to be the more mathematically
compeletll one in a working relationship. See also Unwocol explanation..
Mu(riVOC(li explanalicn: A sociological
ring Iodimes ina money problem). Seealso
construct that characterizes small.group in·
lmalleiJulepcuknl solUlion..
teractions in which a conflict in interpreta
Indirrc/ collaboration: A sociological
C0f\5tJ\laused 10 chamcterlzea smallgroup intenlCtiOll in which one Of both children think aloud while solving a ouk indepen·
dently. Although neither child is obliged 10 listen 10 the OIher. the way n i which they frequently capitalize on the other's com·
tions has become apparent and both children insist that their own �ning is
COlI recL In general, multivocal explanations
arc constiluted when both ch ildren attempt'
10 Bdvance their perspectives by explicating their own thinking and cnallenging thai of the panner. Sec also Univocal exp/anation.
menl5 indicates thll lO some extent they arc
Negotiation of me oning: 1be inter.Jdive
moniloring wnat the partner is saying and
accomplishment of inlersubjeclivily. In
doing. See also Diner collaboralion.
principle, objects of the classroom dis·
Individualism: A theoretical position
that focuses on the ac:tivity o(the individual.
cwrse areplurisemantic. and it is typical of
the teachinglearning situation lnat the
teacher constructs meanings (or the objects
296 !hat differ from tIaosc \XJC\JlIUCtCd by !he studenu. 1btscfore. the pIfticlplfllS have 10 rqotiate meaning in Ofder 10 .nve " .. takcnlObeshaRd meaninJ. From 1M per lpectiye. malhemalical muning is 001 taken II exi5ling indcpcndewy (JOm !he Kti. individuals and from their 11IlCtIC tioc, but is viewocl u ICCOn1PiJhcd l in !he covl'Ieof social inlcnction. See .Iso TaknI: � ......
Nomu: Criteria of values INI are illler actively romtituled in clas5mom i nterac lions. BaKd on !he pllticlpanlS' claims and goaIJ, lheytmet)C through incenctioru and become taken as shand.. Panitiorlin, al,orlIlun: A compu.. tional SlntCJY in which .. number b sepa rated Into unitary conceptual entities. For example., panitionillJ 39 1010 30 and 9 in•Iead of 3 and 9. In this way, JO is viewed as an IiIlStruclUfed composite of onH. See abo (All«tibtl·boud loUmott.
PfJlf�msofilUlfOCOOIf; Aregularity lhIl is inlenctively COII5tiWled by the lcacher and lhe studern. II is constituled tum by tum without fM"T'I'rily being intended or realized by the participants.. When lhe 1*" ticipanu constitute .. regularity � the c». saver deicribcJ as a palIem of loter.ction. they lII'CI stabiUung .. (Tliile pnx:eu 0( meanin, ncpllion. The inc;tivlcklll!" n.& itUI enables him or her to participale smoothly in the tonititution of . paucm or inlefaCtion. DepcndiIlJ on specirlC iDlet ests, the observer can r«OfIStrucl diff�DI patterns. For example, the formal of quo meJlUllion is .. pallem of inunction lbll delcribea the accompJishQ'lCftI of a con ;ointl)' ICCCptlble atJWnCf1lalion under !.he condition of .. framilll diffemu. Sec abo � palum ojinuntttiOft. Rmlm ofthwlopflwt\Jll1pouibi1irifl: A conwuc.t !hal delincata the liw.led con c,,""a! advanca that a dliid makes when participaing in ItI inltcaction $UCh IS that in whlch an !duh inltrvenes 10 support his or hct malhemal.ical activity, In contnlSC 10 VyJOUky'1 zone of prodmal devclopmcnl
GLOSSARY (whldl l. rollCtillcd with what a child can do ....Ith adult support), a child's realm of developmenla.l posII'bilitics Iddreues the way in whkh a child', conceptions and interpcwionJ evolvc IS he or &he is inra· doa with the diit. Rqluive (uira, 1980): A "wpury of socla1 rdllionsbip5 in which ICCOUnu and scainp muruilly dlborate eacb other, TWo thiJlp or �n an: rdlcxivdy �1atcd if either', existence dc:palds on the other, Re, f1r:xive n:llliorWrips mentiona:l in this book incllMk: the iWdents' roathemalieal activity a.nd the social n:lationships they e5tab Iished. the rdation between the quality of a studenl'. explaowioa and the JOdal dtua· tion In wMch it is dcveklpcd, the rrlatioo bcl:wccn mahcmalical themes and individ· uaI contributions. Ind mpatna in 1eamifIJ Ind qumentatlon. Scltool IftDtittmDtia ,..icroc"",,�: A
classrom o c:ulrure in which explanation! involve JpCdfying Insuucrions fOl" manipu. laina symbols that do 1101 necessari l y sla' nify anythin. beyond lhcm.selves, See also InqtUrj mDllw!mahl:S miaocwuur.
Sitwaliott for uplaNllk1n: A discussion tha( is intelXtively conKirulcd by the par. ticipants sudI Ihal someone is requited 10 inrtrprct .. cxplanation dill i, offenld. Sodal aldhoritl: A social con5truct de
tcribi"l the role ofone $II\IIJOU I� P partner in a �Iatiomhip in which this chikl,cner' ally controls the way in which the panncn intenet. See also JlDllw!tNJtictJJ aMlltorlly, Social in U T O C ti Qt .. : The mutually depen· n i a utuadon. This process cnables taken·..·.harc:d mcanircs 10 be negotiated. Set also paJ· untS ofinteractiort.
dent .:tiON of pattidpants
SodoJ 1IOmII': Classroom nom\I !hat in volve CIlIIverDJns dc:taibinr: how to mI!& ora with Olhcn. md obtipDons dclcribinJ how 10 Ieac:t sociI.Dy 10 a mi".c SocioIrwhoNuicai 1\Omlt: Clauroom I'IOl'ITJS that involve the evaluation of in·
GLOSSARY ai&h«ful50luOOnaoc mathenuticaly l ciegIf1t explanations andIfJUmctlWions. Although the tc:achc:r can be vie'NCd u .ep.escnling the institution of school, educational claims. and the discipline of malhernatics, the constituted norms depend on the uudenu' understanding, attitudes, willing neu, and 10 on.
StripsQNJ·squares IlJSk: A fOrmal used to present arithmetic tasks with pictu� of single squares IIld strips containing 10 �Ita. In this boot, the symbol 'T' is used to symbolize a pictuRd strip. and ..... 10 symbolize a pk:rured squ.e.
Symbolic I"teroc,/o,,;sm (Blumer, 1969): The theoretical poRtion thai. mean· inl dcYCklps out ofinlcrKlion and interpre talion between membeni of I culwre. Taltn tJS Jluutd (Strecek • Sandwich,
1979); Understood (Ill \cut to the utan of common U5llge) by all memben ofa culture
(e.g� a classrom o ) through muwal negotil tion. Through ncgodlltion of me3Jling, the p.nicipants constitute taken·a$·shared meaninas, although they do not ncccuarily "share kDowkdge.... The paiN s i that the nd i iyklua! concepciollII haye become com· patible 50 Ihat the n i dividuals interacl u if !hey ascribe the same mc:anings 10 objects, eYCn if the observer can reconSUUCI differ· ent subjcr;tiye meanings. Sometimes called r.Jkm to H JMrrd. Sec also NI!BolillliOfi D/
mtJtMmaJictJi mI!tJIIi"8. Tel tJS (I �ricol compositl!' AQ)&nl dve construct used 10 char.cteriu a ltudent's view of 1m U I compo5ite or 10 ones, as oppe l'd to onesingle entily orunit often.
297 an
abUrtXf composi1l! 1IIIil: A cognitiYe constNCt uied to ctt.n.cterim I slUdent', view 0( len as a 'ingle entity or unit composed of 10 ones.
Tm tJS
TItDftotic pclturn of inUmclion: A pat tern of inter.JCtion in which participanu in teracti...ely constitute I theme as I matter of routioe. Sec Ilso P�nu o/inumction. 1'?Je.onI!'. Thc ,ituational relltionship � tweal meanings that m taken 10 be ihartd by the teacher and students, The accom plishment of a theme Iii", 5lIbililY and offers a situational context for undenWld· ing individual ronuibutions. Based on 1 working con5I:2\SU$. the theme is I product of the negotiation of meaning. UfJivoad uplMaJiDn.· A sociological constnlct used 10 characterize small·group intcnctions betweea a pair or RudeNI in which one child judges lhat the partner ei ther does neil undenllnd or has made a mistake, and pr0cecd5 10 aplain his Of her solution while the partner remairu I pwive limnet. Thc term is used 10 emphasize that one child's penpectiyc becomes dominant. See aIso Mo,horwltiC'tIJ twthority. Mulz;vo cal uplolialion. Wo'*u., r:onst!1ISUS' A tentatiye Zlgree menl aexomplished by negotiation in social interaction. It Is seen as modus vivmdi rather than I content·related congruence of meaning In the teacltingleam.ing process, . 1 ....otking COiUCtISUS is atmnely provi. sional and rragHe. The tentative IgtClCmetlt appean as a working interim becwcea more dd iiCICIin the n i t.efJRUlion or lell oven diff ofthr: sinwion andfor objects.
REFERENCES 8aucRfdd, H. (1988). lakrxtioil. c:omtnKtion, and tnowledpA1tcnaiw pcnpcdi_ for nwbCI maliQ edI.Ieation. 1/1 O. A. GfOUWI & T. J. Cooney (Eda.), Prnpmfws "" rrsaud 011 �Kfh'fl _�_ics'ftKlIiII,. RUI!fII'dI .IIda/ortfllltNMIIlicJ rdWlII1ctr � I . P9 2146). Relton, VA; NaDouJ. CoLa:il 01 � 01 MM..IIeIllllies aDd La• • C IIQ; Erfbum "'''';''' BIIIITIU, H. (I%9). Syrrobolk (Ne�""iIroc Pm:pn:�""'4_1IIod. � Oitra. NJ; Prentice·
H.tl.
298
GLOSSARY
Qqg. J. (1992). � at:(;oJtIUaliOft l1{" �gillltin, lUg/! sclwo/ mlBufllla lli �Qclttr ;"/O W $chooi
malMmatics Imdfliort. Ullpllblishcd doctonII dilKnation. Pl:rdur. Univ.:nity, WeA LafayetlC. IN. Kamii. C. (1985). Yowsg dUldrrll rt'mWJU arit"lic: /mplictJliom of Pi4�"s l/wary. New 'tOft: Teacher', CoI1qe Pras. LeilCr, K. (1980).,4 pri=r on 'f�lIlodoioD New York: Qxfon:l Univ.:rsity I're$$. M.uurDn.t, H. R.o &. Varela. F. J. (1980). NdopiVJis rwi cognifiott: The lNIilDti«I c! lite 1"iIIg. t:>onIrechl, Ndherlaodll: Reidcl. Mt:han, H . . &: Wood. H. (1975). The reoJ;ryoftllvwtMdwdolog,. New yort: Wiley. Nil:hol4, J. G. (19&3). Conceptions ofability and achievt:m::nt malivalion: A!IJ:ory and its m i plicalions M. foreduc.ation. 1n S. G. Pari$, G. Olson, &. W. H.Stevenson (Eds.). uarnitlg eutd mo/ivtJliOtl ill IN classroom (pp. 21 1237), Hillsdale. NJ: Uwtt:lte l Eo1baum Associates. Skemp. R. R. (1976). Relati(XIal understanding and illWVlIlCIItal lI!Idcntuldinj;. M"'htwulrical TtfKhUtJl. 77.
17. Strccck.. J.. &: Sandwich. L. (1979). Good for you. Zur pragrnatischcn and konventioneUen analyse von Bewatungcn im instiluhOllClkp Diskurs doer SchuJe. In J. Dittman (Ed.). A�iltll ZJl.r klJllVtrWlfotU AnalySt (pp. 23S2S1). TIlbingcn. Germany: Nicmeye:... VOl! Glascn.rdd. E. (1981). l.caming as • IXlIImuctiYe lIdivity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Probkm.! of rrpftstlllOIion In lht It'och;n8 and kaming of mmhlmaJ!cs (pp. 318). HiIIscbJe, NJ: Lawrence Erlballm Associatc:5. WiugellSlCin, L (1974). Obtr c;"..·jjJhtilIOn cataintyJ. OJford, Engl.md: Basil Black_II.
Author Index
A
BfI'M .. .. ". ... G 2. U Brown. Aq 2ll. 2lL. 2l!D. 2M Brown, 1. S . 2. 4, /4 Bnlllef, 1. S U.14. 122. 127, IA1.. 16/, L6.1 199.230, 250,2.54. ;MB. lll , m mm,28I, 284. &216. 281. 2BI! Bussi, M. B 2. 14 .•
Abrabanun.. A m 2IUI. ••
. .
Ahlbrud. w. P . 276, 189 Ainley, I . 219, 226 Anoiersoa, J. R.. 2BO. 2IUI. Atkinson. P.• J6. 127 Anewell. P., m m 264 Axel, E., .t J.4
B Bakhuru. D�!l. 14 s.bcbeff. N., 2. U. Ill'1. 127 Ball, D. L l1L 161, 204. 22tI Bames. 0., 26.. /27, U1 161 Banhes. R.o 2.&l. l81. 2M BNeSOII, O IlS, 161, 198. /99 Bauersfcld. H.. I, 2. &. 2. 14. :n. 1 1.0. 112. 127. lJl. L61. !..66. /99. ltl. ZllL 2J6. 2J&. 261. 261. 261. Z6!. m 276. 278, m m 282. :w. 286. 2M. 294.2'0 Bechtel, W. m 2M .•
••
.
BcD, No, 6. IS Bc:1lKk. A. A. ZZ2. 2M BeITTllldel.. T 1. 16 Bcmsu:in, R.I.• 8. '4 Billig. M., 36. u.o. 121 J27. ll1. 2M
.
.•
.•
c Campione, J. c.. 280.. Z&! Carpenter, T. P.• 2. 14, l.2. 2J. 204, 226 c...m./a, D.• 2. t. 14 , IS �. T.. 2, .4. /4 Caukn. C. � 127, 21L 2lI:9. Oiwg. C. P 2. 14, 204. 2Z6 CicoIRI, A•• 17), /99 an. c. M.. III127 Cobb, P" 2, 3, 6, 9. 1.0.14, 17. I&. li.:ro, 22. 2l. U.26. 28. 29, 30. 31, 38. 40. J.m. 124.127.119, llL l.3l. 1.Ji. 1)5, 139.l.4.\. 146, L41. 148.lSO. .•
151.152.1.56./61.162.165.167. 168, 169,112. m188 189,190, 193. I.R I�, L96, 199,201,200. 2{)4, 208, 211, 213, 216, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232,233,2)4,236. 240.
,.
Bishop. 11 2. 14 Blumer. H..2, /4, � 161, 1.66. 174, 199, 297. .•
291
Bogdan,Rn 36, 129 Boyle, R, II., 276, 2.2Q Bmio. Ii, 2&2, 2M.
�!0�
Cole, M . 2 .
, 128. 204,
ill
Collins, A., 2, � 14 Coftfrq, J" 2. U. 18. U 2.6.. 129, 2.!lZ. l1d
Omncll.M,L,2 80,288 CouImas, F" m 2B2
299
300
AUTHOR INDEX
Cou/1hard, R., 206. m
"
o
DaYid&m, D., 276, In. 2&2 Davidloll. N � III o.yj� H. G• 280 ,289 . 211. Davia, P. J" J, 6, 14, 278, 2.!!! Davydov. V. v.,.4. 15 [)r,wt, S" � L2Z DeaziD. N. K..., 167, 199 DiJIon, 0" 204, ill Ooise., W.O 6, ll. 1.65. /99 DOrl1er, W" � 127 duBoilReymond, M" 1&4, 199 DuIUid. P.. 2, � U Iluftjn, K,,271,l89 ••
E Edwuds. D.• 16$. 199 EiJenhItt. M. A•• 2, Jj Elaa, J.• 229. 268 Eapu6m. y, 214. 28!l Eli'*, F.• E. Il7. L66. /99, Z1L 289
E'n\est, P D!). 2M .•
F FaiL 0•• 17&,199
FWI, K. T" 274. ZM1
FmMma, fl.,
2. U, 204, lUi
FlIChc:r, H...&.. 275. 2n, Z1l9.
Flora. P.• J21. 119 FoIlcsdal, 0" 229, 2M Forman. E. A � U, � 111. 127 ••
G Gale, J" J1. m G.mntel, H.. 11!6. 113.200.2)7,13&.266, 212.289 Garton. A. F.• 214. Zlli Oearbut. M.• 2.019, 26iI: oWer. B. 0.. 36. I.lB. GoffllWl, E., 169, l1l. 200. 249, 252. 268. m ,.. Good, T. L, 2.6. 128 (joodlad J., 208. ZZfi Gooya. z.. � 12& Greeno, J, G,. 2. !.1.. m 28j Grea:. J., 2. !l. I.'5S, 161, 195, Z1!! GriffiD. P.• 2, � iol1.. 21. III. 12&. 204, l1L 280,289 G\lbmnIP. S. It. 249. Z6:2
Ikideqer. M., 2Mo22li Herifa&e, I" m. 2Bi
Henb. R., 1, 6, 14, 278, 289
Hiebert, J., 204. 226 Hoctlu:r. J" 276. 2lW. Hofstadtcr, D. R .2 802 89 H�H..m.:Mi HUIlIaII, P. G 2, U .•
Hyman, g, T" 212,288
inhdcla, B., D1.. ZtI&
J 10hns0ft. D. K.. 212. ZB2 JoMsoo. M.• �67, 121.128 Junpirtb. H.. 1M!. 200
K iCamii, C, � 22. � lll. 161. 295, 2M Kaput, 1. J., 121, 118 �i1, E C,m,l68
Klein. W m 2l&. 26&. Klid:wd, H. M,272. 288 KJuwe, R. H.. m 291 Koch. L. C, 131l(jl .. ... c bmldt. ).. 232, 234. 239. 2M Kopp Koadia, A� 123,12lt. 284. 289 .•
Krup. A. C. 2&l. Z5!Q KrunmilNer, G" 1.11. 14. 1.1. 1.1. lIl1l� UL L66. 169. 1.12.. 1.16, In.199. 200, lOt 232. 249. 2SO. 252. 261. 26l. �Z64. 269. n1. m 2Sl. za2 l
a..biIxrtozic: , E., 'l!IL 22ti. 1...aUI� I.. :u..128, � ZOO I...ampM. M., 2. 11.. :u.. IZB. l1l.. 161. 204. 226. l&l. ""
� J.. 2.��U. � !M. 128, m m Leary. D. E.• 2T1, 2&l. 2M: l..ebmoM 8.6.. 2.31.2)8.269
AUTHOR INOEX Wcr. K.. m. 161. 1M. 11). l1l. 192, 200. m 2& 296, 2ilIt
LAIOrSky. V. A.. 2lL 284. 21I!l
Lcoal·rI. A. N., �i. !1. 111. 124 Letman. 5.• m ztt LevU.:. J. M. • no. Hl2 UII. 0. • � 1211 UMI. M. c.. I.O.l. UJ Loaf. 101.. 2. 14.204, ZZ6 I..IIcu, T� 173.2SO.26i' l.u""'. N., 116.. 200. 21l. ill 21I!l l..uria, A. R.. 273. 2as. 2211
M •• Ill. 200. 12L 292 MJia'. M MIn. R. w.. 276. W tu. H. R.. 6. l1. 275. m. m 291, 2ilIt M..c. ... . M .. 2:6.. 1.16. � R. P.. 2S2. 2M McNeal. B� 1., 1. 6. 14. U. I ll.Ill. LSO. lll.
161. 166.100 M cfbail .L25.127
M ....G .. H 1 66200 Mc:hM, H.. l, IS. Ill. /28, 1.66. 200. 2.lB. Z62. m mm m 294. 21II!l Mcrccr. N.. 1M. 19'9
Merkel. 0" 19. 24.225. 117 Millet. 101,, 2]2, 262, 261!. MiAick.N..4. 11 MlslIkr, E. G.. 2&.1l! Moll. L c.. 2I4 • .NIl MOIet. J. M .. li..ll MIlCh, N. C. 2, IS Mvpy. 0.. 6. IS. LM. /99 MWlcf. K.. 250. 2M MaIry... c..26. 128 Marray. H.. ll1. l26. 12&. U1. 161 Marray. J. c.. 2, U
N Ned\. A.. 117.200 Nt>. 0.• ».123 Nc wf ..W. N.. l1. J.2! NewlMt. D.. l.�� l1. � 111. 123, 204. ill Nic:IdIs, J. G.. 22. M,, 195, m Nodditlp,N., l6, at204.1!1L.Z2Z � D.• 280. W Nunes, T.. 2. 11
o OIbitdllsTJIeca, L, 2ll. ll6. m 2S9. 26i
OIiorir:c, A.l..l.l1
301 p PaliacAr, 1\.. 22l. 227 Pwd ..... u.. �. Z6i �IIIIM, c.. ll1. 2J6. m 2S9, Z6i
Pam. J. P 6. IS .•
�.aaiUont. A. N•• 6.IS � P. 1... 2, 14, lO4, � m 292
PiqE:l, J., 108. at Zl1.. ZM. 2M PicIIl. 0.. m. 2iIl: Pimm, D,,27IW Pinttic:h, R. P . 176. Z5lQ Pollio, H. R.. 282. 116.. 2sn Pollio, M. R� 2S2. ZI6.. 2211 .
PBwIIl. It. :w.. l2Z Pnsrnc:" N. c.. � 128 Puuwn. H.. L 15 PuawD. R. T.• zn 2211 A R..o.tt. H.. lIS. 22Q �. H. Ii.. :w... 2211 Re$aict. L B.. 2BO. 2tl. 2211 Riehafds. J.. 1 M. 17, J.!. U 28. JO. 2i,11, 126. 129. Ll1.161, 219. 2fIi ROJOff, B 4. & 101, 111. 112, 128 Rony. R.• &. 16.112. 276. m. m. 217. 2M Ro8cJu/Ii1Ie. B.. m l2Z .•
Roth. G m m. lS!Q .•
s Sandwidt. L. zm.11l. m. Zi! Sau, G. B.. 2, 4, 7. IA l2L 128, 1 96.zoo. lA9.
m Set..k R. c.. 2SO, 2fIi SdWr_. A. 0.. 2, � Ij SdIoaIrdd. A.1i.2, 6. l6. zn lS!Q Sd ... .. d cr. T.. ZLI28 Seblltt, A.. L66. In. m. ZOO, 2SO. Z62. 214. ,., Sait.cr. S.. !l. 16 Sflrd. A..40,1 19 S hi mj z lIy26. 119 S'. B.. llL lBi Sbweder. R. A.. 2. U step!. M., 2J1. Z62. 216. 2211
SiI¥CI'. £. A.. 11.24 Siaclair. l..U,l2Z SKmp. R. It. 22. 24. 29'. m. Smith., B., 2:6, 129 Smidt, P. L, m.Z&8 Smidt. M. K.. 212. 2!16. 292 S6Il. B.. 114. /9'9 Sob. Y.. .t 1 � L6.S.. ZOO
. .. ,
302
AUTHOA INDEX
Steffe. L P., 17, L2. 20, U 22. 30. 38, 124. I.2.l m 249, 2fi!I. Stcinbring. H.. 166. 169.200. m 25n Stemen. H.. I.1t 199 5!e�ru:, R., Z01. 211
SIJaUU. A.. L, :H!..ll8. SlfeeCk, J., lOS. 227.197, Z98.
S�. H.. 236. 262
Savve, R� m 22Q Stubbs. M 223. ill .•
Wa1Ioe. L, 229, 2(18 �. D., 204, 226 Webb. N . M.. � � J29 WdJe r. R . • �m Wcinen. F. E� 2.8Il. 291 WeIlgCl". E.. i. .1 ll.2!l. I.O.S.. 128, 2&l. 2B2 Weruch, J. V l2.l 129 Whe.ky. G" 17, H.11..40. 127. 169. /99 Wiegel. H. Go, 124. 1l5..129 WiggeT, L., 234, 26!l Wilson, T. .•
W_
T Taylor. S. J� J6. /29 Taylor, T. 1 21L. 2.80.. 289:
Wiltz, R. W., L2..Z4 WlngcoSlcil1, L, � 2IlL ill m 253, 262.
Mf. n2. m m 2T7.212.2B1.
.•
Teasley,S. D 280. 290 Thompson. P.. 2. 16, 18, U40. 129 Todd, F..26. 127, J31161
2 1182IJ129S228
.•
TomaylloM 283290
Toulmin. S,' 232, 23S. � 239. 241. 242. 243. 244, 247.249,252.263,269
TreITas, A L2...ll .•
TrcvaMen. C 2OS, :UZ TymoczkD, T., 164.200 .•
v ""siner. J., III. Jll. Jl.l. m 284, 22Q Vin de. \'ca, R., 111. l22. Ul. 129. 284, 22Q V_I.. F. J., m 'In. Wo 294,298. Voigt. J., ], 3, R.!l 14, 16, 2.&. 1.02. 129. LH.
""
I
... 2.58. 26l. 261. Z68. 21J. 212. 218.
279.281.290.291 Wiling. P. L, m 262 YOII GJasersrcld, E.. I, 8. l6. 11. 18, 1.2.. 2l.. 22JO. 38, /29, IJS. 161. 2m. Z11. 249, 269.281.191.294.298 Vygouky, L S,,! LA Ill. Il2. 129
Wolff, c.. Z1l. 29/ Wood. D., 284. 29/ Wood. H.. 2, /5. 1Z2.ll1i2l8. 16:2. 212. 280.. 291").294.228 Wood. T� 2. 3,6, ill 14, ]8, 22, 23.H.:z6. n. llU. lDoL Ul.. Lll. 127. 129, IlL Lll. 134.]39.]47. ]48. l.5O.. ill. ]56, /61. 162. 173. 181. 193. 196, 198. ZQL 203. 204. 208. 213. 216. :uo. 225. Z& ZlL 229. 230. 233, 2SS, 282 y YKkeI. E.. 2. 3. 6, lQ. 14. Is' 22. 23, H,:z6. 21.
29.103,104.107. II)!, 110, 125. 12 7 ,/ 2 9.III 133.134.]39,147, 148. 1..SO.. l.5l. 1S6, 161. 162. l1D. 173. l1Z. 188. m L96. ZDl.203. 204.208, 211.2\3.216.2M. 22l. 229. 230. 233. 234, m 240, 261, 26l. 2M'. 282 Yan&. M. T.L. l I6 z
w
bwadowski. W., 282. 2NJ.
Walkc:niinc. V S. M. 280. 291 .•
Subject Index
• AbIltIcc OMIpOSite IIIlill of1m. 11. 3&41 AbIuw:!: ...ib of one, I.!.lO. 311)9 ALwt ....w.nenu, . 2110: � .ecountabIe. 231_239 acc:ounlinl pnakto. mill Acdvicy dIeory, IU TbeomicaI pei$pCXIi_
"'
.ddiriOll, 21)",214 __.rd alpithm. 2lJ .. , pri M'll aI&oritlwn. ill
AmbiJllil�. I(:IJ. :w .... iIli . oo. 9: A....
AlpIn. 232. 234llS. 2A1. lS&. 282; _lila> f'rarRaa ''1 '. , . .. . .. , anaI)1ic. 2M. 240. 2Al244. 247, 2SI. 261262
2612 67
db. 240241. m 247. 266
e.pIMMory relevance or, 262 f!tld dcpcndmcy, 249151
•
29.256. 251. 261 analysis <Jl. 229
analytic, 235116
qume .. j zj n l. 11. 261 coIlIbonIi�. lD: «llledi'lf.. l32, 2A1. 249. 2n�, 261262. 2601. 2fi1 cullIR or, 2fil ctt.uopajlyl 01, 230
tom.J Iosk of, 246241 fOI'TIIIII 01. 32. 2'3. 25l2SS, 257. 2S9, 261262. 266 � ",ymof,m 247.264 ;.... ..,,",1Il. 15 1 imqI: inclepclllblt. 2!i I inrOlTllll locic of, 2ll. 2AO. 247 IaYOUlo{,241 IIIIIPllical. Ik II
� inI«a:1iu4. 231 luNwlII.., 21'5237 219=240. 262 IIw:oQo of,lll IOJIO$. u, Topc&
n .. 1te qrtU. 251
fCRe of. 262 formal �id.WooI of, 266
rom.ny valid. m. 263, 261
Ii'amiIIJ JpeCirlc Mlevince. 262
fulldional MII)'IiI of, 266 iII� 240 a.Y'OU' of, m. 264 1 · ....
• Bene'l
iaMnuneDIaI, 17
lmtbcmaIkal. 1I::19' Audo:!u' bdieli � roIet. 22 C
• nrial, 162
....atnIIt. 240244, 247. 151, 262
303
304
SUBJECT INDEX
aa. ditc:usaioa .ypitalparImUI QI ia&enction. M.ill clepellIkn. 1llliu. 1 ....luppont:d . IIIIiu. NI.IlIW:riaI eompoIite llllill" of 1m. PM_bole fdMillDl � dim!. 107lell indi� 1011. 126 .nh true peen.. 116 CoUabonrivedi,!ope. 'l'_1TI Co�tollllioft, 404), 119.193 Collcc:livism. l6. m Communic:al.ioft. 2OS. '" IlUo Tlllr:en as � Conotptual R'S!nCU,riD" 1 1 1120. III I4&"" Contc� 00cuan.l6. 217, 2Jl: I« IIlsG ConC . � .. _ _ •
�
wortiar;iMcrira. 2nU3, 2S5.16226l.
266267 OIn$Uvaivi5l1l, .u ThnRticIl pellJICClOO
Coate,.t, US
Couatinr;baicd .olution. 1Q4l. 189 Cukur&1 lOOk, 1'».124 Cuk� 252. ?M..1JI 21}284 epodilt olllMWal MtiNlie. 2&4 of== �1Il, 2ll C) bu .. tia, a. o """""'" acDmic. 1 1 1 e¥l:f)day. I I I ..1d of. UO r Il10de 01. llQ IN"",' m ImOI' of. L10 E
� p,::np«bYc., 1« 'IlIcornkal penpoe.
 �, _ ThromQl �u F
FomIotII. 1S4, 2SI. 266; S� .... ArpmaIurioa Pt.niaa. 24252. 2SS, 23. 26;\=264, l61. 2n; ue rMn Arpme:n! ik pc: ....... 261262. 26'. 266261 diffu ....... :Z!iI25J. 2$S. 261. 1Q 265,., ..... ,.. Ioock p¢l" " 1 . 262
1Crip:.249 WOItirIr; or:I: "'IIS. I« ConIe!>sus G
GooI. ...... '" 1eadliDJ. 216
HiOOen eurriculwn. 22
III.... of"".,.._. US 1m."ntpmdro _...... )9....41. lIS IN l .,."ppr1ed Ubi .... J9.....f1. 118 193 40. )'. Imft&IeI llldirid"·!j·m 1. 67 1nq.I.iJy !nllhelllllict. 1t\4....106
InlUXtioa
.naIyDJ of. 240 c:�23l.262 formIt of, 26t I*tef'II$ of, '" i'wa:'Q ofiMnXtioa � I« �ca1 perspeaiva
1nImlIbjc:ai¥ity. L l1.:.ll. UJ2. 111. 1ll.llB. ..
N.,
unallpoup
•
10\106
as IOcial evenlJ, 21::2!
wb;of,� IlltuitioftiJm. l
"led.,.,. c.lIpio:i(:aIdIeoie6cll .... of, 2.l6. L Lanpillp pmr:s.
1...aquaci" II m
Ll. m. 277219
Lcamil.ll 19S.l.5I
elM00111 204 mMhemMicaJ. 261, 264, 261
opporraonitiQ fa, � '......Ij(l, 19S ....... ,..
SUBJECT INDEX Ibeory of Umial lmlhmlllic&. :ill Irbm5 wdt(ure wodd), 2S2
Loc.suTopof
MIIhmIIlkaI llIIborily, 4J Mcmma, 134115: sn tIbo �pxiltioa of
....,...
M«apD:lr, st.f TIten _ 1Iwm Microeullure
acoDmpliWnmlof, 1161111 Mic:�y, m MuIt.IYocaI e� n. 1(11
N NcplCiatioa of m::anillj:, I. I Ji. 266. 282283, 2lI6
alllbiluily nl llll� 161169 IlIMhmutial. 166169 Iakmumd _inp, InI1'; IU abo TIkm lI ib1m1 N�Piql:l:i1ll penpecDYC, SI' 'I'hfoMicaI per
N_ classroom IlIIIhan.ricaI pnaica. 1. � ...
pair eoDlbonliOll bOtIIl\, 216 _amM;'" 0(, 21» n>IItira. 206. lIlIIIl1fOV9 norms, �
IOciaI nom5, 2223. 108109, 1.26.. 133
IlUm,211 tociomMhelllllical DIII'IllI, !1. I.M. 196. 198199 NotIdoaIl JC:,uIIritJet" W Num::ricaI COi I ... . ; I ' lIIIill oflen. I.L 1YI Nllm::ric:aI siamflclnce. lM. Lll. Lll IBl
305 direct lIII"" Ilhe "bMion pMtcrn. laSl87
4ilcv.ssi0ll (IIltcrn, 1811804 cliciulion pil1Ctll, 178IBi, IS. fulllld p.llCR. 213, 219, 176 lhemlric pII!mIS oI. l2.. 1761711 184192
IYpial pMlCms. 2til:
f'iIFti.n pcnpcnivc, st.I l'IIc
"PlMoni. IU 1beoIeticaI peRpecDva Power, n 101; su fJJsl) Taken II dIamt PsychokJsY, IU also 1'heoorttiI:II perspectives folk psycboIocy, 13. 2lO. 2J6. 261, 262 R
Radical rotI5tnIdivPm. su 'l'hcomkaI puop«"RafioQal diseour5e. '" Dhc:olne, rmo.w RatioMJity, 237_238. 246 Reality iIIU5ion. 13,2 ]3. ..2 76 Realm of dewlopnElIlaI pogibilities. 22.. 1.82.. ...
Reflexive diacuuionI. 126. Rclkxive rtbtionslU� � IIId lumioa. 264, 261
COIIIUI and.mons, U6. 2l8. 211 coote.. aad naeanitIa., m il'ldividuai llld IIIXW penpecti. 161 leamilll and inlt:rvtioa, 192 IIIIIlh Ktimy UK! c!awuom microtllhl.lR: 9
to IIIIIlh actiwy IIId social JC:��. � lIumeric:a1 pM1Cft15 UK! 5lUIknu' nlt: i rpmII tlOIlJ. 111\22 psydlOlosicai and 1IOdoloJic:al p n:x:es.. ..
1 1 1 . 258 RcfleJc.iYilY. 135136. 266 Rep:.... . ... iOll. 116. 284285
Rhdoric:.ll.131.249 s
o 00J«u, Z1J. 2M
arithmetic", II Zi.11, 104.10'1
cqc:ricntifll1y o:eaI_ al Orientilla. 225 p Plir eoIbbcnDon IOciaI DOtfIII for, 216
leIICtPa ps. 116
hrt..hoIc rtlMlON, 1YJ PM"'"" ofitlUnctioa, 12. J2. l.66.. 178184
205,108113,253,272
Scaffoldiq. 2!1
Sm..K:.! fure�n. 150151 Social authority .4J Social iMCnc6oo, 169172 •
Social aamI. SU Nonm
Sodoeuhunl puspeaiVl'. IN � per lpectiva SocioIUloricaI pm;pectiw, It, 'J'heomjeaI perSoc:ioIin,.,itrico. st.I TIeomic:Il peupcQi.a � COIIIUUCtI. 4 1.... 43. .,also � IIIIticaI Nhority, MIliliVOCll apla fYDoa, Social lIIthorily.lhIiwoeal e�pIJIIIliOll
.. ,.
306
SUBJECT INDEX
Subtna .., 213 k1ioW ... ,u Thcumleal perSymbolic i,*, 
SyraboIX .... . "• • � ,; ... � '" T
�.oddo'IY. l. lllDl. ll1D9. 2"6, ]j(), 266, In ._ ;.. ;. ..... 164167. 231. m.2n. m 214. 211
__�67
Pi• .. 101110. 112 '
TMca .".td
11. 2627.19, .... .... . bmI for ..IOJ. 107109. 2m cAprrir. 219 ia� 29, 42. 6761,10, 2M ..... ,.,  '"
1UIbe.ical pnaicr. I l l. 211 tuW",w., JUIiIy. 11M, UJ
1'IaIoM.. '" poyc.......pi 110 rwtkaI �'l12. 279
� l ll llIl. l22.l21 ICldotiIttwbl 9
todgIi."ri
H
iOC� 7IO
l)'IIIboIic .. """""Im, 1. &. I), 123124 � "5, 111124
___ a. 1), 276. 211
n.o.
.. .. u O in piaic &1. 110  '"
Topoc. 249, 255. 2512161. 264. 266
__ ...... 16.. 91. III
power inlnpldMion. 4)
IOIWOII tIrlIIf:O. ll, 19. 101 Tudlin.. 2O'l
.. . ,; � · .. Qf. ll.2OJ ._ . foaWq pIIIlmI iA. 219220
rJ � ill. 21),219,'", .. ... � of' ..no. ;'lenai..., c:oIlec.uve .mwilJ. 204 q« Ri COIIUI J. 210. 219
btiOll in. 12. 12S. 211
1nIIIJ'� of, 20)
114
Topol. _ TOpOl u
v
\lmliaPdwo" 2:10 V)"IO'WiM pcnplGi.e. .u ThoDit:1ic:at pc:npoe
w
nc.114 uohDoll 01, 192196
1Mwaiul � .nirity Iboofy. ..." 2:10
" qr..ain.., 11 11. 1ll124.2t.4, 266. nJ27'. 211
..... 1221204
eI _
z