Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anne R. Teppo. Qualitative Research Methods in Mathematics Education PDF
Anne R. Teppo. Qualitative Research Methods in Mathematics Education PDF
Anne R. Teppo. Qualitative Research Methods in Mathematics Education PDF
Journal
inesearch
Mathematics
Education
Qualitative
Research Methods
in
Mathematics Education
Monograph Number 9
edited by
Anne R. Teppo
MontanaState University-Bozeman
Authors .................................................... iv
Acknowledgments.. ........... ........................... v
Abstract .................................................... vi
Chapter1 Diverse Ways of Knowing
Anne R. Teppo .................................. 1
Chapter2 Towarda Definition for Research
Susan Pirie . . ....................... 17
Chapter3 The EpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearchin
MathematicsEducation:A PostmodernPerspective
Paul Ernest ...................................22
Chapter4 ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving Through
Task-BasedInterviews
GeraldA. Goldin ............................... 40
Chapter5 Phenomenography:Exploringthe Roots of Numeracy
Dagmar Neuman ............................... 63
Chapter6 WorkingTowardsa Design for QualitativeResearch
Susan Pirie ...................................79
Chapter7 Studyingthe ClassroomNegotiation of Meaning:
ComplementaryAccounts Methodology
David J. Clarke ................................98
Chapter8 The Centralityof the Researcher:Rigor in a
ConstructivistInquiryinto MathematicsTeaching
Barbara Jaworski ............................ 112
Chapter9 Using a Computerin Synthesis of QualitativeData
JudithMousley, Peter Sullivan,and Andrew Waywood . 128
Chapter10 Using Researchas a Stimulusfor Learning
Beatriz S. D'Ambrosio .... .............. 144
Chapter11 Where Do We Go From Here?
Susan Pirie .................................. 156
References .................................... ....... 164
iii
Authors
JudithMousley
Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Education
Deakin University
Geelong, Victoria, 3217, Australia
iv
Acknowledgments
v
Abstract
vi
1
Chapter 1
Anne R. Teppo
QUALITATIVERESEARCH
learning as it occurs within the social contexts of the classroom. The develop-
ment of individualmeaning and the developmentof social meaningare taken as
being reflexively related in that neither can exist independentlyof the other.
Individual"constructionsare seen to occur as students participatein and con-
tributeto the practicesof the local community"(p. 185).
Researchmethods of educationalpsychology and cognitive science have also
been employed in mathematicseducation.The information-processingmodel of
humancognition used by cognitive psychologists in the 1960s and 1970s is now
recognized as inadequatefor capturingthe "complexity and richness of mathe-
matical activity" (Greer, 1996, p. 181). Recent focus on detailed studies of the
cognitive processes of individualsengaged in the performanceof everydaymath-
ematics (as opposed to academicmathematicaltasks) reflects a change in educa-
tional psychology's perspectiveon the study of the mind to one of situatedcog-
nition. Mind is regardedas an aspect of a given person-environmentinteraction.
Research from this perspective focuses on problems arising in the course of
everyday activities in which an individual's social and physical interactions
define the object of research(Bredo, 1994).
The precedingdiscussiontouches only briefly on the rangeof perspectivesand
relatedresearchmethodologiesthatis currentlybeing employed in mathematics-
education research. The disciplinary perspectives of sociology, anthropology,
and cognitive science and the theoreticalframeworkof constructivismpresent
multiple vantage points from which to launch inquiry into the complexity and
messiness of the classroom. In spite of this diversity, a common theme running
acrossthe differentperspectivesis the increasingimportancebeing given to local
context as the determinantof researchdesign. When the contributionsavailable
from each perspective are considered, the issue should not be which point of
view is better but which one is most useful and appropriatefor the problem at
hand. "Claimsthat [a particular]perspectivecapturesthe essence of people and
communities should be rejected for pragmaticjustifications that consider the
contextualrelevance and usefulness of a perspective"(Cobb, 1994, p. 13).
The wide range of frameworksof inquiry available for qualitativeresearch
reflects the diversity of the disciplines that have developed the various method-
ologies. Employing the techniques of a particularpoint of view involves more
than simply adoptinga set of researchpractices.Underlyingeach set are funda-
mental differencesin how one views the world, how the objects of study fit into
this view, and how knowledge about these objects can be acquired. Doing
researchalso means understandingthe underlyingways of thinkingimplicit in a
given perspective(Steffe & Wiegel, 1996).
look like? What role should research play in education? (Donmoyer, 1996;
Fenstermacher& Richardson,1994; Lester,Kehle, & Birgisson, 1996). The exis-
tence of a proliferationof approachescan be viewed as daunting.Alternatively,
it can be taken as a sign that the field of educationalresearchis alive and well.
If we adopt the latter view, then dialogue and informed critique are needed to
maintainthe field's health in the face of diversity. (Goldin, Chapter4 this vol-
ume, presents an example of how the explicitation of methodology facilitates
dialogue.) Differences in points of view can be used as a mechanism for
progress.
It is by the very processof "misunderstanding"others-that is, interpretingtheir
claims and beliefs in slightlydifferenttermsthanthey do themselves-thatthe
processof communication actuallymovesforwardto new understandings. ... We
needto be similarenoughto makedialoguepossible,butwe alsoneedto be differ-
entenoughto makeit worthwhile. (Burbules& Rice, 1991,p. 409)
However, given the currentdiversityof perspectivesand competingparadigms
in educationalresearch,consensus may not always be possible. The process of
debateis worthwhileonly to the extent thatthose engaged undergosome change
in opinion-at the least, enablingthose who disagree to gain greaterinsight into
their own positions. What is importantis to encourage "healthy confusion"
(Fenstermacher& Richardson, 1994, p. 54)-to engage in open discussion; to
allow new and interesting, along with old, voices to be heard; and to make
explicit one's assumptionsabout one's research and related educationalgoals.
"Thereare as many worlds as ways to describe them" (Eisner, 1993, p. 6), and
we should celebrate the multiplicity of voices ratherthan seek synthesis into a
single perspective.
Disciplinary Perspective
The context of inquiryis made up of a complex web in which our underlying
beliefs are carriedout within the local dynamicsof a particularinvestigation.Not
only is the individual situatedwithin a given researchsetting, he or she is also
situatedwithin a particularepistemological,cultural,and genderedframeworkof
beliefs and values that both facilitate and constrainhow we perceive the world
and what we select for study within it.
Eisner (1993), using an historical perspective, illustrateshow particularper-
ceptions can influence the framingand examinationof educationalpractice.
Howwe answerthequestionof whetherhistoryis thetexthistorians writeorthepast
historianswriteaboutis crucialto ourownviewof whathistoryis and,therefore,to
whatis relevantfor helpingstudentsunderstand it. If historyis text,thentext must
continueto be centralto the teachingof history:To understand historyone has to
understand text.Butif historyis thepastaboutwhichhistorians write,thenanyform
of representationthatsheds light on the past is relevant,indeeda useful,way to
understand history.(p. 9)
6 Diverse Waysof Knowing
ChapterPerspectives
To understandthe contributionsthatthe authorsmake,it is importantto place the
informationreportedin each chapterinto its properperspective.A useful analyti-
cal frameworkfor readingthe chaptersincludesidentifyingthe specific goals of the
researchandthe assumptionsthatunderlieeach work,the objectsof studyandtheir
situatedcontexts,the natureof the primarydatacollected, the unit of analysisand
the type of understandingsoughtby the analysis,and the applicabilityof the find-
ings to educationalpractice.The following comparisonsillustratehow this frame-
work can illuminatethe diverseperspectivesof the reportedresearchmethods.
Goldin and Neuman provide contrastingpurposes of researchand objects of
study within similarcontexts. Both researchersuse clinical interviews involving
carefully constructed mathematicaltasks. Although the primary data in each
study consist of children's observed behavior,the objects of study are very dif-
ferent. Neuman's findings are framed in terms of descriptionsof the variations
in the ways that childrenexperience a given mathematicalphenomenon,where-
as Goldin's findings relate to the growth of children's complex, internalrepre-
sentationalcapabilities. Each chapterpresents a different aspect of a complete
clinical study-Goldin discusses principles of interview design, and Neuman
focuses on how a phenomenonis experiencedand depictedin a model and on cri-
teria for establishingthe reliabilityand validity of this model.
The researchof Pirie, Clarke,and Jaworskiillustratethe ways in which choic-
es of methodology and analysis are drivenby the natureof the researchquestion
and the underlyingtheoreticalperspective.The primarydata in all three studies
were collected in classrooms, yet the objects of each study and the goals of
research were different. Pirie audiotapedthe conversationsof small groups of
studentsto develop a theoryexplaininghow classroomdiscussion facilitates stu-
dents' mathematicalunderstanding.Clarkeused videotapesof classroomlessons
and students' interpretationsof episodes in these tapes to investigate how the
process of "comingto know"was developed by classroomparticipants.Jaworski
used an ethnographicapproachto collect data centeredon teachers' interactions
with studentsto characterizean investigative approachto teaching.
The chaptersby Jawarskiand by Mousley, Sullivan, and Waywood illustrate
the subjective, interpretivenatureof qualitativeanalysis. Using descriptionsof
her interpretationprocesses, Jaworskihelps the readerunderstandthe meanings
14 Diverse Waysof Knowing
concrete instances that "suggest, evoke, and illustrate" situations that exist
beyond the immediatecontext of each study. The specifics of the differenttech-
niques also serve as exemplars, and through a look at the particularsof the
research studies reportedhere, qualitativeresearchmethodology is illuminated
more generallyby this monograph.
It is recommendedthat this book be regardedas a whole. Insteadof providing
discrete descriptions of research techniques that can be taken separately, the
chapters, taken together, enrich the reader's understandingof each individual
contribution.Comparingand contrastingthe reportedinformationnot only com-
plement and extend one's understandingbut provide new windows on the field
of mathematicseducation. The chapters also show a glimpse of the power of
qualitativemethods, developed in other human sciences fields and modified to
fit new needs, to uncoverhithertoinaccessible,but importantaspects of the com-
plex reality of mathematicsteaching and learning.
17
Chapter 2
Susan Pirie
be seduced by this history. Blind applicationof scientific methods will not nec-
essarily produceresearchresults of interest or value to the mathematicseduca-
tion community. Notions of representativity,replicability, and generalizability
are fundamentalto quantitativeresearchbut not necessarily to work in all areas
of mathematics-education.On the one hand, we cannot ignore the affective and
socially influentialdomains surroundingthe teachersand studentswe study. On
the other hand, we are not engaged solely in anthropologicalor sociological
study. Ourinterestslie in the realmof mathematicseducation,and we cannotdis-
regardthe influence and peculiarnatureof the subjectmatter,namely, the math-
ematics, on the teaching and learningthat concernus.
Teppo, in the introductionto this book, alludes to the numerousfields from
which mathematicseducationresearchhas in the past drawnits techniquesand
methods.It is rightthatwe shouldhave done so, but we need to be awarethatwe
are borrowingfrom anotherfield of concern and, if necessary, adaptand make
these methods more precisely our own. Diversity is essential as we seek the
emergenceof the discipline of mathematicseducation,andimaginationandinno-
vative approachesare needed as we attemptto explore the natureof the field
within which we work. Innovation,however, must not be at the expense of rigor;
a tension must be preservedbetween novelty and acceptability.If we are to have
externalcredibilityand if our researchis to be seen as of value to the largercom-
munity outside mathematicseducation, we need to begin to seriously consider
the closer definitionof researchacceptableto our own community.
As a preludeto this defining process, we need to articulatefor one anotherthe
ways in which we have come to adoptthe methodswe areindividuallyusing. We
need to clarify for the rest of our community the cultures from which we are
coming and to make explicit the perspectives from which we are viewing the
problems we tackle. We should not feel a need to define ourselves in terms
appropriateto some otherdiscipline, but we must be clear to ourselves what it is
that we are and what it is that we do as researchersin mathematicseducation.
Only then can we expect those outside the field to recognize the legitimacy of
our work. Honesty and openness are needed in our disclosureof how we choose
our methods so that self-critical appraisaltakes place alongside external scruti-
ny. We cannot,of course, be complaisantin our isolation, defining ourselves and
ignoringthe concerns and perspectivesof others.The externalcriticismsneed to
be addressed,particularlythe criticisms of our uses of qualitativemethods. For
instance, consider the case-study method. The issues of validity and reliability
cannotbe tossed aside as "irrelevantto case study"but must be examinedfor rel-
evance in the particularcircumstancesand to the particularquestionsthat we are
considering.Questions of concern to the academic community at large need to
be openly debatedby mathematicseducators-but from the perspectiveof their
own researchparadigms.
Any discussionconcerningitself with researchmethodsneeds first to examine
the questionsthatsuch researchis expected to answeror illuminate.Whatareour
questions in mathematicseducation?What are the issues we wish to examine?
Susan Pirie 19
Chapter 3
In the past decade or so, a new paradigm widely referred to as the qualitative
research paradigm has begun to dominate research in mathematics education.
Although its roots go back a long way, in mathematics education this paradigm
emerged in Piagetian-style research based on clinical interview methods. There
were anticipations that fit with the qualitative research paradigm, such as
William Brownell's studies of understanding and problem solving in the 1930s
and 1940s (see Noddings, 1994). However, only lately has research of this type
become widely accepted and commonplace in the leading journals in the field.
The emergence and growth of the qualitative research paradigm in mathemat-
ics education represent an important shift in style in a still young field of inquiry.
This development raises a host of issues about the nature of significant research
questions, research methods, styles of research reporting, and the possible impact
of such research on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Many of these
issues are difficult to address in the abstract and are best demonstrated through
concrete exemplars, as consistency with the epistemology of the qualitative
research paradigm also requires. This monograph presents many such examples.
The qualitative research paradigm has a deep philosophical significance. The
aim of this chapter is to address some of the general epistemological and foun-
dational issues and implications concerning qualitative research in mathematics
education and to relate the paradigm to broader developments in 20th-century
thought-especially postmodernist thought. In this chapter, I sketch the philo-
sophical background of the qualitative research paradigm and relate it to current
developments in the philosophy of mathematics. I survey the epistemological
foundations of this paradigm and its relationship with constructivist and social
theories of learning and their implications for mathematics education research.
After elucidating some of the theoretical assumptions and characteristics of the
qualitative paradigm, I contrast it with two other educational research perspec-
tives: the scientific paradigm and the critical theoretic paradigm.
A central aim of the chapter is to distinguish research methodology from meth-
ods. The qualitative research paradigm provides a methodology, that is, a general
Paul Ernest 23
PHILOSOPHICALBACKGROUND
EPISTEMOLOGY
EpistemologicalFoundations
The qualitativeresearch paradigmis the product of a number of significant
epistemological shifts for which postmodernismprovides a philosophical foun-
dationand support.These include shiftingemphasisto humanknowing from dis-
embodied knowledge and to knowledge of concrete practices and particulars
from universalgeneralizationsand laws. I now expand on these importantshifts
and delineatethe basis and sources of this paradigm.Historically,the qualitative
research paradigmhas epistemological foundations that are at least as old as
those of modernism.Where one locates the beginnings of a traditionis almost
arbitrary.I could startwith the pre-SocraticGreekphilosopherProtagorasof the
5th centuryBCE,who wrote, "Of all things the measureis Man, of the things that
are, thatthey are, of the things that are not, thatthey are not" (Freeman,1956, p.
125). This emphasizes the human features and limitations of knowing that are
centralto the qualitativeresearchparadigm.
A more recent startingpoint, not long afterDescartes's seminal contributionto
modernism,is in the work of Vico. Vico (1710/1858) argues that we can know
rationally only what we ourselves have made and that other forms of knowing,
such as knowledge of persons, are of a different,more humankind. For these lat-
ter forms of knowledge, "we must seek aid from our imaginationto explain them
and, like painters,form humanimages of them"(Vico, 1744/1961, p. 168). Thus,
Vico claims that there are two forms of knowing. The first emphasizesthe ratio-
nal. In the second, the emphasis is on the concrete, analogical, and particular
aspects of knowing that are typical of the qualitativeresearchparadigm.
The notionthattherearetwo fundamentallydifferentways of knowingwas fur-
ther and seminally elaboratedby Dilthey, one of the chief foundersof moder
hermeneutics(the study of interpretation,which originatedwith biblical exege-
sis). He distinguished the method of understandingfor the human sciences
(Verstehen)fromthatof the physical sciences (Erklaren).Verstehenis the method
of understandingnecessary to grasp the subjectiveconsciousness of participants
28 TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
CONSTRUCTIVISTTHEORIESOF LEARNING
Implicationsfor Mathematics-EducationResearch
The emergence of constructivismin research in mathematicseducation has
foregroundeda new set of researchemphases that are centralto the qualitative
researchparadigm.It is importantat this stage to recognize some of them. These
include attachingimportanceto-
* attendingto the previous constructionsthat learnersbring with them;
* attendingto the social contexts of learning;
* questioning the status of knowledge, including mathematicalknowledge and
logic, and the learner'ssubjectiveknowledge;
* proceeding cautiously with regardto methodological approaches,since there
is no "royalroad"to knowledge or "truth";
* attendingto the beliefs and conceptions of knowledge of the learner,teacher,
and researcher,as well as theircognitions, goals, metacognitions,and strategic
self-regulativeactivity;
* attending to language, discussion, collaboration, negotiation, and shared
meanings in the personalconstructionof knowledge.
32 TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
EDUCATIONALRESEARCHPARADIGMS
unreliability(Popper, 1959). Once general laws have been derived, the scientif-
ic researchparadigmadoptsa top-downperspective,using the generalto deduce
predictionsabout particularinstances or observations.
The qualitativeresearchparadigmworks in an opposite directionand explores
the unique features and circumstancessurroundinga particularcase. However,
the aim is not to celebratethe uniquenessand oddity of a case. It is to explore the
richness of a particularthat may serve as an exemplarof somethingmore gener-
al. Kuhn (1970) has arguedthat even in the physical sciences, much use is made
of particular,exemplaryproblem solutions that serve as general models of rea-
soning and problemsolving.
Researchin the qualitativeparadigmbuilds up a rich descriptionof the case
understudy. Geertz(1973) calls it a thick description.Since a case typically con-
cerns human beings and their interrelationshipsand contexts, this description
allow a readerto understandthe case throughidentification,empathy,or a sense
of entry into the lived reality. Thus the kind of truthinvolved can be regardedas
akin to that of the novelist: the truthderived from identificationwith, and living
through, a story with the richness and complex interrelationshipsof social,
humanlife.
However, a case is meant to be illustrativeand generative. The particularis
intendedto illustratethe general-not with the precision of the exact sciences,
but suggestively as an illustrationof a more general and complex truth.The aim
is, as Blake wrote in his Auguries of Innocence, "to see a world in a grain of
sand"-to illuminate the general through the particular.Thus research in the
qualitativeparadigmadoptsa bottom-upperspective,using a particularand con-
crete instanceto suggest, evoke, and illustrate,if not describe,the generalcase.
Because of its renunciationof certainty,the issue of reflexivity arises for the
qualitativeresearchparadigm.The paradigmincorporatesan epistemology that
rejects the disembodied viewpoint of positivism that takes for granted the
assumption that it gazes on a fully knowable and separate objective reality.
Instead,in the qualitativeresearchparadigm,the researcheruses herself or him-
self (and her or his conceptualframework)as a researchinstrumentand should
incorporatereflections on the implications of using this "instrument,"with its
limitations,in any accountof the research.
The qualitativeresearchparadigmis referredto undera wide varietyof names,
includinginterpretative(andinterpretive),naturalistic,and alternativeparadigms
research.Some researcherspreferto avoid the name "qualitativeresearchpara-
digm"because althoughit is in widespreaduse, there is a risk of confusion with
qualitativeresearchmethods. In fact, the qualitativeresearchparadigmcan use
quantitativeas well as qualitativemethodsand data,just as the scientific research
paradigmin educationcan also use qualitativemethods as well as quantitative.
Quantitativedata and methods can be used within the qualitativeresearchpara-
digm, as and when appropriate(paradoxicalas this might seem), because of the
importantdifference between methodand methodologyin educationalresearch.
Methods are particulardata-gatheringor analysis techniques. For example,
PaulErnest 35
McCorack, & Skvarcius, 1978) fall within the scientific research paradigm.
Althoughit may be controversialto make this claim, in my view Piaget also used
qualitativeresearchmethods (clinical interviews) to advance his theory of cog-
nitive stages. This latter use, with its age-stage measures and predictions,lies
squarelywithin the scientific researchparadigm.
The scientific researchparadigmhas many of the advantagesassociated with
the physical andbiological sciences. When successful, it resultsin replicableand
objective generalizations.These have the strengthsof being rigorouslyscientifi-
cally tested. The paradigmalso has the strengthsof clarity,precision,rigor, stan-
dardization,and generalizability.It is also, in theory, universally applicable.
However, the weakness of this paradigmis that it involves simplifying the phe-
nomena described, and its application is too often based on unquestioned
assumptions.All personsand humansituationsand contexts are unique and indi-
vidual, but the scientific researchparadigmtreatswhole classes of individualsor
events as identical, or at least indistinguishable,except in terms of a range of
selected variables. Thus, this approachcan often be insensitive to contextual
variationsand individualdifferences,althoughin theory it can always be refined
to accommodateomittedaspects. Some of the epistemologicalassumptionsasso-
ciated with this paradigmare questionable,too. For often it is associatedwith an
absolutistepistemologyand a Newtonian-scientificontology. However,these are
defensible perspectives,even if they are sometimes uncongenialto those work-
ing in the qualitativeresearchparadigm.
Table 3.1
SimplifiedSummaryand Comparisonof the ThreeMain Paradigms
Component Paradigm
Scientific Qualitative Criticaltheoretic
Ontology Scientific realism (objects Subjectivereality Persons in society
in physical space) (personalmeanings) and social institutions
Epistemology Absolutist, objective Personal,constructed Socially constructed
knowledge or socially constructed knowledge
knowledge
Methodology Mainly quantitative Mainly qualitativecase Mainly critical action
and experimental, studies of particular researchon social
involving many subjects individualsand contexts institutions
and contexts
Intendedoutcome Applicable knowledge Illuminativesubjective Interventionfor social
and generalizations understandings reform,social justice
Interest To comprehendand im- To understandand make Social justice,
prove (throughprediction sense of the world emancipation
and control) the world
tainty exclusively in the immediate object of inquiry, such as the teaching and
learning of mathematics in a particular classroom. This paradigm does not
require any reflexivity concerning the researcher's constitutive role in knowl-
edge and meaning making. There are of course objectified requirements to
attempt to remove distortions introduced by the researcher in the process of
inquiry, such as the concern to establish the validity and reliability of the
research instrumentsused. In contrast, the other two paradigmsdo not regard
the world and its events as something that can be known with any certainty.
They problematize the relationship between the knower and the known and
adopt a position of humility with regardto epistemology, knowledge, and the
results of the methods employed in research. This means that neither of these
two research paradigms or methodologies should be employed mechanically
in the quest for knowledge but that every application stands in need of justi-
fication. A fallibilist epistemology requires the recognition of the limits of
knowledge claims at every level of educational research. A note of caution
should be added. Sometimes, critical theoretic researchpresupposes that it has
a privileged viewpoint delivering reliable knowledge about the social situa-
tion it seeks to change.
The threeparadigmsrepresentclustersor general styles of approachto educa-
tionalresearch,characterizedin termsof theirtypes of basic assumptions.Within
each paradigm(and the fit may be loose in parts), it is possible to have a wide
variety of approaches.Some of the disciplined approachesthat fit more or less
within the qualitative research paradigm are the phenomenological, eth-
nomethodological, psychoanalytic, and hermeneutic approaches. Perhaps in
eitherthe qualitativeor the criticaltheoreticparadigms(andperhapsoverlapping
with both) are the social constructivist,poststructuralist,andfeminist standpoints
(Harding,1987). Dunne and Johnston(1992) relateall threeeducationalresearch
paradigmsto gender issues in research in mathematicsand science education.
Ernest (1994a, 1994b) includes contributions representing many of these
approachesto researchin mathematicseducation.
It has been suggested by some scholarsthat the distinctionbetween the quali-
tative and the critical theoreticresearchparadigmsis not as clear-cutas the pre-
ceding account suggests. After all, it is largely based on Habermas'sdistinction
in defining a thirdresearchparadigm,namelythe criticaltheoreticone. Certainly
the possibility of overlap between the qualitativeand the critical theoreticpara-
digms should be countenanced,and indeed some examples of researchin math-
ematics education are hard to locate within just one of the paradigms (e.g.,
Walkerdine's[1988] poststructuralistapproach).Some other researcherssome-
times distinguishonly two majorparadigms,the scientific and the interpretative
(i.e., qualitative)researchparadigms(e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985), with the lat-
ter incorporatingthe critical theoretic paradigm.HarrEand Gillett (1994) also
contrast only two research paradigms in contemporary psychology, the
Newtonian (scientific) and the discursive (qualitative)paradigms,thus reducing
the distinctionto a dichotomy.
Paul Ernest 39
Chapter 4
GeraldA. Goldin
This chapter expands on talks presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the
MathematicsEducationResearchGroupof Australasia(MERGA-16,July 1993, Brisbane,
Australia), and at the 17th Annual Conference of the InternationalGroup for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-17, August 1993, Tsukuba, Japan). The
research described was partially supportedby a grant from the U.S. National Science
Foundation (NSF), "A Three-Year Longitudinal Study of Children's Development of
MathematicalKnowledge,"directedby RobertB. Davis and CarolynA. Maherat Rutgers
University. Opinions and conclusions expressed are those of the authorand do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of the NSF or the projectdirectors.
GeraldA. Goldin 41
AN EXPLORATORYLONGITUDINALSTUDY
Task-Based Interview 1
The first interview script (55 pages, about 45 minutes) was written during
1991-92 and administeredin May and June 1992. The task, based on a high
school-level problem of the National Assessment of Educational Progress,
involves laying out for the child threecards,one at a time (see Figure4.1): "Here
is the first card, here is the second card, and here is the thirdcard."
The cards are drawnfrom a stack in an envelope, so the child may infer from
the context that there is a deck larger than the few cards shown and (possibly,
tacitly) may also infer thatthere is a patternpresent.After a brief pause to allow
a spontaneousresponse, the child is asked,
* "Whatdo you think would be on the next card?"
The materialsplaced aheadof time on the table areblankindex cards(the same
size as those with dots), felt-tipped markersof different colors, round red and
black chips (checkers),a pad of paper,and a pencil. The child can use any items.
GeraldA. Goldin 45
Task-BasedInterview2
The design for the second interview script (38 pages, up to about 55 minutes)
was completed in fall 1992. The scriptwas used in individualinterviews admin-
istered during winter 1993 with the same children (then in fourth and fifth
grades).As in the first interview, materials(a pad, a pencil, markers,and check-
ers) are placed ahead of time on the table in front of the child. First some pre-
liminaryquestions are asked with the intent of exploring the child's imaginative
and visual processes:The child describeswhethershe or he is right-or left-hand-
46 ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
ed. Then the child is asked to imagine a pumpkin,to describe it, to manipulate
the image in various ways (including cutting the pumpkinin half), to spell the
wordpumpkin,to spell it backward,and to talk aboutthese activities. A series of
mathematicalquestions follows. For each, the follow-up includes (where appro-
priate):"Canyou help me understandthatbetter?"or "Arethere any otherways
to take (one half) (one third)?"or both questions.
* "Whenyou think of one half, what comes to mind?"
* "Whenyou think of one third,what comes to mind?"
* "Supposeyou had 12 apples. How would you take (one half) (one third)?"
* [Next cutouts are presented in succession: a square, a circle, and a 6-petal
flower. For each, the child is asked] "How would you take (one half) (one
third)?"
* [Circle cutouts are presentedto the child, first with (one half) (one third)(one
sixth) representedconventionally(as in a pie graph),then with the same frac-
tions representedunconventionally(the part representingthe fraction at the
center of the circle). In each case the child is asked] "Canthis card be under-
stood to represent(one half) (one third)?(Why?) (Why not?)"
* [A 3-by-4 arrayconsisting of 12 circles and 6-petal flowers is now presented.]
"How would you take (one half) (one third)?"
* The child is also asked to write and interpretthe usual notation for the frac-
tions one half and one third.
Next a solid wooden cube is shown. Some preliminaryquestions are asked
aboutits characteristics(numberof faces, edges, and comers). The child, guided
as necessarytowardunderstandingwhat these mean, is then asked to thinkabout
cuttingthe cube in various ways:
* "Now think about cutting this cube in half. What would the two halves look
like?"
* "Supposewe painted the cube red and then cut it the same way. How many
faces are paintedred, for the smallerpieces you told me about?"
Similar questions follow about cutting a series of up to five additionalcubes,
dependingon the time available.These cubes are markedwith lines at designat-
ed vertical or horizontalpositions, or both, which results in mutuallycongruent
pieces that are respectively 1/3, 1/4, 1/8, 1/9, and 1/27 the volume of the original
cube. The scriptcontainsnumeroussuggestedexploratoryquestionsand a series
of retrospectivequestions at two differentpoints. This interview thus provides
opportunitiesfor the childrento express a variety of conceptualunderstandings
relatedto one half and one third,in many differentembodimentsin both two- and
three-space dimensions. A multiplicative structureis embodied in cutting the
solid wooden cube across different dimensions, and special emphasis is placed
on exploring visualizationby the child.
GeraldA. Goldin 47
Task-Based Interview #3
Task-Based Interview 4
1 1+3 1+3+5 * :: :
a. b.
Thefirstthreecards Thefirstthreecards
presentedin Problem1 presentedin Problem2
*:o0 ?0
... . * ....-
000
*00 *0000i
c. d.
Thefirstthreecards Thefirstthreecards
presentedin Problem3 presentedin Problem4
all the cards, the clinician asks if the child sees any way to relate today's cards
to the previous cards.
Task-Based Interview 5
that are the same size?" "(Why?)(Why not?)""Couldyou show me what you
mean?"
Next some pictorialrepresentationson a sheet of yellow paperand new ques-
tions are given (see Figure 4.3):
1 2 3 4 5
11
l I 11
II I I2
I
I I3l I r4'I I 5
1 2 3 4 5
For the balance of the interview,the child solves up to four problemtasks, one
at a time), each accompaniedby exploratory,nondirective questions. It is not
expected that all problemswill be completed. When 5 minutes remain,the clin-
ician skips to the final retrospective:
* [A circularshapeis presented.]"How could you show one thirdof this shape?"
"Why is that one third?""Is there any other way to show one third?""How
could you show one fourthof this shape?""Whyis that one fourth?""Is there
any other way to show one fourth?"
* [The 1" x 1" x 5" piece of wood is presented.]"Pretendthis is a stick of but-
ter. You need a tablespoon of butterto make a cake. You don't have a mea-
suring spoon, but you know that there are 8 tablespoons in a stick of butter.
Here is the butter.How could you find exactly one tablespoon?"[If the answer
is imprecise, ask once] "Is there any way to find out more exactly?"
* "Imaginea big birthdaycake shapedlike a rectangle.Can you imagine what it
looks like?""Describewhatit looks like." "Now imagine thatthereare 12 peo-
ple coming to the birthdaypartyand they each want a piece of cake. Yourjob
is to cut the cake so that each person gets the same-size piece. How will you
cut the cake?" "Could you show me what you mean?""Are there any other
ways to cut it?" [The clinician continuesto explore cuttingthe cake, including
the situationof icing on the cake.]
* "A toymakerfound some wooden shapes in the corer of her workshop.Some
were squares,and some were triangles.She decidedto put themtogetherto make
little houses [demonstratesusing a squareand a triangle).The squareslooked
like this [gesturesto the pile of squares].The triangleslooked like this [(gestures
to the pile of triangles].The houses looked like this [placesthe triangleon top of
the squareto make a figure that looks like that shown in Figure 4.4]. After a
while, she noticed that she had matchedexactly 3/5 of the squareswith exact-
ly 2/3 of the triangles. How many squares and triangles were there to start
with?""Using these materials,could you show me how she did that?"[If time
permits:]"Couldthere be a differentnumberthat works?"...
After each of these four problems, the child is asked, "Have you ever done a
problem like this before?" (If yes) "When?What do you rememberabout it?"
and so on. Interview5 ends, like the others, with a retrospectivediscussion.
52 ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
Selected interviews with the children form the basis of a numberof studies.
The thesis of Zang (1994) examines the developmentof strategicthinkingin four
of the children, comparingInterview 1 and Interview 4; the thesis of DeBellis
(1996) studies affect in four of the children,using Interviews 1, 3, and 5; and the
thesis of Passantino(1997) looks at the developmentof fractionrepresentations
for all of the children,comparingInterviews2 and 5 (see also DeBellis & Goldin,
1997; Goldin & Passantino, 1996; Zang, 1995). With these scriptsas examples,
we now consider some generalperspectiveson structured,task-basedinterviews
of this sort as a researchtechniquein mathematicseducation.
theory is not limited to this. Theory must also tell us something about how the
characteristicsof the task in the task-basedinterview(e.g., its language,its math-
ematical content and structure, its appropriatenessfor particular cognitive
processes, the interview context) are expected to interactwith the cognitions we
are tryingto infer, so thatthe interviewcan be designed to elicit processes of the
desired nature.To say that the problems in the task-basedinterviews described
here are of a level of complexity thoughtto permit a variety of strategiesto be
employed, or internal representationsto be constructed, already presupposes
majortheoreticalassumptions.
The questions asked and the observationsmade duringany scientific investi-
gation, including investigations using task-based, clinical interviews, depend
heavily on the theory we bring to it. Thus, in my view, the main question is not
whether theory should influence us in this enterprise.I maintain,in agreement
with R. B. Davis (1984), that it always, inevitably does:
Perhapstheattemptsto usethemethodsof science[ineducation] havefailedbecause
sciencehasbeenmisunderstood.
In these attemptsit had been assumedthatsciencewas primarilyfactual,that
indeedit dealtalmostsolely in facts,thattheoryhad no role in science.Careful
observationof sciencerevealsthisto be false.It mightbe closerto the truthto say
that"facts"-atleastinterestingfacts-are almostunableto existexceptin thepres-
enceof an appropriate theory[emphasisin original].Withoutanappropriate theory,
one cannotevenstatewhatthe"facts"are.(p. 22)
The questionpertainingto clinicalinterviewsis the extentto which the influence
of theory remains tacit, taking place throughunconsciousassumptionsof clini-
cians, researchers,and/orteachers,or becomes explicit andthusopen to discussion
and challenge.Ourgoal in the presentstudyis to be as explicit as possible.
The theoreticalunderpinningof this series of interviews includes the concept
of (internal)competenciesand structuresof such competencies. These are envi-
sioned as developing over time in the child and as being capable of being
inferred from observable behavior-when the appropriateconditions exist for
the individualto take certaincognitive steps and some correspondingbehaviors
are seen. Anotherfundamentaltheoreticalassumptionis the idea that competen-
cies are encoded in several different kinds of internalrepresentationsand that
these interact with one another and with observable, external representations
duringproblemsolving. A thirdassumptionis that representationalacts occur in
which representationalconfigurations(internalor external)are taken to symbol-
ize or standfor other representationalconfigurations.
The model that most stronglyinfluenced the developmentof the scriptsis one
thatI have been developing for some time as a way of characterizingmathemat-
ical problem-solvingcompetency. It includes five kinds of mutuallyinteracting
systems of internal, cognitive representation(Goldin, 1987, 1992b): (a) a ver-
bal/syntactic system (use of language); (b) imagistic systems (visual/spatial,
auditory,kinestheticencoding); (c) formalnotationalsystems (use of mathemat-
ical notation);(d) planning, monitoring,and executive control (use of heuristic
56 ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
explicitly described and designed to elicit behaviors that are to some degree
anticipated.
Although the analysis of outcomes in these interviews is theoreticallybased,
we seek not only to observe and draw inferences from expected processes but
also to search for unanticipatedoccurrences.The hoped-for results include the
furtherrefinementand developmentof the theoreticalmodel for problem solv-
ing, including the identificationof inadequaciesand progresstowardan assess-
ment framework,as well as conjecturesfor furtherinvestigationthroughfuture
experimentalstudies.
PRINCIPLESOF INTERVIEWDESIGN
I conclude this chapterby summarizingwhat, in my opinion, are some of the
most importantunderlyingcharacteristicsof the five interviews describedhere
and try to abstractfrom these the most salient general principles behind their
design. Althougheach interviewhas its own particularfocus, certainbroadchar-
acteristicsare maintainedin all of them:
1. Each interviewis based on particularmathematicalideas appropriatefor the
age group of the children(grades 3-6) and on mathematicaltopics with associ-
ated meaningful,semantic structures,as well as formal, symbolic structures,for
example, additive or multiplicativestructures,sequences, schemataunderlying
rationalnumberconcepts, and so forth.We want the mathematicalcontentto be
based on topics thatcan be studiedin depthand are flexible enough to allow evi-
dence of widely differing capabilitieson the partof the students.
2. Each interview consists of a series of questions posed in one or more task
contexts. These begin at a level that all the childrenare expected to understand
(of course, in differing ways). They become increasinglydifficult, culminating
in questionsthatcan still be attemptedby all the childrenbut thatwill pose major
challenges even to the most mathematicallyastute students.
3. The childrenengage in free problem solving to the maximumextent possi-
ble. This prioritizesexploring the strategiesthat the children use spontaneous-
ly-whatever method or methods seem most appropriateto them as they work
on the task. They are remindedoccasionally to talk aloud about what they are
doing and to describe what they are thinking.Hints and prompts,or new ques-
tions, are offered only after the opportunityfor free problemsolving and are then
followed by a furtherperiod of observinghow the child respondswithout direc-
tive intervention.This rule is (in view of time constraints)occasionally broken
because of our desire to ensurereachinga subsequentsection of the interviewin
the allotted time, but it is broken with the recognition that possibly important
informationis necessarilybeing lost.
4. All studentproductionsare "accepted"during the interview;the clinician
does not impose preconceivednotions aboutappropriateways to solve the prob-
lem but does treat"wrong"answerssimilarlyto "correct"answers(withoccasional,
GeraldA. Goldin 61
Chapter 5
DagmarNeuman
I wish to thank Ference Marton,who was my advisor in this first attemptto carry out
phenomenographicresearch;Shirley Booth and Jorgen Sandberg,who patiently read ver-
sions of this paper and provided constructivecriticism that has helped to shape the final
product;and Anne Teppo, who made the most competenteffort to bring the chapterinto a
reasonablycomprehensibleform. I also wish to thankAnne Teppo for her thoroughwork
on the language used in the article. The studies that form the basis for the chapterwere
funded by the Swedish Board of Education,the Swedish Ministry of Education,and the
Solna Local EducationAuthority,who are acknowledgedwith gratitude.
64 Phenomenography:Exploringthe Roots of Numeracy
could subtractwithin this range in due time learnedto add and subtractwithin
higher numberranges, whereas those who could not never seemed to develop
mental calculationskills.
Four pilot studies that I carried out revealed that pupils with difficulties in
mathematicsused a counting approach,counting forwardor backwardin ones,
in their attemptsto calculate. Other children used what I called a structuring
approachthat helped them avoid counting. Insteadof counting four steps back-
ward to solve the task 9 - 4, for instance, they answered 5 instantly, with the
younger children explaining, if asked, that they knew because 4 + 4 = 8 or
because 5 + 5 = 10. Those explanations illustrate that their basic facts were
anchoredin a sense of numberand in a conceptualunderstandingof the inverse
relationbetween additionand subtraction.
I searchedfor a suitablemethodfor studyingboth the cause of the difficulties
some pupilsexperiencedandthe ways otherchildren,priorto enteringschool, had
begun to createa more viable sense of number.At GoteborgUniversity,I became
acquainted with the INOM group (INlarning och OMvarldsuppfattning,or
"Learningand ways of experiencingour world"),whose researchand education-
al aims fit my intentions.The professorin the center of the group was Ference
Marton,who latercoined the wordphenomenography(Marton,1981; Marton&
Booth, 1997) for the kind of researchthe groupcarriedout. I use examples from
the study I conductedto describecertainaspects of phenomenographicresearch.
PHENOMENOGRAPHY
PHENOMENOGRAPHICRESEARCH
To think of researchwith a fallibilist epistemology-and with results that are
interpretationsof other peoples' ways of experiencing something-in terms of
reliability and validity may be seen as a contradiction.The crucial thing for
establishingreliability in phenomenographicresearchis the use of phenomeno-
logical reduction (Sandberg, 1996) or, in Ihde's (1997) words "to circumvent
certain kinds of predefinition"(p. 31). Sandbergsees the researcher'sinterpre-
tive awarness as one possible criterionof reliability. Following Ihde, he gives
five guidelines for how to maintainsuch an awarenessthroughoutthe research
process. The first criterionis thatthe researchermust be continuouslyorientedto
the phenomenonbeing studied throughoutthe researchprocess. To be oriented
to the phenomenonalso means to be orientedto the formulationof the research
question. Referring to Kvale (1994), Sandberg points out that a weakness in
many qualitativestudies "is the lack of a clear definition of the researchques-
tion" (p. 157). This, ratherthan the variationin possible interpretationsof the
data,often makes the presentedresultsdifficult to understand.Second, the analy-
sis and presentationof the outcomes should consist of a descriptionof the ways
of experiencingthe phenomenon,not of explanationsof why these experiences
appearthe way they do. (Researchersare often tempted to use their arsenal of
theories and models to explain things outside the experiences reportedby the
interviewees.) Third, all aspects of the experiences that are observed should, at
the beginning of the analysis, be seen as equally importantin orderto faithfully
interpret the essential aspects of the interviewees' ways of experiencing the
66 Phenomenography:Exploringthe Roots of Numeracy
Study Design
The assumptionof educationalbenefits relatedto phenomenographicresearch
influenced the design of my study and made it ratherembracing.I decided to
interview all children in two new beginner classes during their first weeks at
school before they received any formalteachingin mathematics.I then followed
these children for 2 years in a teaching experiment based on the knowledge
obtainedin the interviewstudy.After these 2 years, I carriedout a new interview
study with those childrenwho had not been able to solve any of the subtraction
problemsin the interviewsconductedwhen they began school. I also interviewed
childrenin a control groupboth when they began school and 2 years later. As in
the researchclasses, only those control childrenwho had not been able to solve
any of the subtractionproblemsin the interviewsat the startof school were inter-
viewed later. I also regularlyvisited the two classes using the teaching experi-
ment and met the teachersat least once every fortnightto listen to their experi-
ences and to plan the new work.
One importantgoal for me in the interviewstudywas to reveal maximumvari-
ation in the ways the phenomenonI studiedcould appearto all pupils in a typi-
cal Swedish school beginnerclass before formal instructionin mathematicshad
begun. A goal of similarimportancewas to reveal the maximumnumberof ways
thatpupils in "therisk zone" might experiencethe phenomenon.To have at least
20 pupils in this zone, I also carried out one extra interview study with two
school beginner classes 1 year after the first interview. This latter study also
enabled me to determinethat no new categories could be identified.
To be able to study a dynamic learningprocess duringan extended period of
time, I also decided to follow in more depthtwo childrenin the researchclasses.
I used the results of the interviewscarriedout at the startof school to select two
children who had displayed the earliest, that is, the least developed, ways of
experiencingthe studiedphenomenon.I then met with them twice a week for 2
years in clinical interview lessons that were tape recorded and transcribed
(Neuman, 1994).
Thus, three kinds of methods were used: clinical interviews, a quasi-teaching
experiment, and a longitudinal case study using recorded clinical interview
lessons. The teaching experimentand the case study were mainly undertakento
Dagmar Neuman 67
> Problem A: 2 + =9
123456789
000000000
< Problem C: 9 - 7 =
In the pilot study, the pupils who displayed mathematics difficulties had
invented a method of "doublecounting"to deal with the numerosityof the last
part. They put up one finger for each enumeratedword when they counted this
part.Finally they "readoff' the finger configuration,for instancein ProblemsA
and C, as "one hand + 2 = 7." This double countinghelped childrenperceive the
numerosityof the last partin Problem A and told them where to stop the back-
ward enumerationin Problem B. Yet it was a solution strategythat seemed to
stay concrete and procedural,never being transformedinto objects that could be
operatedon in thought.(See Grey and Tall [1994] for laterreportson this never-
ending proceduralbehavior.)
The preceding analysis enabled me to define the phenomenon I wanted to
study. It concerned the variation of ways in which to experience a numerosity
larger than three when the numerosityis presented in a subtractionproblem as
the part of the whole numberthat constitutesthe missing or lost part.
I will subsequentlydenote this missing part"thepuzzling part,"since to me it
was very confusing that preschoolerscould become aware of the numerosityof
this part without any need of the laborious double counting that seemed to be
necessary for the pupils with mathematicsdifficulties. How children became
aware of the numerousityof the puzzling part was the researchquestion that I
wantedto answer throughmy study.
To present this phenomenonto children,I needed to develop interview ques-
tions thatinvolved subtractionsof the missing addendkind and of the take-away
kind. The puzzling partin these questionsshouldbe largerthan3 and thusbe dif-
ficult to perceive intuitively. The whole numbershould not be largerthan 10 or
smallerthan7, preferablyclose to 10. (If the whole is too small, it might even be
possible to subitize the numerosityof the puzzling part.)
Four subtractionproblemsof this kind were formulated:
1. Your teacherhas 3 pencils, but there are 7 childrenwho all want to write.
How many more pencils does she have to fetch?
2. If you have 10 pencils in your rucksackand lose 7 of them, how many do
you have left?
3. Your teacherhas 2 pencils, but there are 9 childrenwho all want to write.
How many more pencils does she have to fetch?
4. Your teacherhas 4 pencils, but there are 10 childrenwho all want to write.
How many more pencils does she have to fetch?
Two additionproblemsfor which the addedpartwas the largerone were also
given to compare ways of experiencing addition and subtractionamong the
school beginners.
I also decided to let the children take part in a guessing game in which they
could make five guesses of how nine buttons were hidden in two boxes. They
counted the buttons themselves and gave them to me before I hid them. The
guessing game was given first in the interview, and it was primarilyintendedto
70 Phenomenography:Exploringthe Roots of Numeracy
catch the children's interest.It did not always confrontthem with the phenome-
non, but it was still a good problembecause five answers were given to the one
question.
~I tSTRUCTURED
Abstract numbers < > Abstract numbers
Transformed Transformed
Structuredby biggestfirst Structuredby
|I <,___ Multiplesof 2 and 3
Word numbers
Structuredby biggestfirst
Finger numbers
Transformed
Structuredby biggestfirst
(Withthe help of the
Undividedfive)
UNSTRUCTURED
Word numbers > Finger numbers < Extents
Counted Counted
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Limited Limited Limited
The categories written in lower-case italics depict more specifically how the
numerositywithin the puzzling part was experienced.When the whole number
was numericallyunstructured,the children seemed to experience this numerosi-
ty as limited, estimated, or counted. The answers to the interview questions in
these situationswere hardlyever correct.However, when the whole numberwas
perceived as numericallystructured,the answers were correct,and the numeros-
ity of the puzzling part of the numberappearedto be perceived intuitively. In
these situationsthe part-part-wholepatternof the numberappearednumerically
restructuredby a biggestfirst structure,transformations,or multiplesof 2 and 3.
72 Phenomenography:Exploringthe Roots of Numeracy
It is not the purposehere to describe the model in detail but ratherto present
informationto illustratethe natureof a phenomenographicmodel and the use of
the criteriafor intuitive awarenessmentionedby Sandberg(1996) in reporting
this model. The following discussion provides more informationof the "what"
and "how"aspects of the categoriesgiven in the unstructuredand structuredsec-
tions of the model. The informationdescribes the variationin the way the phe-
nomenon is experiencedratherthan presentsan explanationof why these expe-
riences appearthe way they do.
to tell me where the partended. They did not yet seem to be aware of any con-
tradictionin the use of the same counting word for whole and part.They could,
for instance in the guessing game, repeatedlyguess that there were 9 buttonsin
one of the boxes, but still some buttonsin the otherbox, or say that therewere 7
pencils missing in Problem 1 (3 pencils and 7 children)and 6 left in Problem2
(10 pencils, 7 of them lost). In Problem2, they seemed to think of the lost pen-
cils as the ones relatedto the words ten, nine, eight, and seven. Thoughtof back-
ward, the word seven denoted the limit of the part that should be taken away;
thoughtof forward,the word six denotedthe limit of the partleft. Maryand Joan
exemplify this early ordinalway of experiencingProblem2:
Mary: Seven ... six, five, four, three, two, one ... six left.
Joan: ThenI've got one,two,three,four,five, six left.
The puzzlingpartheremainlyseemedto be experiencedin an earlyordinalway;
the focus was put on the point in the counting-wordsequencewhere it ended.
In the category I have called estimated, on the contrary,the puzzling part
seemed to be experiencedin an early cardinal way. It was still an experience of
an extent or of a manifold, but now it was the extension in between the limit
words that seemed to be of focal attention,not the limit words per se. Emma,for
instance, solves Problem2 (10 pencils, 7 of them lost) in the following way:
E: Then I've got four left ... or two ... four or two ... you can't be sure....
I: No ... can'tyou workoutin somewayif you'vegot fouror two left...?
E: Maybe three ... I think it's two.
I: Butisn'tthereanywayof workingouthow...
E: No.
I: Couldn'ttherebe eightleft?
E: Eightleft!!??
I: Whyisn'tthatpossible?
E: Well,becauseI've dropped... well if you lose thatmuch,it can'tbe thatmuch!
Emma seems to be well awareof the relationbetween the two parts,but as she
explains, there is no way for her to work out the exact numberof pencils left-
somethingthat does not seem to botherher much.
One type of answer was categorizedas a counted finger number.This way of
experiencingnumberwas displayed by only one child in one of his answers (to
Problem3). After the finger numberwas displayed,this boy countedthe last part
of it with the word one related to the third finger, the word two related to the
fourth, and so on. Thus, the fingers were what constitutedthe analogue experi-
ence of the whole number,and the words were used to count the last partof the
finger number.
Anothertype of answer was categorizedas a counted word number.Here, the
words constitutedthe analogue experience, and the fingers were used to count
the last partof the word number.This way of experiencingnumberswas the one
observed in practicallyall the answers given by the pupils displayingmathemat-
ics difficulties.
74 Phenomenography:Exploringthe Roots of Numeracy
Pragmatic Validity
childrenin the two researchclasses could add and subtractwithin the range 1-10
over the 10 limits without any need to count or keep track.This was very differ-
ent from the ways the childrenin the control group solved these kinds of prob-
lems. The outcomes of the interview study could, as suggested by Martonand
Booth (1997, p. 81), be used as "a notational path of development foci for
instruction."
CONCLUSION
The methods presentedin this monographare different, as are the goals and
underlyingperspectivesof each author'sresearch.This variationmakes the pic-
ture of what mathematicsteaching and learning mean and of how they can be
researchedrich and detailed.However, it also createsdifficulties in our attempts
to formulate criteria for what counts as acceptable qualitative research. For
instance,at the ICME-8conferencein 1996, suggestionswere made to formulate
a set of researchguidelines. Many participants,however, saw this as placing a
straightjacket upon the researcher,preventingcreativity and excluding certain
kinds of research.
To describe fundamentalassumptions,goals, methods, and knowledge (valid-
ity) claims for a given researchstudy, as was done in this chapter,would help us
judge individual studies from within their respective methodological frame-
works. I hope that such descriptionscan serve as a step towardcreating a con-
sensus for judging the quality and acceptabilityof qualitativeresearchin mathe-
matics education.
79
Chapter 6
If this is true for the sociologist, how much more important it is within math-
ematics education, where many of the practitioners of research originate in the
enumerative discipline of mathematics.
Quantitative and qualitative methods are not alternative paradigms for the
same research activities. Each has much to offer, but what is offered and what
constitutes the goals of any project must together guide the choice of methodol-
ogy. Is the intention to build or to test theory? To survey an issue or look at it in
depth? To look at large quantities of data for similarities and to abstract these
because of their general applicability and hence assumed essentiality, or to look
at individual cases and abstract essential features, generalizing them because of
their perceived vital nature? It is not my intention to argue here for one paradigm
over the other in a variety of given situations. Rather, I set out my reasons for the
methodologies I have espoused in my own research and the processes by which
the decisions on method and methodology were made.
I am offering not a textbook on a particular mode of conducting research but
an account of the reality of selecting methodology and method for one specific
project. The reader will be taken through the decision making that must accom-
pany any research and be shown the need for a robust research design that will
accommodate the slings and arrows that outrageous fortune throws at intrepid
researchers, be they novice or not. Experience offers insight into potential prob-
lems, but care and a secure theoretical base for the design of the research offer
the surest way to bring the undertaking to a satisfactory close. The structure of
this chapteris based on the questionsthat must be asked of any researchand the
illuminationof these questionsthroughdiscussion of how they were tackled and
answeredwithin one specific researchproject.
The researchtopic comes first, and the methodologyand methodsmust be not
just "taken,readymade, off the shelf' but be chosen and adaptedcarefullyto best
access the answers sought (Burgess, 1984, p. 4). My researchexemplifies the
philosophy of theory as process:theory changing,evolving and being construct-
ed to fit or explain new cases. One focus of my interest-and it is this that I
examine in detail in this chapter-is the phenomenon of discussion between
pupils in the mathematicsclassroom.My intentionis to discuss the processes of
selecting the appropriateresearch methodology and methods. I then illustrate
how, throughthe examinationof purposefullygathereddata,we sought features,
properties,and categories within the phenomenonthat would enable or enhance
the positing of theoriesrelatingto the effects of discussion on pupils' mathemat-
ical understanding.
RESEARCHQUESTIONS
WhatSecondaryQuestionsAre Raised?
Initial areas of research interest are generally broad and in need of sharper
focusing, both in terms of questions asked and of intendedoutcomes.
It became abundantlyclear from our first exploratoryclassroom visits that
there would be no simple answer to the research question we had posed, nor
indeed had we expected one. We observed incidents where discussion appeared
to advance the understandingof the pupils involved and where it quite definite-
ly confused and misinformedthe participantsand inhibitedprogress towardthe
solution of their problems. Our tasks, therefore, became first, attempting to
understandthe natureof pupils' mathematicaldiscussion, and second, finding a
way to assess its effect on their mathematical understanding (Pirie &
Schwarzenberger,1988a). It is with the first of these, the wish to understandbet-
ter the phenomenonof pupil-pupildiscussion before commenting on its value,
thatthis chapteris concerned.To this end, we were interestedin the whole range
of forms that such discussion could take, ratherthan, at this stage, in the typical-
ity or frequencyof aspects of the phenomenon.
For reasons of time and scale the projectfocused mainly on secondarypupils.
Two questions faced us:
1. Given our purpose,what methodologicalstrategieswould enable us to fulfill
our aims?
2. How could we obtain relevant data-data that would aid us in our specific
task?
We were concerned about producingadequatedescriptionsof the ways that
pupilstalkto one another.We neededto exploreways of analyzingsuch discourse
82 WorkingTowarda Designfor QualitativeResearch
and its contexts-ways that would offer insights into those processes inherentin
pupil-pupiltalking that might influence the growth of the mathematicalunder-
standing.We wished to generalize,thatis, to producea generalpictureof the phe-
nomenonof pupil-pupildiscussion,by abstractingfrom specificallygathereddata
those featuresthat recurand appearto characterizethis particularform of class-
room interaction.More precisely, we were interestedin the generalfeaturesthat
seemed to affect the growthof mathematicalunderstanding.
APPROPRIATEMETHODOLOGIESAND METHODS
Ethnography
Several general research paradigms offered us potential methodological
stances, which I lay out briefly and examine for theirpossible applicabilityto our
project. The first is the ethnographicparadigm,the interpretationof which has
taken various forms over the last few decades (Burgess, 1984; Wolcott 1975).
Ethnography,in its broadestsense, is concernedwith the socioculturalfeatures
of an environment;with how people interactwith each other;and with the rules,
the structures,and the processes of these interactions.In general, it borrows
methods of operation-data collection and analysis-from the discipline of
anthropologyand applies them to specific subgroupingsof people within a larg-
er defined group. We can talk of the "cultureof the classroom"and investigate
how, within this particularclosed environment,a culturedevelops that differs in
manyrespectsfrom the normallived experiencesof its participants.Ethnography
as defined by Wolcott (1975, 1982) involves the suspensionof one's own judge-
ment that is based in one's own culturalassumptionsand demandsthat one look
throughthe eyes of those who are themselves the membersof the cultureunder
scrutiny.The intentionis to illuminatean understandingof the culture,not to pre-
dict futurebehaviors.
The notion of ethnographywas seductive.At first sight it seemed thatit would
yield the in-depthexplorationthatwe sought.On closer inspection,however,two
crucialaspects made the adoptionof this paradigm,as our unadulteratedmethod-
ological choice, unsuitable.
The first concernedthe method of data collection. Participantobservation,so
often associatedwith ethnography,would in all probabilitypreventthe phenom-
enon that we wished to observe from coming into existence! It was talk away
from the presence of the teacher,but still within the cultureof the mathematics
classroom,thatwe wished to focus on, and it seemed highly likely that a knowl-
edgeable adult observerwould by her or his very presence alter the pupils' ver-
bal interactionswith one another.Interviewingthe pupils after a lesson on how
they had talked among themselves would also not be appropriatebecause it was
theirinitial discussion, not theirreflective reportingon it, colored by theirexpec-
tations of what an adult would deem important,that we wished to capture.The
second problemrelatedto the suspension of the researchers'culturalview. The
Susan Pirie 83
Ethnomethodology
The focus of our interest was thus talk-a specific kind of talk it is true, but
talk nonetheless-and the ways in which such talk was constructed,the language
that was used, and the types of verbal interactionsthat took place. In fact, we
were looking for some methodof categorizingthe specific pupil-pupildiscussion
that we hoped to trace. Otherresearchfocused on the analysis of talk was, there-
fore, a likely place to look for methodological strategies.Ethnomethodologists
and those workingthroughconversationalanalysis concernthemselves with talk,
treatingit not as a resourcefor informationon some other topic but considering
it the object of study itself.
This emphasis on the talk itself appearedto come close to some of our think-
ing. To understandteachingand learning,of which talk is a natural,integralpart,
we must understand the talk, its coherence, its structure, and its context.
"Conversationalanalysis has developed a conceptual machineryfor unraveling
the organization of conversation so that it may be described and analyzed"
(Hitchcock & Hughes, 1992, p. 162). Partof our aim was to describe the nature
84 WorkingTowarda Designfor QualitativeResearch
Sociolinguistics
in detail every utteranceof every child throughoutthe entire period of data col-
lection! Ourfocus was discussion-a task thatwe had not previouslyundertaken.
We needed to producea definitionthatfit with the ideas impliedin the Cockcroft
report,but was preciseenoughto use for identificationpurposeswhen we listened
to verbal interactionsbetween the pupils. We producedthe following working
definition,which in fact remainedunchangedthroughoutthe rest of the research.
Discussion is-
*purposefultalk.Therearewell definedgoalsevenif noteveryparticipant
is aware
of them.Thesegoalsmayhavebeenset up by the groupor by the teacherbutthey
are,implicitlyor explicitly,acceptedby thegroupas a whole.
* on a mathematical subject.Eitherthe goalsthemselves,or subsidiary[goalsthat]
emergeduringthecourseof thetalking,areexpressedin termsof mathematical con-
tentorprocess.
* in which there are genuinepupil contributions.[Thereis] inputfrom at least some
of thepupilsthatassiststhetalkingor thinkingto moveforward.We areattempting
hereto distinguishbetweenthe introduction of new elementsto the discussionand
merepassiveresponses,suchas factualanswersto a teacher'squestions.
* and interaction.[Thereis indication]thatthe movementwithinthe talkhas been
pickedupby otherparticipants. Thismaybe evidencedby changesof attitudewithin
thegroup,by linguisticcluesof mentalacknowledgement, orbyphysicalreactions that
showthatcriticallisteninghastakenplace(Pirie& Schwarzenberger, 1988a,p. 460).
The second considerationwe took into accountwas that much of the meaning
of a live interactioncan be lost when the talk is reducedto a transcript.Take, for
example, the utterance"It's four over three."As written,it appearsto be simply
a statementof the improperfraction four-thirdsas the solution to some given
problem.With an emphasison the word over, however, the implicationmight be
a contradictionof some previous action or expression;in other words, that divi-
sion by three is the correct process, not, say, multiplication as previously
thought.Alternatively,spoken with a rising inflection and a suitably astonished
facial expression, it could be expressing total incredulitythat someone would
think that "fourover three"could possibly be the answer!
At the end of each lesson, therefore,the observerlistened to the tape record-
ings and amalgamatedthe field notes with a detailed summaryof the pupil-pupil
interactions.All occasions of pupil-pupiltalk thatfit our definitionof discussion
were noted, and for these and othercentralincidents,both the time of occurrence
and the tape-counternumberwere recorded.We did not at this point transcribe
the tapes because intonation,pauses, and otheraudibleactivities were considered
importantto the categorizationof the talk. In fact, we decided that these notes
and recordingswould form the data from which we would performall our sub-
sequent analyses. We transcribedportions of the tapes only for the purpose of
writingaboutthe researchfor an outside audience.We did, however, make a sec-
ond copy of every tape in case of accident! It is importantto make overt this
explicit decision about the nature of the data used because it is from this per-
spective that results must be judged.
86 WorkingTowarda Designfor QualitativeResearch
idealistically like childrento learn and how they did learn in the realities of the
classroom. Ourconcernwas pupil discussion within a normalclassroom setting,
in particular,discussion unaffectedby the participationof a teacher.Hence, this
method was discarded.
We focused the initial observationphase on the classrooms of four secondary
teachers who consciously and deliberately used discussion as a part of their
teaching style (Pirie & Schwarzenberger,1988a). These teachers were, in fact,
hard to find, and their classes must be considered atypical. Were our observa-
tions, therefore,in dangerof being biased by the sample we were taking?On the
contrary,we intendedto base our theorizingon the essential featuresof the phe-
nomenonas they emergedfrom the data.Edwardsand Mercer(1987, p. 26) refer
to this biased samplingas "anintentionalconsequenceof [the] researchdesign."
We were interestednot in counting or comparingcases, but in examining and
categorizingincidents of discussion. The selection of our sample was based on
theoretical,not statistical,grounds;the validity of our findings flowed from the
evolution of the categories ratherthan from the representativenessof the study
population.
The selection of the pupils whom we would observe was also done to maxi-
mize our ability to observe pupil-pupildiscussion. The teachersidentified chil-
drenwho were in the habitof discussing theirwork with theirneighbors,and we
explained to them that we wished to audio record their interactionsduring the
next few lessons. The teachersidentified a variety of mathematicalexperiences
and topics from the normalteaching schedules that were likely to provoke dis-
cussion among the pupils, and these we observed.
One of the crucial featuresof theoreticalsampling is that furtherdata collec-
tion is guided repeatedly by the analysis of existing data until saturationis
achieved, that is, until the emergentcategories remainunchanged.For this rea-
son, althoughit is likely that any researchprojectwill have one main method of
data collection, there are "no limits to the techniquesof data collection, the way
they are used, or the types of data acquired"for the end purposeof illuminating
the phenomenon under examination (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 65). Several
weeks afterthe initial classroomvisits, with a view to gaining deeperinsight into
the effect of discussion, we interviewed the pupils we had observed in their
workinggroupsto elicit theirunderstandingof the topics they had been working
on. We used a loosely structuredclinical interviewing technique (Ginsburg,
1981, 1983) whereby pupils talked their way througha task and the interviewer
followed theirpaths of thinking,sometimesreturninglaterto probe more deeply
into relevantkey ideas (Pirie, 1988).
field notes and categorized the data under the three headings previously dis-
cussed (mathematical,incomprehensible,and chat). Still withoutconsultingeach
other, we next identified episodes of discussion accordingto our agreed defini-
tion. Finally, we came together to comparethe kinds of things we had deemed
importantto record in our field notes, our individual categorizations,and our
interpretationsof the definition when we applied it to specific classroom inci-
dents. The purpose of this duplication of observation was to consolidate the
methods of recordingand the focus of the field notes to ensure as far as possible
that there was a common understandingof the method of observing and analyz-
ing. Subsequently,we visited separateclassrooms, following one teaching topic
through from initiation to close. At regular meetings, each observer presented
identified incidents of discussion for joint analysis, and each incident was then
coded both by the mathematicaltopic it concernedand by any notablefeaturesit
presented.Theoreticalsamplinglends itself well to collaborativeworking, since
it depends on drawingfeatures and potentiallymeaningfulcategories out of the
data gathered.What can be seen as a problemwithin a researchdesign, namely,
differentinterpretationsof the data, can be turnedinto a strength,since interpre-
tation by more than one person can lead to a richerfirst analysis.
The category labels for featuresthat seemed pertinentduringthat first analy-
sis included"usingmathematicallanguage,""abouttheirlack of understanding,"
"abouthow to do it," "reflectionon their mathematics,""proof,"and "focus on
the meaningof the mathematicalproblem."None of these categorieswas intend-
ed to be exclusive, and indeed we found episodes in which we were using mul-
tiple categorization,such as "aboutthe task,""recording,"and "usingnonmathe-
matical language"as the following example illustrates.
Four 12-year-oldgirls were tackling an investigation(Frogs) in which black-
and-whitecubes are moved by slides andjumps. Their task was to exchange the
places occupied by black cubes for those occupied by the white ones and to
recordthis in some way. They decided to count and recordthe numberof moves
made.
Susanne: I knowhow it works-you havethewhiteson one side.
Tracy: OK.Youhaveto havethewhitesa certainside,don'tyou?
Ann-Marie: I know!
Joanne: Howdo youreckonwe aregoingto recordthis?
Susanne: So thatwe canremember
it.
Tracy: I'll counthowmanymovesyou make.
Joanne: Come on-watch her.
Ann-Marie: Can't I jump that one? Can't I do that?
Joanne: Do it again and I'll count how many moves you make.
What we were beginning to see duringour discussions was the emergence of
threegroups of categories.The first of these was what it was thatgave the speak-
ers somethingto talk about.Within this groupthe episodes could be classified as
to whether(a) they had a task or concreteobject as the focus of theirtalk;(b) they
90 WorkingTowarda Design for QualitativeResearch
did not have an understandingof something,but knew this and thus had some-
thing to talk about; (c) they did have some understanding,which gave them
somethingto talk about.
The second group was concerned with the kind of language used-the focus
being on the languagein which the discussionwas conductedand not on the con-
tent of the statementsmade.
Again three classificationssuggested themselves. Those were (f) the speakers
lackedappropriatelanguage-they did not have the corrector useful words,(g) the
speakersused ordinarylanguage,(h) the speakersused mathematicallanguage.
It could be conjecturedthat the categorizationof language as "ordinary"or
"mathematical"would be somewhat arbitrary,since "mathematical"language
for young childrenmight be "ordinary"language for them a few years later. In
practice,however, viewing the discussion in the context in which the pupils were
workingenabledus to make decisions with little difficulty or disagreement.
The thirdgroup thatemerged was the kind of statementsthe pupils were mak-
ing. A varietyof statementscould exist within any one episode. These were clas-
sified as (p) incoherent-that is to say, interactionsthatfit all our criteriafor dis-
cussion but contained statementsthat were incoherentto us, the observers;(q)
operational,or in otherwords, aboutspecific (frequentlynumerical)examples of
mathematics;(r) reflective, which we subsequentlyrenamed"abstractive"as its
naturebecame evident more in terms of statementsof generalizationsof mathe-
matics than in terms of statementsreflecting on mathematics.
We reviewed all the datacollected and categorizedeach episode on each of the
threegroups.The example given above was categorized(a,g,q). The pupils were
talking aboutthe task of recording,using ordinarylanguage, and making opera-
tional statements.Furtherexamples of the use of this categorizationcan be seen
in Pirie and Schwarzenberger(1988a) and Pirie and Schwarzenberger(1988b).
The essence of the method of constant comparisonis the repeatedreanalysis
of existing data.Even before the decision was made to codify all the episodes in
termsof the threegroupsabove, when any new, interestingfeaturewas observed,
all the tapes previously discussed were rescrutinizedfor signs of that new fea-
ture.Althoughwe were happyto agree with Glaserand Strauss(1967, p. 30) that
"a single case can indicate a general conceptualcategory or property,"we also
wantedto capturethe richnessof each of the categoriesthatwe were identifying,
and so we looked for furtherexamples to roundout our descriptions.
An emerging problem was how to identify the growth of understandingand
relateit to the examples of discussionwe were observing.Althoughthe abilityto
talk purposefullyabout mathematicsis-as are also the abilities to write mathe-
matics and to solve problems-prima faci evidence of mathematicalunderstand-
ing, it is not necessarilythe cause of, or even an aid to, such understanding.At this
stagewe based ourjudgementaboutthe growthof mathematicalunderstandingon
the interviewdata, noted it, but did not do much in the way of theorizingon the
effects of the discussion for the following importantreason. It rapidly became
apparentthat the paucity of examples of discussion seen by the Cockcroft
SusanPirie 91
ing a whole area of possible interest, the behaviors of the pupils-both their
mathematicalbehavior and the roles they verbally adopted within their small
groups.This generationof new questionsin the course of the examinationof the
datais one of the hallmarksof theoreticalsampling,and we approachedthe sec-
ond analysis, therefore,from a differentframeof reference.This time, using the
second round of data and using the same systematic individual and then joint
methodof interpretation,we deliberatelycategorizedthe incidents of discussion
from the point of view of verbalbehavior.Among others,the following headings
crystallized as relevant: "defining," "into algebra," "verbalizingfor approval
(frequentlytheir own)," "confusingeach other,"and "collaborativechecking."
This last category is worth a comment here because it illustrateshow cate-
gories evolved throughan examinationof data from a new perspective,both at
this point and at a later stage in the analysis. Up until now, we had not seen
episodes in which pupils checked their work as fitting our definition of discus-
sion. It was quite common for one pupil to check the working of the group, but
we had not seen it as more than an aside to the generaldiscussion abouta task in
hand. The following episode, however, suggested a new category of discussion
was called for.
Janie and Meg were workingwith the image of balancing-scalepans as a rep-
resentationof linear equations.For example, they had worked with the picture
shown in Figure 6.1.
Janie: So, you've got to take the same off both sides. The same numberof tins, or
weights off this side and off there so you can get rid of them.
They later progressedto writing the picture versions with "t" for tins. (The
foregoing example would have been written3t + 3 = t + 9.) Laterstill they were
faced with 8t- 9 = t + 12.
Janie: Eight tins take away nine ...
Meg: Takenineoff bothsides [shecrossesout the 9 andcrossesout the 12 and
replaces it by 3].
3
8t- 9 =/ + y
Janie: And take off a "t,"so 7t = 3 and t equals [uses a calculator;pause] ... That
can't be right. Let me do it again. Write it out again.
Susan Pirie 93
Theoretical Sampling
threes or fours on all the investigations and totally alone on the practice days.
Classes familiarwith his methods automaticallyworkedin this way. The advan-
tage of observingovert problemsolving of this naturewas thatthe solutionof the
problemcould be seen as a growth in understandingwithin the group, although
not necessarilyfor individuals.We became interestedin the questionDoes prob-
lem solving benefit from pupil-pupildiscussion? To get a wider perspectiveon
the effects on problem solving, we identified anotherteacherwho, by contrast,
used investigative group work as non-topic-specific relaxation between more
orthodoxspells of teaching throughexposition.
Most of the discussion that we observedtook place in small groups,but one of
our original teachers espoused a philosophy of learning based on whole-class
discussion, which frequently splintered to heated small-group discussion in
which all the pupils had to be able to justify the argumentsthey put forward.At
the beginningof the year, it was common to hearhim say, in responseto a ques-
tion from a pupil, "Don't ask me, ask her, she put the idea forward."But by a few
weeks into the term,many of the pupils totally disregardedhis presence afterhis
stimulatingand often provocativeinput at the startof the lesson. A furthersub-
sidiary, generative question became Are there significant differences between
whole-class and small-groupdiscussions in terms of pupils' learning?
The life of a researcheris never plain sailing! At this momentthe "whole-class
discussion"teacherleft the school in which he was working to head the depart-
ment of a school with a contrastingview of how mathematicsshould be taught,
namely, quietly, with individual learning materials.Ratherthan enter as a new
broom sweeping all along with him, he determinedto change the departmental
teaching approachby his own graduallychanging example. Initially the classes
he taught would still use the same individualizedmaterials,but studentswould
work at them in pairs. Although we lost the opportunityto gathermore data on
whole-class discussion, this change gave us the opportunityto observe discus-
sion in a quite different,structuredenvironment.The natureof our methodology
meant that this for us was nothing but an advantage.A differentcontext for the
discussion might enable us to spot importantfeatures of pupil-pupildiscussion
that were not evident to us previously, which did indeed prove to be the case.
An interestingvariationof the category of "collaborativechecking" came to
light, as the following episode demonstrates.Jonaand Bette were workingon the
same material,sometimes together and sometimes doing the tasks individually
and then looking at each other's work to check what the other was doing.
Presumablybecause talking was an encouragedbut unfamiliaractivity for these
pupils in a mathematicsclassroom, they frequentlytalked aloud, but ostensibly
to themselves, as they worked.
Jona: [They are expanding(x - 2)(x + 3) and Bette has writtenx2 + 3x + 2x - 6 and
x2 + 5x - 6] Tell me howyou didthatagain.[Shehasobviouslyoverheard
Bettetalkingherwaythroughherwork.]
Bette: Right, so you times the x's, x squared,OK? Then x times 3 ...
Jona: ... plus 3x [writingx2 + 3x].
Susan Pirie 95
The thirdphase of data collection and analysis was conductedwith the same
methods as before but in the new, changedand focused environments.Each new
set of dataanalyzedwas used to confirmexisting categoriesor suggest new ones.
In the latter situation, all previous data were examined to see whetherthe new
classification was an anomaly of the particulardata set or a universallyimpor-
tant grouping.This may sound very tedious and time consuming, but of course
with each new analysis, the researcherbecomes very familiarwith the previous
data. In addition,the process is not of itself unending.The aim is to attaintheo-
retical saturationin each category. This is judged to have been achieved when
new examples of the category add nothing to the developmentof its properties.
When similarinstances are encounteredrepeatedly,the researchercan be empir-
ically confidentthatthe categoryis saturatedand can then cease to examine such
data in the future. Data collection is then concentratedon filling gaps in other
areas pointed up by emerging theories and questions based on existing data.
When furtherdata sets suggest no new categories, then the researchcan be con-
sidered theoreticallystable.
SUMMARY
Postscript
I referredabove to the emergence of new categoriesfrom the data we collect-
ed in the "thwartingindividualizedlearning"environment.There were several
such categories,the most strikingof which we called "pupilas teacher."This cat-
egory was characterizedby one of the pupils clearly enactingthe role of a teacher
in the interaction.We took as evidence for this role play the pupil's adoptionof
the functions of teacher talk and language offered by Sinclair and Coulthard
(1975). Having reanalyzedall previousepisodes of discussion for the possibility
of inclusion within this new category and, interestingly,having found very few
examples in any other collections of data, we looked in detail at each included
episode. Some of the more extreme episodes we separatedinto furthernew cat-
egories labeled "usingpupil answerbook" and "pupilas lecturer,"and the main
category was subdividedaccordingto whetherthe pupil spontaneouslyadopted
the role of teacheror was cast as teacherby anotherpupil. We also looked at how
faithfully each pupil played the assigned role. This subcategorization is
explainedin detail in Newman and Pirie (1990). In the cases in which the pupils
Susan Pirie 97
Chapter 7
Withinthe scope of this monograph,it is possibleto set out only certainkey fea-
tures of the research activity: the principal means of data collection, and an
overview of the multipleformsof analysisthatare demandedby the complexityof
the settingand made possible by the complexityof the data.In the discussionthat
follows, specificresearchtechniquesof datacollectionandanalysisareoutlined,by
which the natureof classroomlearningmightbe put on a moreempiricalfooting.
PURPOSEIN CLASSROOMRESEARCH
at the time by eitherthe studentor the researcher.As with any clinical interview,
the researchermay miss one insight throughthe pursuitof another.Nonetheless,
the videotape record was substantially enriched by the student's immediate
reconstructionof those events perceivedto be significantat the time. Subsequent
analysis of interviewand videotapetranscriptscan be used to reveal relationships
of meaning that were not apparentat the time of the interview.
An importantdesign considerationis that without the videotape as stimulus,
the student'saccountis likely to be superficialand groundednot in actualclass-
room events but ratherin the student's uncertainreconstructionof the lesson.
Inconsistenciesamong studentaccountsof classroomlessons provide a fascinat-
ing study in themselves, but it is the learningstimulatedby the student'spartic-
ipation in particularclassroom events that is the focus of this research,specifi-
cally, the relationshipbetween these events and the student'sconsequentknow-
ings. Where the purposeof analysis is an understandingof the learningprocess,
the researcher'sinterpretationof the videotapedatais likely to be inadequateand
possibly misguided without the student's account. The researcherwould lack
insight into the associations,memories, and meaningsthateach classroomevent
evoked for the student.
Procedure:The Interview
At the end of the lesson, using the video record as stimulus, the researcher
interviewedthe targetstudentsindividually.This techniqueis in widespreaduse
(see, e.g., Anthony, 1994). For the interview stage, the researcherused the video
recorder,the video monitor,the laptop computer,and a compact audio recorder
to recordthe interviewon audiotape.The video recordof the lesson was sampled
as requiredin response to the identificationof a particularepisode by either the
student or the researcher.The following example is typical of the commence-
ment of such interviews.
I: Whatdo youthinkthatlessonwasabout?
S: Oh,linearfunctionsandhowyou graphthem.
I: Wasthatsomethingthatyou understood beforethelessonstarted?
S: Not really.I meanI knewaboutlinearfunctions,andwe haddonea bit of stuffon
graphing,butI couldn'tsayI reallyunderstood it.
I: Wouldyou say thatyouunderstand it now,afterthelesson?
S: Yes, I thinkso.
I: At whatpointin thelessonwouldyousaythatyoucameto "understand" aboutgraph-
ing linearfunctions?
S: I'm not sure.ProbablyafterI hadtrieda few of the problemsin the book,andthey
seemedto be comingoutOK.
I: Wastheresomethingthathappened in thelessonthatreallyhelpedyouto understand?
S: Maybe.I'm notsure.
I. It seemedto me thatyou spenta lot of timetalkingto Simoneat one point,whatwas
all thatabout?
David J. Clarke 103
The use of the CVideo software enabled the researcher to locate within the
field notes reference to actions of the student that seemed to be of significance
either to the researcher or to the student. Having found this point in the word doc-
ument, the software was used to find the corresponding moment on the video
record, which was then played back and discussed. The contrast between the
superficiality of the student's recollections without the aid of the videotape and
the comparative richness of the student's subsequent comments regarding a spe-
cific videotaped incident provide a recurrent endorsement of this technique.
The audio record of the interview was transcribed onto the relevant section of
the word document and time-tagged to the corresponding video incident.
Together, the video record and the word document incorporated the student and
teacher actions and utterances throughout the lesson, the researcher's field notes,
and the student's interpretations and explanations of significant events. This inte-
grated data source was then available for analysis. One example of such an inte-
grated word document is given below (bold = field notes; plain text = transcript
from videotape; italics = transcript from interview). The following sample text
includes two students' reconstructed accounts of the same event, after viewing
the video record of the interaction transcribed below.
00:39:27 to 00:41:30 T(teacher) asks students K and L what they've done. K
explains, T is dubious, then says I think you're right, L explains, says we're right.
T: Where'd you get 180 from?
K: Width. Equalspoint-
T: Why did you multiply them together?
K: To get the area. Forty-five thousand,thereforeyou'd need.
T: Forty-five thousand?
K: Forty-five thousand.That's what we got.
T: Forty-five thousand?Can you place that-can you place that-can you do that again?
Two hundredand fifty times one hundredand eighty, oh, hang on, hang on, I think
you're right. I think they're wrong.
K: Yup, they're wrong. We're right.
[L holds up calculator].
I (Interviewerwith student L): Uh huh. So why were you so sure your answer was right?
Or were you sure your answer was right?
L: Um, because when she asked us what it was, she thoughtit was right too.
I: I'd like you to tell me this last bit. So say that again for me.
L: She came and asked us to do the answer that we found and we had a differentanswer
to the one that another group had given her and when she heard our answer it must
have clicked that, um, it sounded more right than the other one did, so she went to tell
them that they were wrong.
I: It musthave clicked with her, so that's why she thoughtit was right. Whydid you think
it was right?
104 Studyingthe ClassroomNegotion of Meaning
There are many comments that might be made about the preceding data.
Comparisons might be made of the two students' interpretations of the exchange
with the teacher. In a study whose major focus is classroom negotiation, student
K's account of her motives and her perception of the interaction offer some
insight into what it is that is actually being negotiated in an exchange whose sur-
face content is mathematical. The example above strongly suggests that without
the student's reconstruction, the researcher's account of the interaction would be
unlikely to capture the student's motivations and construal of the particular
social situation. Yet, lacking this detail, any inferences the researcher might
make regarding the student's participation in the classroom and her associated
learnings would be extremely restricted.
Inference is an obligation the researcher cannot escape; the minimization of
the inferential gap remains a methodological imperative if our research is to
claim either authority or application different from that of the novelist or the
poet. To infer student thought processes and the significance of classroom
events on the basis of only videotape data seemed an unnecessary and unjusti-
fied extrapolation. An important, possibly essential, perspective on the class-
room was obtained from the students themselves in interview situations with the
David J. Clarke 105
Analysis by Exemplification
The key constructs from which our theories of classroom learning are con-
structedmust be empiricallywell founded. The operationalizationof these con-
structs occurs through the accumulation of research examples, in which the
obligations of the researcher are to provide theoretical justification of the
claimed exemplificationsand to subjectthe proposedoperationalizedconstructs
to the scrutinyof the informedcommunityof researchersand learningtheorists.
The following discussion illustratesthe use of "analysisby exemplification"to
identify empiricalexamples of the key constructsof "negotiation"and "intersub-
jectivity." The sample analysis from the integrateddata set that follows starts
from evidence of students'intersubjectivityand documentsalternativeforms of
uncertainty and the negotiative process whereby resolution is achieved-a
process in which intersubjectivityhas a centralrole. In this accountof classroom
learning,intersubjectivityenters as a mediatingagency, essential to the negotia-
tive process, wherebyuncertaintyis resolved and new knowings are constructed.
Both negotiationand intersubjectivity,and the relationshipbetween them,require
definitionto providea theoreticalframeworkfor the analysis thatfollows.
Negotiation has been characterizedin some detail elsewhere as a cyclic
process of refraction (construal), reflection, and representation-the goal of
which is consensus (Clarke, 1996). Lave and Wenger associate learning with
participationin practiceand assert that "participationis always based on situat-
ed negotiation and renegotiationof meaning in the world" (Lave & Wenger,
1991, p. 52). Cobb and Bauersfelddefine the negotiationof meaning succinctly
as "the interactive accomplishmentof intersubjectivity"(Cobb & Bauersfeld,
1995, p. 295).
Negotiation depends on language (or at least on some form of communica-
tive process), and language is constitutively intersubjective(Todarov, 1984, p.
30). Thus, a level of student-studentand student-teacherintersubjectivity is
106 Studyingthe ClassroomNegotion of Meaning
StructuralAnalysis of Text
Anothertype of analysis of the integrateddatasets used to achieve the research
goals involves the classification of the text into three levels: the episode, the
negotiative event, and the utterance.Episodes comprise the dialogue and activi-
ties that studentsengage in as they approach,work on, and complete a particular
classroom activity, such as a problem-solving task. Thus, each episode is a
coherent unit of activity unified by a single purpose. Each such episode may
involve several negotiative events. A negotiative event is defined by an identifi-
able intermediatepurpose-a purpose whose realizationis an intermediategoal
within the encompassing episode. Each negotiative event may be composed of
108 Studyingthe ClassroomNegotion of Meaning
several utterances, each with its own immediate purpose. The interpretation of
the significance of a given episode requires an interpretation of each constituent
level: the negotiative event and the utterance.
The following episode illustrates the partitioning of text according to the
occurrence of "negotiative events" within an "episode." (K and L are student
interviewees, S20 and S22 student noninterviewees, and T is the teacher.)
Episode 2
EVENT 1
1. L: [Writing]500 sheets. Height equals.
2. K: OK, question 2 [Find the height of a stack of one million sheets of paper].
3. L: Does everyone understandwhat we did with numberone?
4. K: No, but. Anyway. 500 sheets.
5. L: And how many sheets do we need?
6. K: 500 sheets of what? 500 sheets.
7. L: Their height equals five point eight.
8. S20: We've done that.
9. K: I know. But we've got to do it all togetherso.
10. L: One point oh times ten to the power of six divided by five hundred.
11. K: Oh veah sure everyday what are you talking about?What are you talking
about?
12. L: Finding out how many five hundredsthere are in a million.
13. K: How many five hundredsthere are in a million. That would make it one
thousand.How many thousandsare therein a million? Thatwould make a
thousand,two thousand.What? [to anotherS]. I have a lot to say.
14. L: [Uses calculator]Two thousand.Well done!
15. K: This is called skill. This is what you do. Five hundredinto a hundredwhich
is two. Then you do a hundred[correctingherself] which is a thousand.
16. L: Times five point eight. Shush.
17. K: Which is 2. Then you do a thousandinto a million which is one thousand,
so one thousandtimes two is two thousand.
18. L: Eleven thousandsix hundred.
EVENT 2
19. T: With your working out folks I want you to tell me what you are mult-
Matthew-what you are multiplyingby, and you simply put a little arrow
telling me what and why.
20. K: What are we doing? Is it a million sheets of paperthough?
21. L: Yeah. One point ...
22. K: We're doing a million sheets of paper.
23. L: Yeah, you need ...
24. K: Yes we do. We do, shut up.
25. L: Therefore,I did that wrong.
26. K: Two thousandtimes five point eight is eleven, six, zero, zero. [i.e.,11,600]
27. L: [Soundingout letters] M-ms?
28. K: Centimeters-which would make it eleven point six meters,right?
David J. Clarke 109
EVENT 3
29. L: Or eleven-yeah. It'd be eleven point six meters, wouldn't it, 'cause you
take off one to get the centimeters,and anotherone, yeah. [pause]
30. K: [Lookingup] That's quite high, isn't it?
31. L: All right. And you've got to point out what the units [?] are, right?
32. K: You've got to point out what the what is?
33. L: We have to show what we're multiplyingby.
[S22 says somethingto K, K laughs]
34. S20: That's not how you know, you look like you know what you're doing and
you just do it.
35. K: Exactly, you go into a state of total concentration,it lasts about2 seconds,
that's when you get the answer, and then you don't know what you're
doing, so it doesn't matter.Five hundredsheets equals, height equals five
point eight centimeters.I don't even understandwhat I wrote. [pause as L,
K write]
EVENT 4
36. K: But why do we divide a million by five hundredto get that answer?
37. L: Because you know, if you know what the height is ...
38. K: So what am I doing? Tell me what I'm doing here, tell me what I've done.
39. L: All right. You know that five hundredsheets equals fifty-eight ...
40. L and K: Five point eight centimeters.
41. K: There is a point there, it's up there.
42. L: Oh, I can't see it.
43. K: Get some other glasses.
44. L: Now, we need to know-we need to know the height of a million sheets of
paper.Thereforeyou must divide a million by five hundredand times that
numberby five point eight.
45. K: [Writing]Equals two thousand.Sheets of paper.
46. L: OK.
47. K: Two thousandtimes five point eight centimetersequals eleven thousand
six hundred centimeters, equals eleven point six meters of paper. [bell
rings]
The preceding transcription may be considered one episode in a lesson con-
sisting of many episodes. Using structural analysis, I partitioned this episode into
four events that can be characterized as follows:
* Event 1 combines the refinement of intersubjectivity within the group with
L's first solution attempt (1 to 18).
* Event 3 involves the negotiation of appropriate units of measurement (29 to
35).
* Event 2 revisits the procedure employed in Event 1 (19 to 28).
* Event 4 reviews the procedure again and links it to the task (36 to 47).
These structural elements identified within the text may reflect parallel struc-
tures within the process of learning.
110 Studyingthe ClassroomNegotion of Meaning
ComplementaryAccounts
Different perspectives,reflectingdifferentobjects of study within the encom-
pasing goal of modelingclassroomlearning,can be used to analyzethe integrated
datasets. Forexample,Clarkeand Helme (1997) used the datain Episode2 to dis-
cuss the role of negotiationin the resolutionof uncertaintyin mathematicsclass-
rooms.Episode2 is also amenableto analysiswith respectto the severalinstances
of studentmetacognitioncontainedwithin the text (Lines 13, 20, 25, 35, 38) and
the functionof these self-evaluativereflectionswithinthe learningprocess.
These two accounts of Episode 2-one from the perspectiveof the resolution
of uncertaintyand one from the perspectiveof studentuse of metacognition-are
not in competition; they representcomplementaryinterpretationsof the same
integrateddata set. Such complementaryaccountshave the potentialto be mutu-
ally informingand to constitutein combinationa richer portrayalof classroom
learningthan would be possible by the considerationof either account separate-
ly. The acknowledgementof the relativistcharacterof any particularaccount of
social activity commits us to defining explicitly the nature of our focus of
inquiry,and those terms we employ in the analysis and comparisonof the vari-
ous accounts, since we are no longer able to presume any specific (absolute)
meaningby implicit appealto the authorityof cultureor the conventionsof use.
A key design element in the complementary accounts methodology is the
bringing together of a researchteam with sufficiently diverse expertise to ade-
David J. Clarke 1ll
quately implement this approach.The research project from which the exam-
ples in this chapterwere taken used an internationalteam of more than a dozen
university academics with expertise in mathematicseducation, developmental
psychology, sociology, epistemology, values analysis, motivation,mathematics,
science education, children's conceptual frameworks, metacognition, gender,
and a range of qualitativeand quantitativeresearchmethodologies. Ratherthan
seek a consensus interpretationof an event, an episode, or an interaction,indi-
vidual members of the research team were encouraged to interpretthe docu-
mented interactionfrom their own distinct, carefully articulatedtheoreticalper-
spective and use their particularselection for focus of study. The goal of such a
process is complementarityratherthan consensus, and each researcher'sinter-
pretationis accordedparity of status, subject to the same criteriaof coherence,
consistency with the videotape data, and plausibility.
CONCLUSION
Chapter 8
Barbara Jaworski
This chapter is about the research methods employed in a study that explored
the nature of the teaching in a setting that might be called an "investigative
approach" to the learning of mathematics (Jaworski, 1994). There were strong
parallels between the teaching method and the investigative nature of the
research itself. Both were embedded in a theoretical base of radical and, subse-
quently, social constructivism. The research methodology was broadly ethno-
graphic, using data-collection techniques of participant observation and inter-
viewing and verification techniques of triangulation and respondent validation.
It was conducted from a researcher-as-instrument position; in other words, the
main instrument in both data collection and analysis was the researcher. This was
both inevitable and a source of serious issues, particularly where validation of
interpretations and emergent theory were concerned. The meaning of research
rigor in this context is central to the discussion that follows.
THE STUDY
I begin by briefly describing the theoretical background for the research. This
description introduces needed terminology and raises some questions and issues
that will be addressed in the subsequent discussion.
I should like to thankDoug Grouws and Anne Watson for their very helpful comments on
an earlierversion of this chapter.
BarbaraJaworski 113
Significance
An importantissue for the researchwas thatof "significance."All observation
is selective, if only because when one looks to the left, one misses somethingto
116 Centralityof the Researcher:Rigor in a ConstructivistInquiry
the right. Neithermy field notes nor audio or video recordingscould capturethe
totalityof the classroom.WhateverI recordedin field notes musthave caughtmy
attentionand so had some level of significance. In the case of electronicrecord-
ing, choices had to be made about where to point a camera or place an audio
recorder.When I listened to a recordingof a lesson or interview, some aspects
stood out more than others;thus, they carriedsignificance. A majorpart of my
analysis was to recognize and accountfor items of significance.
The following text is structuredto provide details of issues of significance
throughan example of an episode that was accorded significance. In the main
text, I discuss the methodological concerns, whereas the indented text offers
descriptionsand analyses from the research.
Interpretation,Reflexivity,and Rigor
As I have indicated, an importantpart of my analysis was the attributionof
meaning in classroom situations. In this context (of qualitative, interpretative,
and possibly constructivist research), Burgess (1985) claims that the main
researchinstrumentis the researcher-the researcheris central to the research.
The researcher'stask is to seek out the meaningsin a situationwith referenceto
declared interests or goals. Cohen and Manion (1989) state, "One can only
impute meaning to [experiences]retrospectively,by the process of turningback
on oneself and looking at what had been going on" (p. 32). This reflectionof sig-
nificance back to the goals of the researchis known as reflexivity.Thatis, reflex-
ivity is a to and fro movement between the researcherand the research-a con-
stantquestioningand critiquingof observationsand analyses relative to the total
situationand context in which the researchtakes place. The personaltheories of
the researcherare one aspect of this totality.
I identified a reflexive cycle in analysis and synthesis throughoutmy research,
whereby interpretationswere centralobjects. Where possible, I sought to verify
accounts by triangulatingdata-seeking the interpretationsof the other partici-
pants in an event, for example, teacher and student, or of another observer.
However, Cicourel (1973) points out limitationsin this statement:
It is difficultfortheobserver"toverifyhis interpretation
of theothers'experiences by
checkingthemagainsttheothers'ownsubjective Theobserver
interpretations."... is like-
ly todrawonhisownpastexperiences asa common-sense actorandscientific
researcher
to decidethecharacter of theobservedactionscene.(p.36,citingSchutz,1964)
Cicourelcites Schtitz(1964), who goes furtherin recognizingthe special posi-
tion of the researcher:
Theobserver'sschemeof interpretation
cannotbe identical,of course,withtheinter-
pretativescheme of either partnerin the social relationobserved.The modifications
of attention which characterizethe attitude of the observer cannot coincide with
those of a participantin an ongoing social relation.For one thing, what he finds rel-
evant is not identical with what they find relevantin the situation.Furthermore,the
observer stands in a privileged position in one respect: he has the ongoing experi-
ences of both partnersunder observation. On the other hand the observer cannot
legitimately interpretthe "in-order-to"motives of one participantas the "because"
motives of the other, as do the partnersthemselves, unless the interlockingmotives
become explicitly manifestedin the observablesituation.(p. 36)
118 Centralityof the Researcher:Rigor in a ConstructivistInquiry
Generalizibilityand TheoryGeneration
In additionto fieldnotes, transcriptsfrom audio- and videotapes,and one set of
questionnairedata of student's views of mathematicslessons, I had as data my
own reflective notes writtenthroughoutthe study. These consisted of day-to-day
jottings regardingincidentsI had experiencedand my own ideas and perceptions.
Sometimesthey were elaborationsof anecdotesthathad significance. Sometimes
they involved incipienttheorizing-expressing patternsI observedor attempting
explanations.Eisenhart(1988) refers to this type of data collection as researcher
introspectionin which "theethnographertries to accountfor sources of emergent
interpretations,insights, feeling, and the reactive effects that occur as the work
proceeds"(p. 106).
The incipient theorizing attemptedto express levels of generality within the
research.A criticism of qualitativeresearchmethods is that it is very difficult to
make and justify generalizationsthat apply to other settings. In-depthresearch
necessarily results in small samples from which it can be hard to extrapolate.
Delamont and Hamilton (1986) addressthis issue by recognizing the difficulty,
yet claiming that some degree of generalizationmakes sense:
Despitetheirdiversity,individualclassroomssharemanycharacteristics. Through
thedetailedstudyof oneparticularcontext,it is stillpossibleto clarifyrelationships,
pinpointcriticalprocesses,andidentifycommonphenomena. Laterabstracted sum-
mariesandgeneralconceptscanbe formulated, whichmay,uponfurtherinvestiga-
tionbe foundto be germaneto a widervarietyof settings.(p. 36)
In my own study, it was importantto consider how far the classroom charac-
teristics I found significant were indicative of investigative approachesmore
generally or were of relevance to other teacherswishing to interpreta construc-
tivist philosophy in mathematicsteaching. Furlong and Edwards (1986) make
this comment:
Althoughthe ethnographer is committedto havingas opena mindas possibledur-
ing his periodof observation, it is inevitablethathe will beginhis workwithsome
preconceptions andsomeforeshadowed problemswhichwill leadhimto payatten-
tionto certainincidentsandignoreothers.If he presentshis observations as "objec-
tive description,"
he is probablynaivelyunawareof his ownselectivity.Ontheother
hand,if he followsa theorytoo closely,he will be accusedof selectingobservations
to supporthis ownpointof view. (p. 54)
There seems to be some skill required in weaving a path between the two
polarizationsexpressed here, and I was very much aware of the implicationsof
this for my own work. I recognizedpotentialfor what Glaser and Strauss(1967)
refer to as "an opportunisticuse of theory,"which they call "exampling":
A researchercan easily find examplesfor dreamed-up, speculative,or logically
deducedtheoryafterthe ideahas occurred.But sincethe ideahasnotbeenderived
fromthe example,seldomcan the examplecorrector even changeit (evenif the
authoris willing),sincetheexamplewasselectivelychosenforits confirmingpower.
Thereforeone receivesthe imageof a proofwherethereis none,and the theory
obtainsa richnessof detailthatit didnotearn.(p. 5)
120 Centralityof the Researcher:Rigor in a ConstructivistInquiry
For example, in the early stages of my researchI was exhilaratedby the way
that radical constructivism (then, a theory that I had only just encountered)
seemed to underpinmy perceptionsof an investigativeapproachto mathematics
teaching. It was possible to look at examples of students'mathematicalthinking
as they arose in the lessons I observed and cast these in radical constructivist
terms. However, it then became necessary to look critically at the relationships
involved to see how a theory such as radicalconstructivismwould fit the com-
plexity of my researchas a whole.
Consideragain the episode of Mike's requiringhis class to ask questions.This
episode emerged, in my analysis, as significantfrom the lesson of which it was
part;therefore,some selection had takenplace from the dataat this stage. I need-
ed to accountfor this significance theoretically.The theoreticalsignificancehad
two levels: (a) it fit with my own constructivistperspectiveof knowledge growth
and hence learning, and (b) it contributedto emergent theory of the practical
implications(for a mathematicsteacher,for example) of a constructivistview of
knowledge and learning.
I thus had to justify my analysis at these levels. This justification is summa-
rized in the indentedtext that follows:
The process of asking their own questions encourages students to become
immersedin the ideas thatthe teacherwantsto be the focus of the lesson. From
asking questionsand the resultinginvestigation,studentsgain ownershipof the
mathematicsthey generate,whichprovidesan experientialgroundingfor synthe-
sis of particularmathematicalideas. The teacher'sapproachfostersquestioning
and investigatingand,moreover,an independenceof thinkinganddecisionmak-
ing thatcan lead to studentstakingmoreresponsibilityfor theirown learning.
This analysis rests on the constructivistview that (a) students' own con-
structionsare central to their developing mathematicalconcepts and (b) the
practicalteachingacts (such as requiringstudentsto ask questions)put empha-
sis on students' own constructionsto make these more evident in students'
knowledge growth.
Clearly, some statementshere need furtherexplanationandjustification (e.g.,
the importanceof experientialgroundingand its practicalmanifestations).It was
centralto my researchto providethis kind of critique,thatis, the requisiteexpla-
nations andjustification.There were various levels of complexity. One of these
involved the characterizationof an investigative approachin terms of "asking
questions,""ownershipof ideas," and "takingresponsibilityfor own learning."
Were these constructs emergent from the data, or did they accord with the
researcher'spreconceptions?Was the researcherengaged in the productionof
grounded theory or in a process of exampling? Another level of complexity
involved reconciling observationswith theory such as radicalconstructivism-
for example, in seeing the teacher'semphasison students'askingtheirown ques-
tions and makingtheirown decisions as contributingto students'constructionof
mathematicalconcepts.
BarbaraJaworski 121
Addressing these questions and issues requireda very detailed study of the
research data. A disadvantage of trying to provide a flavor of the research
process througha particularepisode is that, by its very nature,the episode can-
not carry a sense of the interweavingof observations,perceived attributes,and
analyticalcategories.It cannot show, for example, how "askingquestions"relat-
ed to "patternspotting" and "making conjectures"in other lessons and other
classrooms. It cannot show how this teacher's approachin this lesson compared
or contrastedwith approachesin his other lessons or in other teachers' lessons.
One episode cannot show that one teacherworks accordingto an investigative
approach,let alone have consequences for describing an investigative style of
teaching more generally. The overall research synthesis demands a rational
weaving of such researchoutcomes and a clarityof presentationthatallows other
researchersto judge its validity. Where an episode is concerned,I can say little
beyond what this teacheraimed to achieve and what seemed to occur in his class-
room. However, by taking many such episodes from differentlessons of differ-
ent teachersit is often possible to see a patternof interactionsin which students
question and investigate mathematicalsituations and in which the groundwork
for synthesis of mathematicalconcepts is prepared.Subsequently,it is possible
to take these practicalmanifestationsof aspects of theory and flesh out the theo-
ry. This is the symbiotic process that I describedearlier.
In summary,initial theory gives startingpoints for observationand selection.
Episodes selected are rich in details thatthe theoryis too narrowto predict.From
this richness, patternsemerge that not only substantiatethe theory, but make
clearer what such theory means for the practice of teaching and learning. This
enhancedtheory can then be reappliedto furtherpracticalsituationsfor substan-
tiation and enrichment.
THE THEORY-PRACTICEINTERFACE
In my research,an example of theory arising from data was a theoreticalcon-
structI called the Teaching Triad (Jaworski,1992). This constructarose from a
close scrutiny of all the data from one teacher, which involved categorizing
attributesand classifying emerging patterns.It was possible to characterizeher
teaching under three headings: managementof learning, sensitivity to students,
and mathematicalchallenge. These categorieshad distinctas well as interrelated
properties.This was theorygeneration.The teachingtriademergeddirectlyfrom
the data.I conjecturedthatthis teacher'steachingcould be characterizedthrough
the teaching triad. I tested the triad on furtherlessons that had not been part of
the original analysis to see whether these also fit with the triad or whether the
triadcould offer a characterization.Considerableevidence supportedthe triad's
potential to characterizethis teaching. It was then importantto test the triad
againstotherteaching to see whetherit had potentialbeyond one teacher.Again,
evidence suggested it had. The next stage was to rationalizethe teaching triad,
an emergentconstruct,with the theoreticalbasis of the research,a constructivist
122 Centralityof the Researcher:Rigor in a ConstructivistInquiry
The class was beginning a project on packaging. In the first lesson of the pro-
ject, the teacher, Clare, and the students had brought into the classroom packages
and bottles of various kinds from domestic products. Clare had organized a
brainstorming session with the class, seeking questions that might be explored
with regard to packaging of various kinds. A set of twenty questions had result-
ed, and Clare had photocopied a sheet of these for each member of the class.
Students were encouraged to start by exploring a question of their own choice.
The videotaped episode consists of about 5 minutes of class time from the sec-
ond lesson of the project. A number of girls sitting together at a table had chosen
to work on the questions "Which shapes are scaled down versions of other
shapes? How can you tell? How can you check?" They had identified three vari-
ables, volume, surface area, and shape, that they were trying to relate to one
another. They had decided that they needed to fix one of these variables in order
to explore the other two. The one they decided to fix was shape, and they decid-
ed to make it a cuboid. A transcription of the episode appears in Figure 8.1. An
analysis of the episode follows.
It's a Cuboid
This involves a group of girls, including Rebecca and Diana, who were working on ques-
tions relating to volume and surface area using a large collection of packets from com-
mercially producedproducts.The teacher, Clare, listened to their conversationfor some
moments, and then interjected:
(1) C1 We're saying, volume, surface area and shape, three, sort of variables, variables.
And you're saying, you've fixed the shape-it's a cuboid. And I'm going to say to you
[pause]hm
[She pauses and looks around.]
Cl I'll be back in a minute
[but she continues talking.]
C1 Thatis a cuboid.
[She picks up a tea packet.]
C1 Thatis a cuboid.
[She picks up an electric light bulb packet.]
(5) C1 and...
[She goes away-then returnswith a meter rule.]
(table continues)
Barbara Jaworski 123
Cl This is a cuboid.
[She looks aroundat their faces. Some are grinning.]
Cl And you're telling me that those are all the same shape? [Everyonegrins.]
(8) Reb Well, no-o. They've all got six separatesides though.
Cl They've all got six sides. But I wouldn't say that that is the same shape as that.
(10) Reb No-o
Cl Why not?
Di Yes you would ...
[Thereis an inaudibleexchange between the girls D and R.]
Cl What's different?
[Thereare some very hardto hearresponseshere. They include the words size and longer.]
Cl Different in size, yes.
[Clarereachedout for yet anotherbox, a large cereal packet,which she holds alongside the
small cereal packet.]
(15) Cl Would you say that those two are differentshapes?
Reb They're similar.
Cl What does similar mean?
Reb Same shape, differentsizes. [They all laugh.]
[Duringthe last four exchanges therewas hesitancy,a lot of eye contact,giggles, each per-
son looking at othersin the group,the teacherseeming to monitorthe energy in the group.]
C1 Same shape but differentsizes. That's going roundin circles isn't it? [R nods exag-
geratedly. Others laugh. Teacher laughs.] We still don't know what you mean by shape.
What d'you mean by shape?
[She gathers three objects, the two cereal packets and the metre rule. She places the rule
alongside the small cereal packet.]
(20) Cl This and this are differentshapes, but they're both cuboids.
[She now puts the cereal packets side-by-side.]
C1 This and this are the same shape and different sizes. What makes them the same
shape?
[One girl refersto a scaled-downversion. Anotherto measuringthe sides-to see if they're
in the same ratio. Clarepicks up their words and emphasises them.]
(22) Cl Right. So it's about ratio and about scale.
The episode seems to split into three parts, which I characterize as follows:
statements 1-7, the teachers' initial challenge; statements 8-14, students'
engagement; and statements 15-22, further challenge. In terms of the teaching
triad, parts 1 and 3 show strong elements of mathematical challenge, part 2 pro-
vides evidence of sensitivity to students, and the ethos within which the episode
occurs is indicative of the teacher's management of the learning environment.
At the beginning of the episode, the teacher has listened to the students' dis-
cussion and made a decision to intervene. From her point of view, the problem
124 Centralityof the Researcher:Rigor in a ConstructivistInquiry
teacher's part.The girls might not take up the challenge. It might be inappropri-
ate. They might not be able to cope with it. They might lose their own, perhaps
precarious,thinkingand possibly their confidence. The teacher,in having some-
how to salvage the situation,might increase students'dependencyon her. These
were some of the dilemmas facing Clare as she chose her course of action with
the students.
For Clare,mathematicalchallenge seemed always to be allied to sensitivity to
students.She knew her studentswell, for which I had much evidence. The three
girls had previously demonstratedtheirability to thinkwell mathematically.She
believed that they had high mathematicalpotential. She also had a very good
relationshipwith them. The risks she took were allied to this knowledge. These
factors are all facets of the culturalethos of the classroom and the teacher'srole
in encouragingstudents' mathematicalconstructions.Situationswere createdin
which mathematicscould be discussed-in this case, the packaging questions.
Discussion and negotiationwere actively encouraged,with the teacherproviding
stimulationor provocationwhere she believed it was needed. Such knowledge of
students,creationof tasks, and acts of encouragementand stimulationwere part
of the teacher's managementof the learningenvironment.The classroom ethos
was a productof this managementof learning.
The next partof the episode, in statements8-14, shows a lessening of the ten-
sion as the girls began to think throughwhat had been offered. It was almost as
if they were thinking aloud, ratherthan participatingin discussion. The shapes
all have six sides. However, the meter rule and the bulb box are not the same
shape. How are they different?Well, they are the same in some respects. In this
section the teacherwas less intrusive,perhapsprovidingspace for students'con-
structivethinkingto internalizethe problem,but her remarkswere still focusing.
"Whatis different?"
Success in a situationlike this dependsvery greatly on the teacher's sensitivi-
ty to students' perceptions, both mathematicaland social. In analyzing why I
believed that this episode was successful with regardto the teacher's objectives
and the students'gain, I attributedit to the decision makingby the teacherat var-
ious strategicpoints. Clearlythe teacherhad to make the initial decision to inter-
vene and to do so as provocativelyas she did. However, there was anothercru-
cial decision hovering in the middle stage of the episode. Were the studentsable
to take up the challenge?Could they make progress?Whatelse should she offer?
It was in makingan appropriatedecision here that sensitivity to the studentswas
most crucial. The success, or otherwise, of such episodes is very rarely due to
just chance, but usually involves a high degree of vital decision makingbased on
teaching knowledge and experience (Calderhead,1987; Cooney, 1988).
Finally, in statements15-22, the teacherseemed to decide thatshe shouldpush
further.She chose two cereal packets of different sizes but the same shape and
asked if they were the same. She was rewardedinstantlyas one girl offered the
crucial word, similar. So she pushed harder:"Whatdoes similar mean?"The
reply was not helpful. They were going roundin circles. She diffused the tension
126 Centralityof the Researcher:Rigor in a ConstructivistInquiry
CONCLUSIONS
Chapter 9
Forms of educational inquiry are shaped not only by the traditions of scientif-
ic and naturalistic research but also by researchers' epistemological assump-
tions-that is, by their beliefs about the nature and scope of knowledge itself. If
it is believed that knowing is a matter of saying what is objectively real, then
researchers will aim to describe and measure observable entities, to explain
these, and then to suggest ways in which the resulting understandings might best
be used. Such a belief about knowledge leads to the selection of relatively objec-
tive research methods and data, with researchers attempting to remove them-
selves from the subject matter of the study. However, if it is believed that know-
ing is a matter of having a stance within a world, then researchers will aim for
new ways of participating in that world through the construction of tentative the-
ories and through demonstrating an openness to changing understandings and
alternative viewpoints. Such a belief about knowledge is likely to lead to
research methods and data that are more varied and more qualitative in nature.
Contrasting beliefs about what it is to know are linked with different under-
standings of terms like understanding. Such serious words are difficult to define
in that they come to have meaning only as they are situated (uttered) in particu-
lar discourses, such as in the alternative discourses currently vying for
researchers' allegiances. What was initially a contrast of style between research
in the physical sciences and that in the human sciences has become a method-
ological divide, and the notion of what it is to understand has become a measure
of the very depth of this divide. In the physical sciences, the term clusters with
words like explain, cause, grasp, and discover. However, in the human sciences,
it clusters with interpret, reason, express, and experience. This contrast relates
closely to discourses about knowledge in that the gaining of understandings in
the physical sciences is about researchers grasping reality (e.g., by measuring or
predicting an event), whereas in the human sciences it is about researchers being
grasped by reality (e.g., by experiencing and interpreting an event). Although the
former act necessitates a stance outside the event, the latter creates changes in the
lifeworlds of researchers-altering lived experience in fundamental ways.
On the assumption of a dialectical relationship between understanding and
interpretation, what it is to interpret is to be similarly defined within these con-
JudithMousley,Peter Sullivan,and AndrewWaywood 129
The next section of this chapter elaborates our use of NUD*IST.It uses one
applicationof the tool in a study by the first two authors.It outlines the stages of
the researchand the steps in the use of NUD*IST. Concurrently,some issues aris-
ing from the use of such tools are discussed as are some of the additionaloptions
available in the program.
Participantswere asked to complete this item first, before they read any cate-
gories presentedin the latterpartof the questionnaire,in orderto capturerespon-
dents' own initial reactionsto the request.
The second, more structured,part of the instrumentused fixed format items.
Seventy-eightpairs of descriptorswere compiled from researchsummaries(e.g.,
Bell, Costello, & Kuchemann,1983), from teaching frameworks(e.g., Good,
Grouws, & Ebmeier, 1983), from recent recommendations(e.g., Australian
EducationCouncil, 1990), and from the earlierquestionnaireused with the student
teachers(Mousley & Clements, 1990). The descriptorswere clusteredunderthe
headingsteachingenvironment,lessonaims,lessoncontent,presentation, class activ-
ities,questions,aids,assessment,andclosure.Descriptorswerepresentedas bipolars.
Forinstance,one set of descriptorslistedin the lesson aimsclusterreadas follows:
there was no clear purpose <-- there was a clear purpose
pupils were aware of the aims <--- pupils were not aware of the aims
the goals were not achieved <- the goals were achieved
the aims were negotiated <- > the aims were imposed
Respondents were asked to (a) write in any importantcharacteristicsthey
thoughtwere missing, (b) delete any pairs that seemed not necessary for quality
mathematicslessons, then (c) mark on the continua whether quality teaching
would be closer to one of the pair of featuresor the other, and (d) rankthe fea-
turesin orderof importance.The analysis of the second structuredcomponentof
the survey is not discussed here other than to note that the data can be linked to
responses to the open-responseitems by using NUD*IST.
Judith Mousley, Peter Sullivan, and Andrew Waywood 133
The survey was first piloted with twelve teachers and teacher educators.To
test the layout, length, and complexity of the form; to determineparticipants'
thinkingduringthe completion process; and to discuss with them possible solu-
tions for any difficulties experiencedin completing the form, these respondents
were observed and interviewedas they completed the questionnaire.
After revision in accordancewith the feedbackgained from the pilot study, the
questionnairewas mailed to threegroupsof people involved in mathematicsedu-
cation. These were mainly colleagues and fellow members of two professional
associations.Forty survey responses came from experiencedteacherswho were
graduatestudents in mathematicseducation (100% return),56 from Victorian
teachereducators(80% return),and 29 from Americanteachereducators(40%
return).These groupswere selectedbecausethey representedan informedview of
currentissues in teaching and learningyet would presentopportunitiesfor com-
parisonsto be made between sets of datafrom differentgroupsof respondents.
DATA ANALYSIS
All 125 responses to the open-response item were word processed. The
NUDoISTprogramproduced a printoutthat identified the respondent'soccupa-
tion, country,and so forth, and the raw data (a list of descriptors,a sentence, or
a paragraph).For example, the printout reproduced as Figure 9.1 was the
response from Number 70, a mathematicseducation colleague from Victoria,
Australia.
*2
70 MESH 2
* QUESTION 1 3
- well-prepared,i.e., lesson structuredappropriately 4
- if relevant,a relatedconcrete/investigative
project/activity 5
- guided interactivediscussion leadingto conceptualunderpinnings 6
- should be related,where possible, to previouslearningand relatedto 7
children'sconceptualexperiences 8
The first step in the analysis process was to separatethe phrasesinto units that
seemed to convey a particularthought. The phrases were categorized by hand
with a numericalclassification system involving a taxonomy of classroom prac-
tices-a taxonomy not developed in advance of the categorizationprocess, but
resultingfrom discussions as each phrasewas examined.
Initially, some key ideas were identified by inspection of the data. These
formedthe top-level nodes. One node was used for backgrounddata, such as the
134 Using a Computerin Synthesisof QualitativeData
1 2
pupil'sactivity
11 12 13
I
contentand activities
I
interaction
I 17 I 1
I I I I
discussion
investigations/
problemsolving between pupils
two entries.We decided that some of the responsesfit neatly into two categories,
and because we were less interestedin the numberof phrasesin each category
than in what was actually said (and what we could use in planning exemplary
lessons), we allowed the methodology to respond to our needs as researchers
ratherthanto be constrainedby traditionsof any researchapproaches.
It was to our benefit that we were working as a team at this stage; otherwise,
individual understandingswould not have been challenged so frequently.We
found that the NUD-ISTprogramis, as its manualclaims (Richards& Richards,
1990), more than a "code-and-retrieve"system:
The indexingdatabase can be of any level of complexity-fromthe flat lists of
codesnecessaryfor mostcode-and-retrieveprograms to highlyorganizedandcom-
indexesof categoriesandsub-categories.
plextree-structured Thisstructuring allows
indexingconceptsto be organizedandmanagedas theoreticalsystems,notjust as
labels.(p. 7)
Emerging Categories
At this stage, numbercodes were assigned to each of the text units and entered
into the computer.For the backgrounddata-for example, country of origin-
the whole of the survey was coded at the particularsubnode. This was done
because NUD?IST checks aspects of one category againstthose of anotherrather
than match informationwithin any node. For example, a researchermay later
wish to ask such questions as, "Whatdid males say about problem solving and
how does this comparewith what females said?"or "How did comments about
use of manipulativesvary between Australianand USA teachers?"Searches of
this naturerequirethe personalinformationto be storedin one node and the spe-
cific topics, such as "problemsolving" or "manipulatives,"to be in different
nodes (or subnodes)so that sortingand matchingprocesses can take place.
Initially, the major categories into which all data were placed were teacher
action (1) and pupil action (2). Figure 9.3 shows a set of example phrasesused
by a respondent.The first number2 given in the tripleto the rightof each phrase
relatesto the classificationpupil action. The middle numbersindicateminorcat-
egories from the next level of the classification tree: content and activities (12)
and interaction(13). The right-handnumber in the triple designates a further
JudithMousley, Peter Sullivan,and Andrew Waywood 137
Physicalinvolvement (2 12 3) 4
Cooperativelearning (2 12 3) 5
Discussion (2 13 1) 6
Problemsolving (2 12 17) 7
Risktaking (2 12 8) 8
testing the consistency and coherence of the conclusions, or for examining the
impact of a differentteam of researchers.
Threefacilities of the programenabledthe keeping of an "audittrail"(Lincoln
& Guba, 1985, p. 319) throughoutthe analysisstage. The firstis the abilityto save
(as documents)and recall datafrom any stage of the analysisprocess.The second
is thatNUD*IST keeps a log of changesautomatically.A historyof what was done
thereforeforms the basis for keeping a record of, and retracingif desired, the
researchprocess.The thirdusefulfacilityis the capacityfor the researcherto notate
any entryfromwithinthe program.These facilitiesallow researchersto enterques-
tions arising, points of interest,links to publishedtheory (includingappropriate
quotations),commentsaboutthe researchprocess,and othernotes. They therefore
facilitate(a) the process of developing understandings,(b) the recordingof con-
ceptualdevelopmentsthathave takenplace, and (c) the writingup at a laterstage.
They also open up the researchprocessto examinationby others.
THINKING
(21218)
Aimsto develop understandingopportunityfor studentthinking
Lesson requiresthinkingratherthan repetitionand mimicking
Promotesthinking
Lotsof thinkingby students abouttask
Speculatingon how best to solve them and solving
Thoughtaboutthe problem
CHALLENGING
(212 9)
Challenging
Challengingtask withinreach
Challengingactivities
Challenge
Shouldhave abilityforextension
differences
Challengingbut caters for individual
These groups of phrases are ready to be inspected for coherence, sense, and
relevance.Phrasesthatdo not fit can be easily moved elsewhere. Fromsuch data,
we can infer that some teacher educators see student thinking and provoking
JudithMousley, Peter Sullivan,and AndrewWaywood 139
Building
Understanding
Materials
Prior
knowledge
Mathematical
thinking
Connections
Conceptual
development
Reflection
Sequence
Review
I I I
Organizing Nurturing Engaging Communicating Problem
forLearning Ability Active Pupil
topupil
discussion Solving
Clear purpose Levels Personal Sharing
strategies Investigation
Clear instructionNon-threatening
Enjoyment Cooperative Open-ended
Classorganization Rapport Realworld Recording Challenging
Questions Relationships Motivation Posing
Assessment Goalsetting Variety
Enthusiasm
Figure 9.5. Hierarchyof categories of quality mathematicsteaching arising from the data.
140 Using a Computerin Synthesisof QualitativeData
data,factors (such as inflection and body language)that would have assisted the
accuracyof placementor summationare lost in the transcriptionprocess.
It can be noted that these problemsare relatedto the subjectivenatureof deci-
sion making and the interpretationof humanbeliefs and actions and are not in
any way specific to the use of NUD*IST. As Giddens (1984) notes, knowledge is
framedas individualsview the real world in terms of their personalunderstand-
ings, and these interpretationscan be made only in the light of their current
understandingsof the theories, ideas, and concepts. Furtherinterpretationtakes
place as the ideas are published and take new form in the praxis of everyday
social use. Although "moments"of decision making are not so apparentin
empirical research, they are still present, and attemptsto control such factors
bring their own set of limitationsto researchprojects.
It mustbe recognizedthatusing a computerdoes not change the fact thatinter-
pretive research is based on the gathering of qualitative data and that such
researchaims to understandratherthanto explain. The intentionis to captureand
interpretratherthanto generalizeor predict.The complexities and uniquenessof
an event (such as the beliefs of professionalsat a particulartime) are recognized
as objects worthstudyingand using. These objects can bring aboutchange in the
stance of individualresearchersbut should not be consideredthe replicablephe-
nomena of empiricalresearch.
Chapter 10
ISSUES IN TEACHERRESEARCH
The questionof how to bridge the gap between researchand practiceis a con-
cern of the internationalacademic researchcommunity in mathematicseduca-
tion. Several participantsat the Eighth InternationalCongress on Mathematics
Education,held in Seville, Spain, in July 1996 addressedthis issue in a working
group that explored the theme "connectionsbetween research and practice in
mathematicseducation."Among the many dimensions that exacerbatethe gap
are the lack of communicationbetween academic researchersand practitioners,
the silenced voices of practitionersin much academic research,the demeaning
approachto practitionerknowledge in much academicliterature,and the view of
practitionersas users of knowledge about teaching and learning ratherthan as
active participantsin the generationof thatknowledge.
Beatriz S. D'Ambrosio 145
LEARNINGTHROUGHTEACHERRESEARCH
Currentreform initiatives in the teaching of mathematicshave placed new
demands on teachers. In particular,the curricularperspectives adopted by the
NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematicsrequireteachersto takeon roles in the
classroomthat differ from those that have typicallyengaged teachers.These new
roles include guiding and encouragingchildren's investigationsof mathematics,
146 Using Researchas a StimulusforLearning
A PRESERVICEEXPERIENCE
A teacher-educationseminarheld at the Catholic University of S,,o Paulo in
Brazil is an example of how a teacher-researchexperiencewas designed for pre-
service secondarymathematicsteachers.The goal of the seminarwas to initiate
the participantsin researchexperiences that would shape their beliefs about the
teaching and learning of mathematics and about the nature of mathematics.
Together, the seminar participants (future teachers, university faculty, and
guests) constituteda researchteam. The chargeto the researchteam was to iden-
tify a researchquestion,propose a study, collect data,analyze the data,and write
up the findings in the form of a report(Researchreport,no date).
148 Using Researchas a Stimulusfor Learning
AN IN-SERVICEEXPERIENCE
of the types of questions they were asking, it soon became clear that the most
informativesources of data would be mostly qualitative.The methodology used
turnedout to be quite dynamic, and new sources of data and forms of data col-
lection were tried throughoutdifferentstages of many of the studies.
The analysis of the datawas done throughoutthe study. Every week the teach-
ers presentedtheir findings to their small working group. The group discussion
often led to insights and suggestions. My role at this stage was to point out some
of the research literaturethat could offer insight into what the teachers were
observing and finding in their own studies. I realized that the process of analyz-
ing and interpretingthe data providedintrinsicmotivationfor readingthe exist-
ing, related researchliterature,a level of motivation that I had little success in
generatingwith other forms of in-service experiences.
her practice and the group interactionswith her peers led her to question her
assumptions and beliefs about teaching problem solving. The questioning and
raising problems from within through self-analysis took on a very different
dimension thanit might have if an outsiderwere tryingto point to "faults"in her
teaching. This is but one of the many examples whereby the teachers who
engaged in teacher research found themselves questioning their practice and
wonderingand planningwhat they might do differently.
CONCLUSION
This chapter was intended to point to some of the dimensions of teacher
researchthat can serve to foster a dispositiontowardinquiryin teaching.In both
the preservice and in-service experiences described here, teacher researchwas
used as a tool for developing, encouraging,and sustaining teachers' reflective
practice. In these experiences, qualitativemethods were the main tool used by
teachersto studythe realityof theirclassroomsand the learningof their students.
The preservice experience in particularpoints out how traditionalquantitative
methods are unsatisfying;it is not feasible to use these methods to address the
questions that teachers raise regardingthe teaching and learning occurring in
their classrooms.
The chapteralso points out how the teachers' voices are an importantcompo-
nent of our understandingof the effectiveness of teacher researchexperiences.
Their voices also constitutean importantcomponentof our understandingof the
reality of the classroom and of children'sthinkingand learning.As teacherspar-
ticipate in contributingto the knowledge base about teaching and learning,they
become empowered,autonomousdecision makers.At the same time, the acade-
mic researchcommunitygains insights about teaching and learningthroughthe
teachers'perspectivesas they interpret,analyze, and describethe complexities of
their lives as teachersand their students'lives as learners.
156
Chapter 11
Susan Pirie
Possibly the most crucialconsideration,if not always the most dominantin the
presentations,is thatof the role of theoryin qualitativeresearch.Thereare in fact
two issues here: first, the intentionof the researchitself in regardto its contribu-
tion to the developmentof generaltheorywithin mathematicseducationand sec-
ond, the theoreticalstandpointof the researcherand the theoreticalbasis for the
methods and instrumentsused. A subsidiaryof the second issue is the ability to
shift theoreticalpositions relativeto methodsand instrumentswithinthe research
process. In otherwords, theoretically,where is the researchgoing, where does it
have it roots, and how flexible should those roots be?
Teppo touches on the first issue in her introductionwhen she considersthe dif-
ferentgoals the authorshave with respectto the outcomes of theirresearch.Each
chapterthereafterseeks to characterize,or accountfor, or classify aspects of, the
teaching and learning of mathematics.There is an intention to work toward a
greaterunderstandingof the whole area of mathematicseducation, whetherthe
currentparticularfocus be on overarchingclassroomphenomenasuch as discus-
sion (Pirie), or on more detailed specificities, such as school beginners' concep-
tions of number(Neuman). The encompassing notion is that theory will (even-
tually) be generatedthat will explain in legitimate and precise ways the events
and occurrencesof classrooms, althoughin some cases, before this can happen
we need simply to betterunderstandthe natureof the phenomenon.
For Clarke,the startingpointis a little different.He intendsnot to buildnew the-
ory but to challenge an existing theoreticalassertion.He does not set out, howev-
er, to scientificallydisprovethe currentmodel of "negotiationof meaning"within
the classroom.Rather,employinga qualitative,deeply investigativemethodbased
on case study,he attemptsto elaboratethe model by providinga bettercharacteri-
zation of the ways in which meaningsare constructedwithin the classroom.Only
thenwill he be in a positionto refutethe value of currentmetaphoricalways of see-
ing the meaning-makingprocess. Attemptsto quantifyor rigorouslytest the inap-
propriatenessof the currentposition would themselves be inappropriate.In this
respect,one of the firmcharacteristicsof qualitativeresearch-that of the focus on
concretepracticesand particulars-is being enacted.
The second issue concerningthe theoreticalaspects of the roots of the report-
ed researchis more contentious.Because of its broadand diverse natureand the
span of historical backgroundsfrom which qualitative research springs, it is
essential for the communityto have some understandingof where in this spec-
trumparticularresearchersare situatingthemselves (see Chapters1 and 2). Since
we do not have a unified methodology built over time and universallyaccepted
by the mathematicseducation community, we need to make explicit where we,
as individuals, stand theoreticallyin relation to our work (Silver & Kilpatrick,
1994). Pirie is an excellent case in point. She does not approachthe researchwith
a preconceived attitudeabout the appropriatetheoretical stand but begins with
her research question and seeks out an appropriatetheoretical starting place
158 WhereDo We Gofrom Here?
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Shulman, 1981). Goldin, indeed, states explicitly, in
the words of Davis (1984, p. 22), "without an appropriatetheory, one cannot
even state what the 'facts' are," although some of the authorsmight disagree
about what constitutedan appropriatetheory.
Relatedto the second issue is the interactivenatureof the relationshipbetween
the theoretical underpinningsand the understandingsthat develop during the
researchprocess. It is clear that there is a need to make overt our own theoreti-
cal underpinningsin the way thatJaworskimakes very explicit in her initial rad-
ical constructivistapproach.What is of especial interesthere is that we then see
one of the inner strengthsof qualitativeresearchat work-namely, the ability of
the researcherto make design decisions throughoutthe researchprocess and to
draw on multiple perspectives to understand the phenomenon in question
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Janesick, 1994). As her gatheringof data and initial
analysisdictatethe makingof certainpragmaticdecisions, she acknowledgesthe
transformationof this theoreticalposition to that of social constructivism.I use
the word strengths here because it is the paradigmaticdenial of an absolutist
epistemology that allows for the human element, allied to the specific goals of
the research,to be influential.Indeed, for D'Ambrosio, the shifting of theoreti-
cal positions within the thinkingof the teachersshe was studyingwas one of the
majorfacets in the achievementof her goals.
The ability of preliminaryresearchfindings to influence underlyingmethod-
ological choices is also illustratedby Pirie (see Chapter6) and by Mousley,
Sullivan, and Waywood (see Chapter9). Their requirementsfor multiple, over-
lappingclassificationsof certainsets of datain no way contradictthe theoretical
backgroundsof theirmethods.In contrastto the scientific tradition,thereis need
here not for a dichotomybetween right and wrong categorizations,but for a sys-
tematic, controlled searching for informative classifications that will lead to
greaterunderstandingof the teaching and learningprocesses.
The variousways thattheoryis treatedby the authors,both as a frameworkfor
researchand as the end result of the inquiryprocess, illustratethe situatedrole
that theory plays in qualitativeresearch.Selection of an appropriateframework
should be relative to the contextual needs of each research question.
Additionally,theory that is elaboratedon, or generatedby, the researchshould
be understoodwithin the context of that research(Cobb, 1994; Janesick, 1994).
This recognition of contextualrelevance makes it crucial that researcherscare-
fully position and describe their use of theory within the contexts of their work.
To formjudgmentsrelatedto research,we must know from wherethe researcher
is coming.
VALIDITYAND RELIABILITY
Not anythinggoes, of course. Researchis not simply looking to see what hap-
pens. "Traditionsare important,even when one takes an open stance, because
they provide a set of orientingassumptions"(Jacob, 1987, p. 40). To undertake
Susan Pirie 159
LANGUAGE
In theiropening paragraphs,Mousley, Sullivan,and Waywood raise one of the
fundamentalconsiderationswithin qualitative research that is not given suffi-
cient prominence by other authors. This is the issue of language. By its very
nature,qualitativeresearchdemands that we move "the whole problem of lan-
guage from its peripheraland incidental position into the center."This means
more than acknowledgingand defendingloss of detail when we reduce auraland
visual data to writtenverbaldata.We tradein words-the words of the teachers,
the words of the students,the words of our own reporting.We need to concern
ourselves with the reality that we can only define and describe categories and
emergenttheories throughlanguage. We observe and personallyinterpretclass-
room contexts, and, leaving aside the question of whetherwe need language for
thought, we certainly need language to attemptto convey these thoughts to an
audience.
"Texts are not simple mirrorsof reality"(Nielson, 1995, p. 8). When we give
voice to our interpretations,our meaning is mediated through words, both by
ourselves and by our audience.The category labels we assign and the constructs
we define are frequently attempts to capture initially nebulous qualities and
behaviors.We can, as Goldin does in his scriptedinterviews,take greatcare with
our own language, but the responses are not given with such care! Students
respondto tasks spontaneouslyand without attentionto the possibility of misin-
terpretation.In the very structuredsetting in which he works, Goldin is able to
endeavorto confirm his interpretationsby encouraging"the child to constructa
concrete,externalrepresentation."In more open classroom settings, such confir-
matoryevidence is rarelyavailable.We constructour own personalmeaningsof
the discourse that we hear-and indeed we can do no other-but there is a need
to be alive to the notion that the meanings are ours and, further,that others will,
in turn,impose meanings on our words that are dependenton their histories and
culture.Mousley et al. make overt theirawarenessof the eventualitythatas ideas
are publishedthey inevitably take on new form in the everyday praxis of social
use. Language is not merely one of "a new set of researchemphases"(Ernest)
but at the very core of all we do in a qualitativeapproachto the study of mathe-
matical education.
REPORTINGTHE RESEARCH
Whateverform of datais selected for analysis and however carefulwe attempt
to be in the linguistic interpretationsof these data, one furtherproblemremains
162 WhereDo We Gofrom Here?
ETHICALISSUES
One final concern, conspicuous by its absence within this collection of writ-
ings, needs raising:a considerationof some of the fundamentalethicalissues that
qualitativeresearchraises. These, I contend, are more acute than in quantitative
approaches.There is the dangerthat we are less able to accordanonymityto the
people involved. Caughtby the need to give sufficient detail to enable readersto
exercise theirpowers of judgmentaboutthe validity of the researchfindings, we
may find that merely changing the names of the participantsmay not disguise
their identity. The specifics of the detail may be enough to identify the school,
class, or subject.Of even greaterconcernis the widespreaduse of video data.At
oral presentationsof research,such as at conferences and seminars,the tempta-
tion to illustrate,enhance, or at least enliven the delivery with video clips from
the data is very strong. Anonymity here is impossible. Traditionally,subjects
have been assuredof the confidentialityof theircontributionto the advancement
of knowledge, but nowadays an additionalfactor is at play. With the ease of
widespread, internationaldissemination of research, there is the desirability,
Susan Pirie 163
CLARIFYINGTHE RESEARCHPROCESS
It should be evident from the foregoing chapters that we are not out of the
woods in regardto the generalacceptanceof qualitativeapproachesas legitimate
researchparadigmsfor exploringthe understandingof mathematicseducation.It
is also evident thatthe approachesoffered by the authorsin this book have power
and merit and, in many cases, offer the only way that today's quest for under-
standingcan be furthered.As researchers,we must be criticalparticipantsin the
debatethat will eventuallylead to the clarificationof what is acceptableresearch
in the emerging discipline of mathematicseducation.There is "anintimaterela-
tionship between the research process and the findings it produces," and by
studying these processes, we gain insights not only into them but also into the
problems of qualitative, interpretativeresearch (Altheide & Johnson, 1994, p.
486). As participants,we need to addressthe challenge issued by Jacob (1987, p.
41) that it is a "betterunderstandingof the various qualitativetraditions(that)
offers the hope of a richerand fuller understandingof education."
164
References
Ahlberg,A. (1992). Att mota matematiskaproblem: En belysningav barns lirande. [Meeting math-
ematical problems: An elucidation of children's learning]. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson,J. M. (1994). Criteriafor assessing interpretativevalidity in qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.
485-499). ThousandOaks: Sage Publications.
Altrichter,H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachersinvestigatetheir work:An introductionto
the methodsof action research. New York:Routledge.
Anthony,G. (1994). Learningstrategiesin the mathematicsclassroom:Whatcan we learnfrom stim-
ulated recall interviews?New Zealand Journal of EducationalStudies,29(2), 127-140.
Ascher, M. (1991). Ethnomathematics.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Aspray,W., & Kitcher,P. (Eds.). (1988). Historyand philosophyof modernmathematics(Minnesota
Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XI). Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress.
Austin, J. L. (1962). Sense and sensibilia. (G. J. Warock, Ed.). Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
AustralianEducationCouncil. (1990). A national statementon mathematicsfor Australianschools.
Canberra:AustralianEducationCouncil.
Bakhtin,M. (1979). Theaesthetics of verbal creation. Moscow: Bocharov.Cited in Todarov(1984).
Ball, S. J. (1982). The verificationand applicationof participantobservationcase study.In case study
methods5. Perspectiveson case study:Ethnography(pp. 141-164). Deakin, Australia:University
of Deakin Press.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Self doubt and soft data: Social and technical trajectoriesin ethnographicfield-
work. QualitativeStudies in Education,3(2), 157-171.
Barnes, D. (1982). From communicationto curriculum.London:Penguin.
Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Rosen, H. (1971). Language, the learner and the school (revised).
Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Torbe, M. (1986). Language, the learner and the school (3rd edition).
Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Barnes, D., & Todd, M. (1977). Communicationand learning in small groups. London:Routledge
& Keegan Paul.
Barrata-Lorton,M. (1976). Mathematicstheir way. Menlo Park,CA: Addison-Wesley.
Bartolini-Bussi,M. G. (1994). Theoreticaland empiricalapproachesto classroom interaction.In R.
Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Straesser,& B. Winkelmann(Eds.), The didactics of mathematicsas a
scientific discipline (pp. 121-132). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Bassey, M. (1990-1991). On the natureof researchin education(Parts 1-3). ResearchIntelligence,
36, 35-38; 37, 39-44; 38, 16-18.
Bauersfeld, H. (1992). Classroom cultures from a social constructivist'sperspective. Educational
Studies in Mathematics,23, 467-481.
Bauersfeld,H. (1994). Theoreticalperspectiveson interactionin the mathematicsclassroom. In R.
Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Straesser,& B. Winkelmann(Eds.), The didactics of mathematicsas a
scientific discipline (pp. 133-146). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Bell A. W., & Bassford,D. (1989). A conflict andinvestigationteachingmethodandan individualised
learningscheme-a comparativeexperimenton the teachingof fractions.Proceedings of the 13th
InternationalConferencefor the Psychologyof MathematicalEducation,(pp. 125-132). Paris.
Bell, A. W., Costello, J., & Kuchemann,D. (1983). Research on teaching and learning. Windsor:
NFER-Nelson.
Berger, P., & Luckmann,T. (1966). The social constructionof reality. Reprinted.London:Penguin
Books, 1967.
Bishop, A. J. (1985). The social constructionof meaning:A significant developmentfor mathemat-
ics education?For the Learningof Mathematics,5(1), 24-28.
References 165
D'Ambrosio, U. (1985). Ethnomathematicsand its place in the history and pedagogy of mathemat-
ics. For the Learningof Mathematics,5(1), 44-48.
Darling-Hammond,L. (1996). The rightto learn and the advancementof teaching:Research,policy,
and practicefor democraticeducation.EducationalResearcher,25(6), 5-17.
Davis, P. J. (1993). Applied mathematicsas social contract.In S. Restivo, J. P. van Bebdegem, & R.
Fisher (Eds.), Math worlds: Philosophical and social studies of mathematicsand mathematics
education (pp. 182-194), Albany: State University of New York Press.
Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1980). The mathematicalexperience.Boston: Birkhauser.
Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1988). Descartes' dream. London:Penguin Books.
Davis, R. B. (1984). Learningmathematics:The cognitive science approach to mathematicseduca-
tion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Davis, R. B. (1992). Reflections on where mathematicseducationnow stands and on where it may
be going. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbookof research on mathematicsteaching and learning
(pp. 724-734). New York: Macmillan.
Davis, R. B. (1994). What mathematicsshould students learn?Journal of MathematicalBehavior,
13, 3-33.
Davis, R. B., Maher, C. A., & Noddings, N. (Eds.). (1990). Journalfor Research in Mathematics
Education,MonographNo. 4, Constructivistviews on the teaching and learning of mathematics.
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachersof Mathematics.
DeBellis, V. A. (1996). Interactionsbetweenaffect and cognition duringmathematicalproblemsolv-
ing: A two-yearcase studyoffour elementaryschool children.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,
RutgersUniversity GraduateSchool of Education,(UniversityMicrofilms No. 96-30716).
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1991). Interactionsbetween cognition and affect in eight high
school students' individual problem solving. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the
ThirteenthAnnual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of MathematicsEducation(Vol. I) (pp. 29-35). Blacksburg,VA: VirginiaPolytechnic
Instituteand State University, Division of Curriculum& Instruction.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1993). Analysis of interactionsbetween affect and cognition in ele-
mentaryschool childrenduringproblemsolving. In J. R. Becker & B. Pence (Eds.), Proceedings
of the FifteenthAnnualMeetingof the NorthAmericanChapterof the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of MathematicsEducation (Vol. II) (pp. 56-62). Pacific Grove, CA: San Jose State
University Centerfor Mathematicsand ComputerScience Education.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1997). The affective domainin mathematicalproblem-solving.In
E. Pehkonen(Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-firstConferenceof the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. II) (pp. 209-216). Helsinki, Finland:
University of Helsinki Departmentof TeacherEducation.
Delamont, S., & Hamilton, D. (1986). Revisiting classroom research: A cautionary tale. In M.
Hammersley (Ed.), Controversies in classroom research (pp. 25-43). Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction:Enteringthe field of qualitativeresearch.In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbookof qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Descartes,R. (1955). A discourse on method.Translationin R. Descartes,Philosophicalworks, Vol.
1. New York: Dover Press. (Originalwork published 1637)
Devlin, K. (1997). Mathematics:The science of patterns. New York: Scientific AmericanLibrary.
Donmoyer,R. (1996). Educationalresearchin an era of paradigmproliferation:What's a journaledi-
tor to do? EducationalResearcher,25(2), 19-25.
Dossey, J. A. (1992). The natureof mathematics:Its role and its influence. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbookof research on mathematicsteaching and learning (pp. 39-48). New York:Macmillan.
Dryfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematicalthinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advancedmathe-
matical thinking.Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Dunne, M., & Johnston,J. (1992). An awarenessof epistemological assumptions:The case of gen-
der studies. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 14(5), 515-526.
168 References
Goldin, G. A., DeBellis, V. A., DeWindt-King,A. M., Passantino,C. B., & Zang, R. (1993). Task-
based interviews for a longitudinal study of children's mathematical development. In I.
Hirabayashi,N. Nihda, K. Shigematsu, & F-L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth
International Conferencefor the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. I) (pp.
197-203). Tsukuba,Japan:PME ProgramCommittee.
Goldin, G. A., & Landis, J. H. (1985). A problem-solvinginterview with "Stan"(age 11). In S.
Damarin& M. Shelton (Eds.), Proceedings of the SeventhAnnual Meeting the North American
Chapterof the InternationalGroupfor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation(pp. 100-105).
Columbus,OH: Ohio State University Departmentof EducationalTheory and Practice.
Goldin, G. A., & Landis, J. H. (1986). A study of children's mathematicalproblem-solvingheuris-
tics. In L. Burton& C. Hoyles (Eds.), Proceedings of the TenthInternationalConferencefor the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. I) (pp. 427-432). London: University of
London Instituteof Education.
Goldin, G. A., & McClintock,C. E. (Eds.). (1980). Taskvariables in mathematicalproblemsolving.
Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghousefor Science, Mathematicsand EnvironmentalEducation.
Reissued by Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia (1984) (acquired by Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).
Goldin, G. A., & Passantino,C. B. (1996). A longitudinalstudy of children'sfractionrepresentations
and problem-solvingbehavior. In L. Puig & A. GutiErrez(Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth
International Conferencefor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation (PME) (Vol. III) (pp.
3-10). Valencia, Spain:Universidadde Valencia Dept. de Didactica de la Matematica.
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York:
Longman.
Goswami, D., & Stillman,P. (1987). Reclaimingthe classroom: Teacher research as an agencyfor
change. Upper Montclair,NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. 0. (1994). Duality, ambiguityand flexibility: A procepturalview of simple
arithmetic.Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,25(2), 115-141.
Greer,B. (1996). Theories of mathematicseducation:The role of cognitive analysis. In L. P. Steffe,
P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp.
179-196). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Guba,E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourthgeneration evaluation.London:Sage.
Habermas,J. (1971). Knowledgeand humaninterests.London:Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action (2 vols.) (T. McCarthy, Trans.).
Cambridge:Polity Press.
Hammersley,M. (1990). Classroomethnography.Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.
Hammersley, M. (1993). On constructivism and educational research methodology. PME News
(May). Oxford:OxfordUniversity Departmentof EducationalStudies.
Hammersley,M., & Atkinson,P. (1990). Ethnographyprinciples in practice. London:Routledge.
Harding,S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminismand methodology:Social science issues. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Harding,S. (1991). Whosescience? Whoseknowledge?Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Harr6,R. (1979). Social being. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Harre,R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursivemind. London:Sage Publications.
Hart,K. (Ed.). (1981). Children'sunderstandingof mathematics:11-16. London:John Murray.
Hart,L. (1986). Small groupproblemsolving as a data source for the individual.In G. Lappan& R.
Even (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
InternationalGroupfor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation:Plenary speeches and sympo-
sium (pp. 120-127). E. Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Departmentof Mathematicsand
Departmentof TeacherEducation.
Hatano,G. (1982). Learningto add and subtract:A Japaneseperspective.In T. P. Carpenter,M. M.
Moser, & T. A. Romberg(Eds.), Additionand subtraction:A cognitiveperspective.Hillsdale, NJ:
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
References 171
Henriques,J. H, Urwin, W., Venn, C., & Walkerdine,V. (1984). Changingthe subject:Psychology,
social regulationand subjectivity.London:Methuen.
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1992). Research and the teacher. London:Routledge.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.(Reprintedin FontanaLibrary.)Glasgow: William Collins, 1962.
Hoyles, C., Healey, L., & Sutherland,R. (1990). The role of peer group discussion in mathematical
environments:Reportto the LeverhulmeTrust.London:University of London.
Hubbard,R., & Power, B. M. (1994). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbookfor teacher
researchers.Portsmouth,NH: HeinemannPress.
Ihde, D. (1997). Experimentalphenomenography.New York:Longman.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinkingfrom childhood to adolescence.
London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitativeresearchtraditions:A review. Review of EducationalResearch,57(1),
1-50.
Janesick,V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitativeresearchdesign: Metaphor,methodolatry,and mean-
ing. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbookof qualitativeresearch (pp. 209-219).
ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jaworski,B. (1992). Mathematicsteaching,what is it? For the Learningof Mathematics,12(1), 8-14.
Jaworski,B. (1994). Investigatingmathematicsteaching: A constructivistenquiry.London:Falmer
Press.
Joseph, G. G. (1991). The crest of the peacock. London:I. B. Tauris.
Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between researchand practice. Educational Researcher,
26(7), 4-12.
Kieran,C. (1994). Doing and seeing things differently:A 25-year retrospectiveof mathematicsedu-
cation researchon learning.Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,25(6), 583-607.
Kieren, T. E., & Pirie, S. E. B. (1991). Recursion and the mathematicalexperience. In L. P. Steffe
(Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp. 78-101). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Kilbom, W. (1979). PUMP-project-backgrund och erfarenheter(The PUMP-project,background
and experiences). FoU nr. 17. Stockholm:Liber.
Kilpatrick,J. (1987). What constructivismmight be in mathematicseducation.In J. C. Bergeron,N.
Herscovics, & C. Kieran(Eds.), Proceedings of PME 11 Conference,(Vol. 1, pp. 3-27). Montreal:
University of Montreal.
Kincheloe, J. (1991). Teachersas researchers: Qualitativeinquiryas a path to empowerment.New
York:FalmerPress.
Kitcher,P. (1984). The nature of mathematicalknowledge.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
Kitcher,P., & Aspray, W. (1988). An opinionatedintroduction.In W. Aspray & P. Kitcher (Eds),
History and philosophy of modernmathematics(MinnesotaStudies in the Philosophy of Science,
Vol. XI, pp. 3-57). Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress.
Kline, M. (1980). Mathematics:The loss of certainty.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kuhn,T. S. (1970). The structureof scientific revolutions(2nd ed.). Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press.
Kvale, S. (1989). To validate is to question. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Issues of validity in qualitative
research (pp. 73-91). Lund:Studentlitteratur.
Kvale, S. (1994). Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of
PhenomenologicalPsychology, 25, 147-173.
Lakatos,I. (1976). Proofs and refutations.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.). (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Larson, S. (1993). Om kvalitet I kvalitativa studier. (On quality in qualitative studies). Nordisk
Pedagogik, 4(93), 194-211.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimateperipheralparticipation. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
172 References
LeCompte,M. D., Millroy, W. L., & Preissle,J. (Eds.). (1992). The handbookof qualitativeresearch
in education. San Diego: Academic Press.
Lerman,S. (1996). Intersubjectivityin mathematicslearning:A challengeto the radicalconstructivist
paradigm?Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,27(2), 133-150.
Lesh, R., & Lamon, S. J. (Eds.). (1992). Assessmentof authenticperformancein school mathemat-
ics. Washington,DC: AmericanAssociation for the Advancementof Science.
Lester,F. K., Jr., Kehle, P. E., & Birgisson, G. (1996). In pursuit of practical wisdom in mathemat-
ics education research. Paperpresentedat the ResearchPresession of the Annual Meeting of the
National Council of Teachersof Mathematics,San Diego, CA.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba,E. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Livingston,E. (1986). The ethnomethodologicalfoundationsof mathematics.London:Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Lybeck, L. (1981). Arkimedesi klassen: En amnespedagogiskberattelse. (Archimedesin the class-
room: A subjectpedagogical story) Goteborg:Acta UniversitatisGothoburgensis.
Lyotard,J. F. (1984). Thepostmoder condition:A report on knowledge.Manchester:Manchester
University Press.
Maher,C. A., & Martino,A. M. (1996). Young childreninvent methodsof proof: The gang of four.
In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer(Eds.), Theoriesof mathematicallearn-
ing (pp. 431-447). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Marton,F. (1981). Phenomenography:Describingconceptionsof the world aroundus. Instructional
Science, 10, 177-200.
Marton, F., Beaty, E., & Dal'Alba, G. (1993). Conceptions of learning. InternationalJournal of
EducationalResearch, 19, 277-300.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Marton,F., & Neuman,D. (1996). Phenomenographyand children'sexperienceof division. In L. P.
Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematicallearning
(pp. 315-334). Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understandingand validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational
Review, 62(3), 279-300.
McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (Eds.). (1989). Affect and mathematicalproblem solving: A new
perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.
McLeod, D. B., Carpenter,T. P., McCornack,R. L., & Skvarcius, R. (1978). Cognitive style and
mathematicslearning:The interactionof field independenceand instructionaltreatmentin numer-
ation systems. Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,9, 163-174.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Mehan,M. (1985). Structureof classroomdiscourse.In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbookof discourse
analysis (Vol. 3) (pp. 119-131). London:Academic Press.
Mellin-Olsen, S. (1987). Thepolitics of mathematicseducation. Dordrecht:Reidel.
Merton,R. K. (1968). Social theoryand social structure.New York:The Free Press.
Meyer, R. (1995). Servicing-in:An approachto teacherand staff development.TeacherResearch,2
(1), 1-16.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman,A. M. (1990). Animadversionsand reflectionson the uses of qualitative
inquiry.In E.G. Eisner& A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitativeinquiryin education(pp. 339-357). New
York:TeachersCollege Press.
Minsky, M. (1986). The society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Mousley, J., & Clements,M. A. (1990). The cultureof mathematicsclassrooms.In M. A. Clements
(Ed.), Whithermathematics?(pp. 397-406). Melbourne:MathematicalAssociation of Victoria.
Mousley, J., Sullivan, P., & Clements, M. A. (1991, July). The perceptions which studentteachers
have of teachingpractices in classroom observed duringfield experience.Paperpresentedat the
annualconference of the MathematicsEducationLecturer'sAssociation, Perth.
References 173
Steffe, L. P., von Glasersfeld,E., Richards,J., & Cobb, P. (1983). Children'scounting types. New
York:PraegerPublishers.
Steffe, L. P., & Wiegel, H. (1996). On the natureof a model of mathematicallearning.In L. P. Steffe,
P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp.
477-498). Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:
Heinemann.
Strauss,A. (1987). Qualitativeanalysisfor social scientists.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Strieb,L. (1993). Visitingandrevisitingthe trees.In M. Cochran-Smith& S. L. Lytle (Eds.),Inside/out-
side: Teacherresearchand knowledge(pp. 121-130). New York:TeachersCollege Press.
Stubbs, M. (1981). Scratchingthe surface:Linguistic data in educationalresearch.In C. Adelman
(Ed.), Uttering,muttering,collecting, using and reportingtalkfor social and educationalresearch
(pp. 114-133). London:GrantMcIntyre.
Svensson, L. (1989). Fenomenografi och kontextuell analys. Phenomenographyand contextual
analysis). In R. Sali (Ed.), Som vi uppfattardet. Elva bidrag om inlmrningoch omvarldsuppfat-
tning (As we see it. Eleven papers on learning and understandingthe world around us) (pp.
33-52). Lund:Studentlitteratur
Svensson, O., Hedenborg, M. L., & Lingman,L. (1976). On children'sheuristicsfor solving simple
additions.ScandinavianJournal of EducationalResearch, 20, 161-173.
Tall, D. (1991). The psychology of advanced mathematicalthinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced
mathematicalthinking(pp. 3-21). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Teppo, A. R., & Esty, W. W. (1994). Problemsolving using arithmeticand algebraicthinking.In D.
Kirshner(Ed.),Proceedingsof the SixteenthAnnualMeetingof the NorthAmericanChapterof the
InternationalGroupfor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation(pp. 24-30). BatonRouge, LA:
LouisianaState University.
Teppo, A. R., & Esty, W. W. (1995). Mathematicalcontexts and the perceptionof meaningin alge-
braic symbols. In D. T. Owens, M. K. Reed, & & G. M. Millsaps (Eds.), Proceedings of the
SeventeenthAnnual Meeting of the North American Chapterof the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of MathematicsEducation(pp. 147-151). Columbus,OH: ERIC Cleaminghousefor
Science, Mathematics,and EnvironmentalEducation.
Tiles, M. (1991). Mathematicsand the image of reason. London:Routledge.
Todarov, T. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin:The dialogical principle. (W. Godzich, Trans.) Minneapolis:
University of MinnesotaPress.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Humanunderstanding,I. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Treffers, A. (1991). Didactical backgroundof a mathematicsprogramfor primaryeducation.In L.
Streefland(Ed.), Mathematicseducationin primaryschool: On the occasion of the opening of the
FreudenthalInstitute.Utrecht:Centerfor Science and MathematicsEducation.
Tymoczko, T. (Ed.). (1986). New directions in the philosophy of mathematics.Boston: Birkhauser.
van Oers, B. (1996). Learningmathematicsas a meaningfulactivity. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P.
Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematicallearning (pp. 91-113). Mahwah,
NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Vico, G. B. (1858). De antiquissima Italorum sapientia. (Pomodoro, Trans.). Naples: Stamperia
de'Classici Latini. (Originalwork published 1719.)
Vico, G. B. (1961). The new science. (T. G. Bergin & M. H. Fisc, Trans.).GardenCity, NY: Anchor
Books. (Originalwork published 1744.)
von Glasersfeld,E. (1987). Learningas a constructiveactivity. In C. Janvier(Ed), Problems of rep-
resentation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1989). Constructivismin education.In T. Husen (Ed.), Internationalencyclope-
dia of education (Supplementaryvol., pp. 162-163). Oxford:Pergamon.
von Glaserfeld,E. (1991). Radical constructivismin mathematicseducation. Dordrecht,Kluwer.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1995). Radical constructivism:A way of knowingand learning.London:Falmer
Press.
References 177
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The developmentof the higher psychological processes.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Walkerdine,V. (1988). The masteryof reason. London:Routledge.
Walkerdine,V., & The Girls and MathematicsUnit. (1989). Counting girls out. London: Virago
Press.
Wang, H. (1974). From mathematicsto philosophy. London:Routledge.
Wells, G. (1994). Changingschoolsfrom within: Creatingcommunitiesof inquiry.Toronto:Ontario
Institutefor the Study of Education(OISE).
Werner, H. (1973). Comparativepsychology of mental development. New York: International
Universities Press. (Originalwork published 1940.)
Wilder, R. L. (1981). Mathematicsas a cultural system.Oxford:PergamonPress.
Wittgenstein,L. (1953). Philosophical investigations( G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Wittgenstein,L. (1978). Remarkson thefoundationsof mathematics(rev. ed.). Cambridge,MA: MIT
Press.
Wolcott, H. (1975). Criteria for an ethnographic approach to research in schools. Human
Organisation,34(2), 111-127.
Wolcott, H. (1982). Mirrors,models and monitors:Educatoradaptationsof the ethnographicinno-
vation. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnographyof schooling: Educationalanthropologyin
action (pp. 68-95). New York: Holt Reinhart& Winston.
Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The very idea. London:Ellis Horwood/Tavistock.
Zang, R. (1994). Inferringinternalstrategicproblem representationand its development:A two-year
case study with four elementary school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers
University GraduateSchool of Education,(UniversityMicrofilmsNo. 95-14127).
Zang, R. (1995). Inferringinternalstrategicproblemrepresentationand its development:A two-year
case study with Marcia.In D. T. Owens, M. K. Reed, & G. M. Millsaps (Eds.), Proceedings of the
SeventeenthAnnual Meeting of the North American Chapterof the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 199-203). Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghousefor Science, Mathematics,and EnvironmentalEducation.
Zaslavsky, C. (1973). Africa counts. Boston: Prindle,Weber & Schmidt.