Chapter 9: Classrooms As Learning Environments For Teachers and Researchers

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/269479054
Chapter 9: Classrooms as Learning Environments for Teachers and

Researchers
Article in Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph · January 1990

DOI: 10.2307/749917
CITATIONS READS
206 837
3 authors, including:
Paul Cobb Erna Yackel

Vanderbilt University Purdue University Northwest
197 PUBLICATIONS 16,525 CITATIONS 57 PUBLICATIONS 5,443 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Middle School Mathematics and the Institutional Settings of Teaching: MIST out of Vanderbilt University View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Cobb on 16 December 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 9: Classrooms as Learning Environments for Teachers and Researchers
Author(s): Paul Cobb, Terry Wood and Erna Yackel
Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, Vol. 4, Constructivist
Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (1990), pp. 125-146+195-210
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749917 .
Accessed: 16/12/2014 08:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Chapter 9: Classrooms as Learning Environments
for Teachers and Researchers
PaulCobb, TerryWood and Era Yackel

PurdueUniversity
Thischapterdescribesresearch thatis attemptingto coordinate view of learning

a constructivist
mathematics withthepracticeof teachingforthepurposeof analyzingchildren's mathematical
learningwithinthesettingof theclassroom.Thechapteralsois anattemptto transport
researchon learningfroma constructivist perspectivefromthelaboratory to theenvironment of
theclassroom.In so doing,theclassroomalso,unexpectedly, becamea learningenvironment
fortheprojectteacheras well as thestudents.Theteacher's experiences,thatprovided
opportunitiesforherlearningandtransformed herbeliefsaboutherroleandthestudentsrole,
aredescribedandinterpreted. Theseexperiences influencedtheresearchers suchthatteacher
development has become a primary focus alongwith children's The
learning. researchers'
currentperspective andtheirapproach usedwithteachers,whichdifferssignificantly with
traditional
procedures,is described.
Thefocusof ourresearchandtheemphasisof ourdevelopment workhasbeenon
secondgraders' construction of mathematical in
knowledge thesettingof classroom
instruction.As such,ourprimaryinteresthasbeenin theprocessesby whichchildrencreate
mathematical meaningin thecourseof classroomsocialinteractions.Ourworkhasbeen
influencedin generalby Piaget'sandvonGlasersfeld's constructivist
epistemologythat
emphasizes theroleof cognitiveconflict,reflectiveabstraction,andconceptual reorganization
in mathematical learning(Piaget,1970a,1980a;vonGlasersfeld,1988). At a morespecific
level,we have drawn on thecognitivemodelsof youngchildren's constructionof arithmetical
knowledgedevelopedby Steffe(Steffe,Cobb,& vonGlasersfeld,1988;Steffe,von
Glasersfeld,Richards,& Cobb,1983).
Theoretical Perspective
AlthoughPiaget'stheoryprovidesa generalexplanationof cognitivedevelopment, it was
intendedto addressepistemological
issues(Fabricus,1979)and,as a consequence,considers
onlybroadareasof intellectual
development.His theorytherefore constitutesa general
framework
orienting butleavesmuch unsaid about
the nature of cognitivedevelopment in
Theresearchreportedin thispaperwas supported

by theNationalScienceFoundation
under
grantnumbersMDR874-0400andMDR885-0560.
125

126
specific conceptualdomains. Not surprisinglythis has posed majordifficulties for educators

who have attemptedto develop pedagogicalimplicationsfrom Piaget'sideas aboutlearning.
The cognitive models developed by Steffe and colleagues (1983, 1988) extend the work of
Piaget by offeringan explanationof children'scognitive developmentin areasdirectlyrelevant
to elementaryschool mathematics.In particular,these models specify ways in which children
might constructincreasinglysophisticatedconcepts of number,position, addition,subtraction,
andplace value numeration.This elaborationof Piaget'sgeneraltheoryof cognitive
developmentmakesit possible to considerchildren'sconstructionof mathematicalknowledge
in a way relevantto instructionalissues (Thompson,1985).
This constructivistapproachto cognitive modelling,while offering an accountof the
psychologicalprocesses involved in children'smathematicaldevelopment,has tendedto down-
play the importanceof social interactionin the learningprocess. As Smedslund(1977)
commented:
In so far as Piagetianpsychologists focus on logicality as a variable(e.g., conserveror

non-conserver)and give only peripheralattentionto the problemof determining
children'sunderstandingof instructionsand situations,I thinkthey are making an
epistemologicalerrorand are out of step with everydayhumanlife as well as with all
useful psychological practice. (p. 4)
In this regard,our work has also been influencedto some extent by Vygotsky's (1962,
1978) analysisof the crucialrole thatsocial interactionplays in learning. Like Piaget,
Vygotsky views learnersas an active organizersof theirexperiencesbut, in contrast,he
emphasizesthe social and culturaldimensionsof development. One of the most frequently
quotedpassages from Vygotsky'swritingsis his formulationof what Wertsch(1985) called
the "generalgenetic law of culturaldevelopment"(p. 60).
Any functionin the child'sculturaldevelopmentappearstwice or on two planes. First

it appearson the social plane, and then on the psychologicalplane. First it appears
betweenpeople as an interpsychologicalcategory,and then within the child as an
intrapsychologicalcategory... Social relationsor relationsamong people genetically
underlieall higher [cognitive] functionsand theirrelationships. (Vygotsky, 1978, p.
57)
of development,interalization is a process involved in

In this generalcharacterization
the transformationof social phenomenainto psychologicalphenomena. Consequently,
Vygotsky saw social realityas playing a primaryrole in determiningthe natureof
intrapsychologicalfunctioning (Wertsch,1985). Vygotsky has clearly made a profound
contributionto our understandingof intellectualdevelopmentby attemptingto relatecognitive
and social phenomena. However, the key explanatoryprocess of interalization functionsas

127
anundefined primaryconstructin his theoryandhasresistedsubsequent attemptsto elaborate

its workings.In contrast,the workof Blumer(1969),Mead(1934),andSchutz(1962)
dispenseswiththenotionof internalization andinsteadfocuseson theprocessesby which
peopleinterpreteachother'sactionsandthusachievecompatible meanings.Fromthis
perspective,socialinteractionis nota sourceof processesto be internalized.Insteadit is the
processby which individualscreate of situationsthatfit withthoseof othersfor
interpretations
thepurposesat hand.Indoingso, theynegotiateandinstitutionalize meanings,resolve
conflicts,mutuallytakeothers'perspectives and,moregenerally,constructconsensual
domainsforcoordinated activity( Bauersfeld,1988;Bishop,1985;Blumer,1969;Maturana,
1980b; Perret-Clermont, 1980). Thesecompatible meaningsarecontinually modifiedby
meansof activeinterpretative processesas individualsattemptto makesenseof situationswhile
interactingwithothers.Socialinteraction thereforeconstitutesa crucialsourceof opportunities
to learnmathematics in thattheprocessof constructing mathematical knowledgeinvolves
and
cognitiveconflict,reflection, activecognitivereorganization (Piaget,1970a).As such,
mathematical learningis, fromourperspective, aninteractive as well as constructiveactivity
(Cobb,1988).
Research Emphases
As initiallyconceptualized, ourresearchobjectivewasto analyzeyoungchildren's
mathematical in
learning a classroomwhereinstruction wasbroadlycompatible with
constructivism. Ouroriginalintentionwasto extendthemethodology of the"constructivist
teachingexperiment" (Cobb& Steffe,1983;Steffe,1983)to thecomplexityof a publicschool
classroombyconducting a classroomteachingexperiment.We plannedto analyzeindividual
children'sconstructionof mathematical knowledgeas theyinteracted withtheteacherandtheir
peers. In the of these
process undertaking analyses we became aware thattheclassroomhad
simultaneously andunintentionallybecomea learningenvironment fortheteacher.As the
teacherusedtheinstructional activitiesin herclassroomandinteracted withherstudents,her
beliefsaboutherownrole,thestudents' roles,andthenatureof mathematical activitychanged
dramatically & in
(Wood,Cobb, Yackel, press). It wasby analyzingherlearningthatwe
developed initial,tentativeunderstanding
an of classroomsas learningenvironments for
teachers.Thischapteris ourattemptbothto provideanunsanitized accountof thelearning
opportunities thatarosefortheteacherandto reflecton howourobservations of herlearning
haveinfluencedourcurrentapproach to teacherdevelopment.

128
The Classroom Teaching Experiment

The one-on-oneconstructivistteachingexperimentextendsPiaget'sclinical interview
methodologyby includingteachingepisodes thatenablethe researcheras teacherto investigate
moreextensivelythe processesby which a single child constructsmathematicalknowledge
(Cobb& Steffe, 1983; Steffe, 1983). Duringthe clinical interview,the researcherattemptsto
inferthe child'scurrentmathematicalways of knowing. Teachingepisodes follow in which
the researcherattemptsto provideopportunitiesfor the child to learnby judiciously selecting
tasks,offering suggestions, and posing questions. In this situation,the researcher/teacher
interpretsthe child'smathematicalactivityand thuselaboratesand tests a provisionalmodel of
the child'scognitions. The tentativemodel is then used to guide the creationof new situations
in which to furtherinvestigatethe child'slearning.
The constructivistteachingexperimentmethodologyis ideally suited to the purposeof
investigatingthe processes by which childrenmight constructmathematicalknowledge.
However,it tends to emphasizethe cognitionsof individualchildrenat the expense of social
interaction.In the course of the analysis, for example, the researcherfocuses almost
exclusively on what the child might be thinkingand implicitlytakes the social process of
mutuallynegotiatingthe interviewsituationfor granted Ourresearchand developmentproject
in secondgradewas an attemptto extend the methodologyof the one-on-one constructivist
teachingexperimentto the classroomandto coordinatecognitive and social analyses. To this
end, a classroomteachingexperimentwas conductedfor the entireschool year duringwhich
we hadto addressall the objectivesfor second grademathematicsset by the participating
school corporation.Throughoutthe experiment,the teacherwas a full memberof the project
staff andmade her own decisions abouthow to use the instructionalactivitiesin her classroom.
We, for our part,visited the classroomeach day to video-tapeboth small groupwork and
whole class discussions. These recordingsconstitutethe primarydata source for our analysis
of the children'sconstructionof mathematicalknowledgeas they interactedwith each otherand
the teacherduringthe mathematicslessons.
At the outset,we anticipatedthatthe classroomteacherwould conducther mathematics
lessons in a mannersimilarto thatof the researcherin the one-on-oneteachingepisodes. Our
initialexpectationwas thatthe teacherwould constructmodels of her students'mathematical
understandingsas she interactedwith them. She then would use these models to generate
conjecturesaboutthe children'spotentialmathematicalconstructionsand,on this basis, select
instructionalactivitiesand interactwith themin ways thatmight give rise to opportunitiesto
constructmathematicalknowledge. In the course of these teachingepisodes, we anticipated
that she would test and, when necessary,revise her interpretationsof children'smathematical
understandings(Steffe, 1986, 1988; Stevens & Collins, 1980). We initially believed that it

129
might be feasible for the teacherto interactwith twentyor more studentsin this mannerin that
the childrentypicallyattemptedto solve the instructionalactivitiesin small groupsand then
participatedin a teacher-orchestrated whole class discussionof theirsolutions. This
instructionalapproachprovidesopportunitiesfor the childrento constructmathematical
knowledge not found in traditionalclassrooms (Cobb,Wood, & Yackel, in press) and for the
teacherto observe and discuss with the childrentheirinterpretationsof and solutionsto the
instructionalactivities. We speculatedthatthis might make it possible for the teacherto
develop models of her students'mathematicalunderstandingsthatcould be used to informher
pedagogicalinterventions.
The instructionalactivitieswere developedin the courseof the experimenton the basis
of on-going observationsof children'smathematicalactivity in the classroom. Given the
centralrole we attributeto children'spersonalexperiences,we were well awarethat,
historically,child-centeredcurriculumefforts have been stronglycriticizedfor engaging
childrenin activitiesin which the "subjectmatter"is lost (Thompson,1985). It was here that
the models developedby Steffe provedto be of greatestvalue in that they accountfor
children'smathematicalexperiencesratherthantheircognitive behaviors. We thereforedrew
on the models in an attemptto develop instructionalactivitiesthatmight give rise to
experientially-basedopportunitiesfor childrento constructmathematicalknowledge. In
particular,we used the models to anticipatewhatmight be problematicfor childrenat
qualitativelydistinctconceptuallevels as they interpretedand attemptedto solve potential
instructionalactivities. These personallyexperiencedmathematicalproblemsthat,we hoped,
would arise as the childrenattemptedto achieve theirgoals in the classroomwould constitute
opportunitiesfor them to learn (Confrey, 1985; von Glasersfeld, 1987a). In general,the
activitieswere designed to make possible multiplesolutionsand thus both accommodate
individualdifferencesand facilitatesustainedsmall groupand whole class discussions about
mathematics.Ourintentwas for childrenat variousconceptuallevels to complete the
instructionalactivitiesin ways thatthey could explain andjustify to others. In this regard,
numerousresearchfindingsindicatethatchildrenenterschool with a rich repertoireof
conceptually-basedself-generatedalgorithmsand problemsolving strategies(Baroody, 1987a;
Carpenter,Hiebert,& Moser, 1983; Ginsburg, 1977; and Steffe et al., 1983). However, as a
consequenceof traditionalinstructionin the early grades,childrenlearnto rely on instrumental
proceduresat the expense of sense making. Childrencan follow prescribedrules, but no
longer give conceptually-basedmeaningto what they aredoing (Burton, 1984; Ginsburg,
1982; Perry, Church,& Goldin-Meadow, 1988; Ross, 1986). The problem-centered
instructionalactivitieswere designedto providelearningopportunitiesin which conceptualand
proceduraldevelopmentswould, ideally, go handin hand (Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1988).

130
In summary,althoughthis approachto mathematicsinstructionis generallycompatible

with otherchild-centeredapproaches,it differsfrom typical approachesof this type in two
importantways. First,the instructionalactivitieswere groundedin detailedanalyses of
children'smathematicalexperiencesand the processesby which they constructmathematical
knowledge. The activitieswere thereforedesignedto give rise to opportunitiesfor childrento
reorganizetheirmathematicalactivityandthusdevelop increasinglysophisticatedconceptual
understandings.Second, the researcherswere primarilyresponsiblefor the constructionof the
instructionalactivitiesin consultationwith the projectteacher. Consequently,the teacherwas
able to concentrateon the developmentof her classroompracticeand was not distractedby the
need to searchfor or develop from scratchinstructionalactivitiesthatmay or may not offer
opportunitiesfor childrento extend theircurrentmathematicalways of knowing.
Initial Induction of the Project Teacher

in the experiment,we felt thatit was important
As the teacherwas to be the researcher/teacher
to help her understandthe research-basedcognitive models beforecommencingthe classroom
teachingexperiment(Fennema,Carpenter& Peterson,1986; Osborne,Bell & Gilbert, 1982;
Steffe, 1986). We anticipatedthatthe teacherwould change her generalview of children's
mathematicallearningand learnaboutchildren'scountingtypes, thinkingstrategies,andtheir
variousconceptionsof ten. In the springpriorto the experiment,we met with her once a week
to discuss the cognitive models and to watch video-recordingsof clinical interviewsthathad
been conductedwith her currentsecond-gradestudentsat the beginningof the school year. As
we watchedthe tapes,it becameapparentto the projectdirectorthatalthoughthe teacherwas
takingextensive notes aboutchildren'scognitive levels, our conceptualanalyses of children's
mathematicalactivitymade little sense to her. She seemed to feel "onthe spot"wheneverwe
askedabouther interpretationof a child's solutionand attemptedto respondby giving one of
the technicallabelsfor a particularconceptuallevel. The social contextwe mutually
constructedwith the teacherduringthese initial sessions was such that she viewed us as
evaluatorsof her answers. She seemed to ask herself, "Whatdoes he want me to say now?"
As a consequence,the possibilityof attemptingto understandthe children'smathematical
activitydid not arisefor her. In our view, she was rote learninga list of technicalnames that
would have no relevanceto herpracticein the classroom. The developmentof this interaction
patternseemed to be influencedin partby the teacher'sview of the projectdirectoras a "math
professor"who, by definition,knew a lot more thanshe did. The projectdirectoralso
contributedto the mutualconstructionof this unproductivecontext by explainingwhat he saw
in the tapes. This only confirmedthe teacher'sview of him as an authoritywho had all the
answers.

131
In an attemptto renegotiatethe social normsof theirrelationship,the projectdirector

initiateda dialogueabouta topic withinthe domainof the teacher'sexpertise-her mathematics
textbook. The teacherquestionedhis suggestionthattextbook-basedinstructionled many
childrento develop detrimentalconceptsof place value. The teacherreferredto the abilityof
her studentsto completetextbookexercises correctlyto supporther claim thatmost of them did
understandplace value. In her view, most of her studentswere learningthe mathematicsthey
were supposedto learn.
In an attemptto make this taken-for-granted assumptionabouttextbookinstruction
problematic,the projectdirectorsuggestedthatshe conducther own interviewswith some of
her studentsto ascertainwhetherhis claims were viable or not. She selected two of her better
studentsand video-tapedinterviewsin which she used the same tasks thathad been given at the
beginningof the school year. A descriptionof these tasks can be found in Cobb and Wheatley
(1988). Crucially,the tasks had face validityfor the teacherin that successful performance
seemed to involve the very concepts she assumedthe childrenhad learnedas a consequenceof
her textbookinstruction. In the course of the interviews,she began to realize thateven though
she had carefullytaughtthem the algorithmicproceduresspecifiedin the textbookand although
they could producecorrectanswers,neitherof the studentshad reorganizedtheirconceptions
of place value since the earlierinterviews. In retrospect,we see thatour genuinecollaboration
with the projectteacherbeganwhen she realizedthather currentinstructionalpracticeswere
problematic. She now viewed us as people with whom she could work to develop an
alternativeinstructionalpractice. We had commonproblemsand interests,and could engage in
joint pedagogicalproblemsolving.
Reflections on the Induction Process

We learnedseveralimportantlessons in the course of our interactionswith the projectteacher.
These reflectionswere of directrelevanceto the issue of how to inductotherteachersinto the
project. First,it seemed essential to initiatediscussionswith teacherson issues aboutwhich
they consideredthemselvesknowledgeableon the basis of theirfirst-handexperiences.
Researchers'formalcognitive models obviously fail to meet this criterion. Second, and
relatedly,it became apparentthatthe projectteacher'sprimaryconcernwas, quite reasonably,
the intellectualand social developmentof her students. The productivephases of her initiation
into the projectcenteredon what her studentswere learningin her classroomduring
mathematicsinstruction. Thus, the teacher'sclassroom served as a learningenvironmentfor
her even duringher induction. From this we laterconcludedthatour interactionswith other
teachersshould focus on specific classroomevents thatcould serve as paradigmcases. Third,
the crucialpointin ourdevelopmentof a collaborativerelationshipwith the projectteacher

132
occurredwhen she beganto realize thathercurrentpracticemight be problematic. We were

thenno longerresearchersor teachersbutpeople with complementarydomainsof expertise
workingon problemsof common interest. This stronglyindicatedto us thatour first step
when workingwith otherteachersmust be to help them become awareof and make
problematicaspectsof theirtextbook-basedinstruction.Only then would they have reason and
motivationto attemptto modify theirclassroompracticewhile workingwith us.
The Classroom as an Environment for the Teacher's Learning

Whenwe began the classroomteachingexperiment,we still clung to the belief thatit would be
crucialfor the teacherto understandthe cognitive models so thatshe could use them to inform
herclassroompractice. We assumedthatthis research-basedknowledge would be essential
when she analyzedher students'mathematicalactivityand, more generally,thatusing the
modelsto guide pedagogicalinterventionswas the hallmarkof teachingmathematicsin a way
compatiblewith constructivisttheory. We thereforeexpectedthatthe projectteacherwould
drawon detailedinferencesshe made abouteach child'sthinkingas she interactedwith the
childrenin small groupsand as she orchestratedthe whole class discussions. However it
becameevident to us thatshe was not applyingthe formalcognitive models to her practicebut
insteadshe was tryingto develop her own ways of makingsense of her experiences as she
interactedwith her students. Althoughthe detailedformalmodels did not appearnot to be
relevantto the teacher,herpracticewas compatiblewith more generalaspectsof constructivist
theorythathad been discussed in weekly meetings duringher inductioninto the project. These
includedthe beliefs thatchildren'sactionsarerationalto them and thatas teacherswe must try
to make sense of theirmeanings (Labinowicz, 1985, 1987).
In the course of analyzingthis and otheraspectsof the teacher'spedagogicalactions in
the classroom,we assumedthat she, like her students,was rational,given her premises. We
thereforeacceptedthatshe had soundif unarticulatereasonsfor not attemptingto apply the
cognitivemodels to herpractice. Once we adoptedthis stance,we beganto realize that
researchersconstructformalmodels in contextsthatareincompatiblewith those in which
teachersconstructthe knowledge thatinformstheirpractice. Formalmodels are a productof a
seriesof abstractionsand formalizationsmade by researcherswho operatein the context of
academicreasoningand attemptto satisfy the currentstandardsof theirresearchcommunity.
In contrast,teachersoperatein the contextof pragmaticpedagogicalproblemsolving in which
they have to make on the spot decisions as they interactwith theirstudentsin specific
situations. The distinctionbetween the academicand pragmaticways of knowing is, in many
ways, analogousto thatbetweenthe principledmethodsof formalmathematicsand the
informal,out-of-schoolmathematicsthatpeople constructto resolve the pragmatic

133
mathematicalproblemsthey encounterin the course of theireverydaylives (cf. Lave, 1988;

Rogoff & Lave, 1984).
The Negotiation of Social Norms as an Opportunity to Learn

The teachers immediateconcernat the beginningof the teachingexperimentwas (in our
language)to initiateand guide the mutualconstructionof classroomsocial normsthatwould
make it possible for the childrento workproductivelyin small groupsand express their
thinkingin whole class discussions. We have arguedelsewhere thatthe processes of
negotiatingclassroomsocial normsand of negotiatingmathematicalmeaningsconstitutetwo
distinctlevels of discourse (Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1988, 1989). The currentlyestablished
normsform a taken-for-granted frameworkwithinwhich to bothengage in mathematical
activityandcommunicateaboutmathematics.
The teacherappearedto be awarebeforethe teachingexperimentbegan of conflicts
betweenherpriortraditionalform of practiceand classroomnormsshe now believed were
desirable. Her attemptsto resolve these conflicts in the context of her practicegave rise to
opportunitiesfor her to learn. Furtherlearningopportunitiesarose for the teacheras she
encounteredunanticipatedproblemsand made observationsthatwere generallysurprisingto
her. We will discuss both types of learningopportunitiesfirst in the whole class setting and
then in the small groupsetting.
Whole Class Interactions

The teacherwantedthe childrento feel "psychologicallysafe"to explain how they had actually
solved problemswhen they participatedin whole class discussions. However, this conflicted
with the traditionalteacherelicitation,studentresponse,teacherevaluationpatternthatshe had
been comfortablewith. She was concernedthatshe would be unableto anticipatetheir
responsesif she initiateddiscussions in which the focus was on the children'smathematical
activityratherthanon an answeror solutionmethodthatshe had in mind all along. From her
perspective,this would createuncertaintyand unpredictabilityin a situationin which she had
previouslyfelt in control. Her desire to facilitateandrespectchildren'smathematicalthinking
was in conflict with her need to maintaincontrolof events in her classroom (Gunstone&
Northfield, 1988; Harlen & Osborne, 1985).
Despite her concerns,the teacherbegan to initiateand guide the renegotiationof social
normsin the first mathematicslesson of the school year. This renegotiationwas essential in
thatthe expectationsshe had for the childrenduringwhole class discussions were incompatible
with the beliefs abouttheirown and the teacher'srole thatthey had constructedin the course of
theirkindergartenand first grademathematicsinstruction(Wood, Cobb, & Yackel, in press).

134
In particular,the childrentacitlyassumedthatthey were expectedto figureout the responsethat

the teacherconsideredappropriateratherthanto expresstheirown thinking(Voigt, 1985;
Weber, 1986). However, talking aboutexpectationswas not enough. If the childrenwere to
acceptthe obligationof makingpublic theirmathematicalthinking,then the teacherhad to
acceptcertaincomplementaryobligationsfor her own actions. Fromthe children'spoint of
view,a definiteriskwasinvolvedin attempting
to fulfillherexpectations.Forthem,it was
one thingto thinkprivatelyabouthow to solve a problem,but quite anotherto express those
thoughtsto theirpeers. Theirthinkingwould be subjectto public scrutinyand evaluationat the
risk of feelings of embarrassmentand incompetence. If they were to express theirthoughts,
thenthey expectedthe teacherbothto respecttheirthinkingand to place otherchildrenunder
the obligationof doing so. As a consequence,the teacherwas obligatednot to overtly evaluate
theirsolutionsor to try to impose her ways of doing mathematicson them (Cobb,Wood, &
Yackel, in press; Wood, in press).
As partof the processof initiatingand guiding the renegotiationof classroomnorms,
the teachercapitalizedon particularclassroomevents by framingthem as paradigmcases in
which to discuss her expectationswith the students. For example, she initiateda discussion
abouterroneoussolutionswhen some of the childrenbecame embarrassedafterrealizingthat
theiranswerswere incorrect. In the course of the discussion, she emphasizedthat sharing
such solutionswas appropriatein every way in her classroom. More generally,her creative
use of paradigmcases enabledher to help the childrenrealize thatherprimaryinterestwas to
understandtheirsolutionsand facilitatea dialogueratherthanto judge the correctnessof their
answers. This flexible use of paradigmaticevents did not appearto be a consciously applied
pedagogicalstrategy. Rather,it expressedknowledge-in-actionthatgreatlycontributedto her
effectivenessin achievinga pedagogicalagendacompatiblewith constructivism.
Her fears aboutlosing controlof the course of events duringwhole class discussions
were almostimmediatelyalleviatedbecausethe childrenwere able to come to a consensus
aboutanswersin the very first lesson of the school year withoutthe need for her to steer or
funnelthe discussions. She also observedthatchildrenwould frequentlyrevise their thinking
in the course of discussions. Thus, renegotiatingsocial normsto make it possible for the
studentsand her to act as a communityof validatorsdid not resultin an "anythinggoes"
atmosphere.She was fulfilling her obligationsas a teacherin thatthe childrendid eventually
agreeon correctanswers.
The majorsurprisethatoccurredfor the teacheras she listened to her students'
explanationsin whole class discussions was her realizationthatbeginning second graders'
mathematicalthinkingwas far more sophisticatedthan she had previouslyassumed. She
commented,"Ihave been teachingall this time, and I never knew second gradersknew so

135
much aboutmath!" The whole class discussions constitutedthe first opportunityshe had in the
courseof her teachingcareerto actuallylisten to her studentsas they expressedtheir
mathematicalthinking. More generally,her initially surprisingobservationsabouther
students'capabilitiesalso broughthome to her the value of actuallylistening to what students
had to say aboutmathematics.At the end of the year she commented:
I have become a betterlistener. Teachersare basicallytalkerswho feel a strongdesire

to sharetheirknowledgewith otherpeople. Childrenare no different. If we really
make an effort to listen to our students,we will become richerfor it
It was preciselybecause she learnedthe importanceof listeningwhile interactingwith

her studentsin the classroomthatshe and the studentswere able to engage in genuine
conversationsaboutmathematics.The mannerin which she initiatedand guided the
renegotiationof classroomsocial normsmade this learningpossible.
Small Group Interactions

As was the case with whole class discussions,the teachercame to more fully appreciatethat
herpreviouslytaken-for-granted agendafor mathematicsinstructionwas incompatiblewith
mathematicalsense makingwhen she initiatedthe renegotiationof social norms. Her initial
concernas she interactedwith her studentsduringsmall groupwork reflectedher assumption
thatpartof her responsibilityas a teacherwas to constantlymonitorher studentsto ensurethat
they stayedon task (Maher, 1986). However, she now wanted time to observe and interact
with them as they workedin small groups. She was thereforefaced with the challenge of
initiatingand guidingthe developmentof the social normsthatwould make it possible for the
childrento work cooperativelywithouther close supervisionas they solved problemsand
completedthe instructionalactivities(Harlen& Osbome, 1985).
The initialrenegotiationof social normsthatoccurredin the whole class settingwas
crucialto the developmentof increasinglyproductivesmall groupinteractions.The children
realizedthatthey would be expectedto explain andjustify how they had solved problemsand
this facilitatedthe developmentof the obligationof makingsense of thingswhen they worked
in small groups. In addition,the teachercapitalizedon events thatoccurredas the children
workedin groupsto furtherdiscuss her expectationsfor them. The obligations she attempted
to negotiateincludedrespectingeach other'sthinking,figuringthings out for themselves, and
workingcollaborativelyto completethe instructionalactivities. The developmentof these
normsfor small groupwork was facilitatedby the use of instructionalactivitiesdesigned to
give rise to experientially-basedmathematicsproblems,which in turngeneratedopportunities
for dialogueandcommunicationaboutmathematics.The instructionalactivitiestherefore

136
playeda crucialrole in makingit possible for the small groupsto engage in productive
mathematicalactivity. This, togetherwith the renegotiationof social norms,providedan
opportunityfor the teacherto relinquishher traditionalresponsibilityas an overseerwho
ensuredthatthe childrenstayedon task. She commentedon severaloccasions thatthe children
were, for the most part,talkingaboutmathematicsas they workedin groups.
Not surprisingly,observationsthather studentsstayed on task as they worked together
in a somewhatnoisy atmosphereand withoutthe promiseof tangiblerewardswhile accepting
personallychallenging(i.e., hard)problemscalled into question some of her previous
assumptions. To make sense of what she actually saw happeningin her classroom, she had to
reorganizeher beliefs aboutwhat motivatedher studentsto engage in mathematicalactivity. In
the processof doing so, she seemed to constructa notion similarto thatof task involvementin
the achievementmotivationliterature(Nicholls, 1983, 1989).
For example, she wrote in notes for otherteachers:
Studentswere motivatedto work hardduringmathtime becauseof the personal

satisfactionthey felt. Teacherreinforcementwas not as necessaryas before. I never
gave stickersor happyfaces for theirwork and they never asked for those types of
rewardseither.Further,work thatwas too easy often meantmore behavioralproblems.
Twenty easy problemswere not as self-satisfyingas one or two difficult ones.
These commentsindicatethatdoing work was of greatimportanceto the teacher.

However, she radicallyrevised her understandingof what it meantto be on task:
When a child does not appearto be doing any productivethinking,do not be too hasty
to judge or criticizethe behavior. The studentmay be reflectingin a non-traditional
way which teachersinterpretas "goofing off." In reality, ... this reflection time may
be partof thinkingthroughor takinga time-outfor a few moments.
The Teacher's Reconceptualization of Her Role

As the whole class and small groupsocial normsnecessaryfor the relatively smooth flow of
classroomlife became established,the teacher'sand children'sobligationsfor theirown
activityand theirexpectationsfor others'activity graduallyachieved a fit. In the process, the
childrenbegan to takeincreasingresponsibilityfor theirown conductand learning. This did
not escape the teacher'sattentionas she reconceptualizedherrole:
The teacheris not the only decision-makerin the classroom. Each studenthas
leadershipqualitiesthatcan be encouraged. They areresponsiblefor the classroomand
its materials. Studentscan learna greatdeal from one another,the teacheris a
'facilitatorof learning.'.. .The teachercan set up the physical layout for the room and
the studentsmaintainthatorder-not just the teacher.

137
This last commentindicatesthatthe teacherseemed to be awarethatshe and the

studentstogethercreatedthe classroomsocial context. The teacherinitiatedand guided the
developmentof intellectualand social autonomyby negotiatingwith her studentsthe
obligationsof explainingandjustifying theirsolutions,resolving conflicts involving solutions
and answers,and developing productivesmall grouprelationships. It was no longer the
teacher'sresponsibilityto provide or sanctionthe official way to solve problems. Instead,she
used her authorityto guide and sustainmathematicalcommunicationin both whole class and
small group settings by listening, offering suggestions, and clarifying children'smeanings. In
describingthe change thattook place in herrole, she commented:
My teachingrole is pleasantlydifferent Ratherthanbeing the "personwith all the

answers,"the childrenhave been given the opportunityto count on themselves and
each other ... Giving them responsibilitiesgives them the feeling thatthey are needed
and are importantin our classroom,they do have ownershipin what they are learning.
In short,the teacher'sreconceptualizationof her role went handin handwith the

children'sincreasingautonomy. Each was made possible by the other and, in the process,
mathematicsinstructionbecame more "psychicallyrewarding"(Lortie, 1975) for the teacher.
This sustainedthe teacher'scommitmentto continueto develop her practice.
Negotiating Mathematical Meanings as an Opportunity to Learn

Fromthe constructivistperspective,learningis an interactiveas well as a constructiveprocess
(Bruner,1986; Cobb, in press; von Glasersfeld, 1988). Opportunitiesfor childrento construct
mathematicalknowledgearise as they interactwith both the teacherand theirpeers. As a
consequence,theirmathematicalconstructionsare not purelyarbitrary-anythingdoes not go
in the classroom. Instead,theirconstructionsareconstrainedby an obligationto develop
interpretationsthatfit with those of othermembersof the classroomcommunity(Bauersfeld,
1988; Blumer, 1969). It is this fit betweenpersonalinterpretationsthatmakes possible
mathematicalcommunicationandthe subjectiveexperienceof a shared,objectivemathematical
reality (Pierce, 1935; Schutz, 1962; Wittgenstein,1964). In the course of a mathematical
communication,meaningsarenegotiatedandparticularmathematicalpracticesare
institutionalizedand takenfor grantedas beyondjustificationby membersof the classroom
community(Cobb,in press). Mathematicsis thereforeboth an individualconstructiveactivity
and a humansocial activity-a communityproject(de Millo, Lipton,& Perlis, 1986). The
latteraspect of mathematicswas most apparentwhen we focused on the teacher'sand
children'sdiscussions aboutmathematicsratherthanon individualchildren'sconstructionof
mathematicalknowledge.

138
Facilitating Mathematical Learning and Communication

As we havenoted,theteacher's primaryintentionwheninteracting withherstudentsduring
bothsmallgroupandwholeclassdiscussionsbecameto facilitatetheirengagement in
meaningful mathematical activity.A majorproblembeganto takeshapefortheteacherin the
courseof theseinteractions.Shehadconcludedduringherinductionintotheprojectthat
simplypointingoutchildren's mistakesandtellingthemwhatto do didnotwork. Ontheother
hand, mathematical
children's explanations werefrequently unacceptablewithrespectto the
institutionalized
mathematical practicesof thewidercommunity.If directtellingwas
inappropriate,thenso wasa blindacceptance of all solutions.Theresultwouldbe a chaotic
"anything goes"in whicheachchildwouldbe allowedto pursuehis or herowninterests.The
teachergradually developeda formof practicethatavoidedthesetwindangersas sheinteracted
withherstudents.It is one thingto be non-evaluative duringwholeclassdiscussionsand
anotherto do nothingmorethanregulateindividualchildren's explanationsandensurethat
onlyonechildis speakingata time. Theteacherseemedto realizethatit wasnotsufficientfor
hertoregulatetheseparate explanations of a seriesof children;shehadto foster
communication aboutmathematics amongthechildrenandthusmakemathematics a
community project.This realizationwas indicated by themanner in which shefrequently
framedincompatible solutionsas problemsforthechildrento resolve. Indoingso, she was
implicitlycommunicating to thechildrenherbeliefthatmathematical solutionsshouldbe
questioned and,whennecessary,justified.Thus,shewas subtlyacculturating thechildren
intoherowninterpretive stance withregard to mathematical knowledge(Bruner,1986). This
processwasmostapparent whentheteacherencouraged thechildrento saywhetherthey
agreedor disagreedwithothers'solutionsandto settletheensuingdisputesby discussingtheir
reasons.
Theteacherexperienced greaterdifficultiesin transcendingthetensionbetween
traditionaland laissezfaire formsof practicewhen she interactedwith the childrenas they
workedin small groups. On one occasion she was workingwith her weakest studentto help
himsolvea problemthatinvolvedtens. Thechildhadbeenusingmultilinksarranged in bars
of ten. He hadbeencountingindividualcubesas he solvedtheproblems.Theteacher,in an
attemptto help,countedeachbaras a unitof ten. Aftera few minutesof watching,thechild
toldher,"You're confusingme." Thismadesucha strongimpressionon herthatin the
subsequent wholeclassdiscussionsheannounced:
Rickhadtwosetsof multilinkshe was addingup. AndyouknowwhatI did? AndI

havedonethis,becauseit kinda confusedRick. I addedup all thetensfirst,
shouldn't
andyouknowwhatit didto Rick? It confusedhim. rm gladhe spokeup andsaid,"I

139
can'tdo it thatway."He wascountingby ones. I didmoreto confuseRickthanto

help him even thoughI thoughtI was [helpinghim].
In this incident,she openly expressedto the class the tension that she felt between
offeringsuggestionsthatwould help the childrensolve theirmathematicalproblemsand
directingthem to producethe predeterminedresponse she desired (Voigt, 1985; Wood, Cobb,
& Yackel, in press). As the year progressed,she became increasinglysensitive in her
interactionswith the childrenand became adeptat recognizingwhen her suggestionswere
fruitfuland when the childrenmerely searchedfor responsesthatwould fit with her
expectations.
The teachers learningin the classroomillustratesthe self-organizingnatureof
classroomlife. It was the teacherwho initiatedthe renegotiationof social normsto allow
childrento express theirmathematicalthinking. In the course of listening to theirsolutionsthe
teachermodifiedher beliefs aboutmathematicsand extendedher understandingof children's
learningof mathematics.By drawingon this knowledge,the teachercould betterfacilitatethe
children'sconstructionof mathematicalknowledge. In doing so, she createdfurther
opportunitiesto listen to creativesolutionsand thus furtherelaboratedher understandingof
second grademathematics. In a very real sense the teacherand studentsmutuallyconstructeda
social context withinwhich they could learnfrom each other. Mathematicswas a community
project. As the teacherand childrenengagedin and talkedaboutmathematicalactivity,they
createda "microcosmof mathematicalculture"(Schoenfeld, 1987). In this settingthe children
were viewed as having mathematicalideas thatwere worthknowing. Therewas a change from
the elementaryschool mathematicstraditionof the teacheras the sole validatorof official
knowledgeto one characterizedby interactionand the negotiationof mathematicalmeanings.
Our Current Views on Teacher Development

The projectis now in its thirdyear. Thirtysecond-gradeteachersare using the problem-
centeredinstructionalactivitiesin theirclassrooms,twenty-twoof them for the second year.
Ourexperiencesof interactingwith the projectteacherwho participatedin the classroom
teachingexperimentprofoundlyinfluencedthe way in which we inductedthe otherteachers
into the project We firstconducteda one-week summerinstitutewith the teachersand then
visited theirclassroomsat least once every two weeks duringthe first year in which they
participatedin the project The teachersalso met once a week in small groupsto discuss their
classroomexperiences. In addition,the teachersparticipatedin four after-schoolworking
sessions duringthe school year. Ourcontinuedinteractionwith the teachersthroughoutthe
yearreflects our belief thatclassroomsare learningenvironmentsfor teachers.

140
The Summer Institute

Ourinitialgoalin thesummerinstitutewasto developsituations thatwouldmakeit possible
fortheteachersto beginto questiontheircurrent practicesandthushavea reasonto consider
analternative In
approach. lightof ourworkwiththeprojectteacher,we chosechildren's
understanding of placevalueandtheiruseof thestandard two-digitadditionalgorithm as an
initialsettingfordiscussion.Thiswasof immediate interestto theteachersbecausethey
considered it a centraltopicin secondgrademathematicsandtheyreported thattheirstudents
havedifficultyin learningto addandsubtract withregrouping.We begantheweek-long
sessionby showingvideorecordingsof childrensolvingtextbookandnon-textbook tasks. In
oneof theserecordings, childrenwerefirstshownsolvingnon-textbook taskswhichconsisted
of numbersentencessuchas:
22+13=_ andl6+9= .
Thesamechildrenwerethenshownsolvingadditiontasksinvolvingthesamenumber
combinationspresentedin thetraditional
textbookverticalformat.Theteachersexpectedthat
childrenwhocoulddo thenon-textbook taskswouldalsobe ableto completethetextbook
theyweresurprised
tasks. Consequently, whentheyfoundthattheirassumptions about
learningwereunwarranted.
children's Liketheprojectteacher,theythenbeganto differentiate
betweencorrectadherence to acceptedproceduresandmathematical activitythatexpressed
conceptual understanding.
As theteachersbeganto questiontheadequacyof textbookinstructional activitiesand
theircurrentwaysof teaching,theywerewillingto consideralternative instructional activities
designedto encourage meaningful mathematical activity.Indoingso, theydemonstrated the
valuetheyplacedon children's mathematical sense-making.Wedidnothaveto convincethem
thatchildrenshouldlearn with understanding. Rather,theyhadassumedthatthiskindof
learningwasoccurring in theirclassrooms.A shareddesireto facilitatemeaningful learning
anda generalconcernforchildren's andsocialwelfareconstituted
intellectual thefoundation
uponwhichwe andtheteachersbeganto mutuallyconstructa consensualdomain.We began
to discussourrationaleforanalternative instructional
approach by focusingon thecrucialrole
theteacherplaysin developinga "problem-solving atmosphere." Fromourpointof view,it
wasessentialthattheteachersunderstand thattheinstructional
activitiesdidnotconstitutethe
curriculum. Learningopportunities forthestudentswerenotembeddedin theactivities,but
wereinsteadrealizedas theteachersusedtheactivitiesin theirclassroomswhileinteracting
withtheirstudents.Inthelastanalysis,it wastheteachers' responsibilityto initiateandguide
themutualconstruction of situationsconduciveto learning.In thecourseof thisdiscussion

141
withtheteachers,we showedvideo-recorded episodesof smallgroupworkandwholeclass

interactions. Theteachersfrequently askedquestionsaboutthepragmatics of theinstructional
approach and we gave them specific answers about concerns such as techniquesfororganizing
themanipulative materialsandusingtheoverheadprojector.Inaddition,we gaverelatively
directadviceabouthowto initiateandguidethedevelopment of classroomsocialnormscrucial
to theestablishment of a problem-solving atmosphere (Cobb,Yackel,& Wood,1988;Cobb,
& in
Wood, Yackel, press). Our purpose was not to programtheteachersto actin a
predetermined waybutrather,to helpthemfinda wayof copingwiththeseconcernsas rapidly
as possible.In doingso theywouldhavegreateropportunity to focuson children's
mathematical activitywhentheyusedtheinstructional activitiesin theirclassrooms.We were
prescriptive to makeit possibleforclassroomsto be learningenvironments forteachersas well
as children(Cobb,Yackel,& Wood,1988).
In theremainder of theoneweekinstitute,theteacherssolvedmathematical problemsin
smallgroups,familiarized themselveswiththeinstructional materials,andvisiteda simulation
of theprojectclassroom.Onesetof mathematical taskstheteacherssolvedin groupswas
createdby translating someof thesecondgradearithmetic activitiesintobaseeight(cf. Steffe,
1987). In the course of completing theseactivitiesand discussingtheirsolutions,theteachers
appeared to appreciate furtherthatcomputational taskscanbe solvedin multipleways. We
alsodiscussedthesimilaritybetweentheteachers'solutionmethodsandthechildren'smethods
thathadbeenviewedearlierin theweek. Finally,we askedtheteachersto reflecton the
difficultiesthattheyexperienced whenconstructing eightas a unit. Ourhopewasthatthey
wouldbeginto questiontheapparent obviousnessof basetennumeration andbeginto
appreciate theintellectual challengethatsecondgradershaveto copewith.
Duringtheirfirstvisitto theprojectclassroom,teachersobserveda demonstration
mathematics lessonconductedby theinitialprojectteacherwiththoseof herstudentswhowere
availabletoparticipate duringtheirsummervacation.Afterthedemonstration, we discussed
theteachers' questions about and of
interpretations classroom events. The next daythe
childrenreturned to theclassroomandtheteachersworkedwithanindividualchildto
investigatehis orhermathematical andsolutions.Againa discussionfollowed
interpretations
in whichtheteacherssharedtheirobservations.Theteachers'commentsindicatedthatthey
werelearningaboutchildren's waysof solvingmathematical problemsandbeginningto
becomeawareof limitations in theirunderstanding of theirownstudents' mathematical
thinking.As thisbriefdiscussionof thesummerinstitutemakesclear,we attempted to develop
situationsin whichtheteacherscouldengagein experientially basedproblemsolvingrelevant
to theirpractice.Ingeneral,we havecometo believethatattemptsto influenceteachers
knowledgeandbeliefswill notbe at theirmosteffectiveunlesstheydrawon teachers'first-

142
handexperiences withtheirstudentsduringmathematics
of interacting instruction
(Bush,1986;
&
Carpenter Fennema,1988;Cooney,1985). For this we
reason, did notdiscussformal
modelsof earlynumberdevelopment duringthesummerinstitute.
The School Year

At thebeginningof theschoolyear,we discussedthepotentialvalueof theteachersmeeting
oncea weekin smallgroupsat theirschoolto discussproblems,concerns,andinsights.A
memberof theprojectstaffvisitedtheirclassroomseachweekatthebeginningof theschool
yearandthengradually decreasedthefrequencyof visitsto onceeverytwoweeksforthe
remainder of theyear. Theprimary purposesof thevisitswereto addressteachers'pragmatic
concerns(e.g.,howto involveall childrenin discussions)andto helpthemmakeproblematic
certainaspectsof theirpracticethatwereoutsidetheirawareness(e.g.,respondingto
children's solutionsin anevaluativeif subtlemanner).Duringthesevisits,we encouraged the
teachersto thinkthroughproblemsthemselvesratherthanto relyon us to tellthemwhatto do
(see Cobb,Yackel,& Wood,1988,fora moredetaileddiscussion).Consequently, we had
intellectual autonomyas a developmental goalforthemas well as fortheirstudents.There
weretwoindications of havinghadsomesuccessin thisregard:(1) themannerin whichthe
teachersincreasingly reliedon theirownjudgmentswhenselectingfromthemanyinstructional
activitiesandmaterials, and(2) thedecisionsby whichteachersdeterminedactivitiesto focus
uponduringclassinstruction.
Withinthefirstfew weeksof theschoolyear,theteachersencountered difficulties
whentheyattempted to interprettheirstudents'mathematical solutions.Somespecifically
requested assistanceinjudgingtherelativesophistication of particular
children's
mathematical
solutions.It wasat thispointthattheteachersbeganto appreciate therelevanceof relatively
detailedknowledgeof children's mathematical cognitionsto theirpractice.We therefore
conducteda seriesof workingsessionsthatfocusedon variousmethodschildrenuseas they
attemptto solvearithmetical problems.Initialsessionsdealtwithcountingby onesand
thinkingstrategies,andlatersessionswithunitsof ten,non-standard computational
and
algorithms, multiplicative and divisionalconcepts. These sessionsweredesignedto
dovetailwiththeinstructional activitiestheteacherswereusingin theirclassrooms.Our
purposein orchestrating thediscussionswasto encouragetheteachersto constructmutually
acceptable interpretationsof a particularchild'ssolution.Althoughwe askedquestionsand
drewattention to aspectsof a solutionthatcontradicted we didnot
interpretations,
particular
attemptto steertheteachersto aninterpretation in termsof theformalcognitivemodels.Nor
didwe shareourtechnicalvocabulary withthem;it wasnotrelevantto theirpurposes.We
thusattempted to walkthepedagogical tightrope withtheteachersin muchthe
as we interacted

143
same way thatwe hoped they would when interactingwith their studentsduringmathematics
instruction.This was one of the fundamentallessons we learnedwhen interactingwith the
projectteacher. More generally,we became awareof the hypocrisyinvolved in failing to apply
ourdevelopingconceptionsof the learning-teachingprocessreflectively to guide our own
practice. We, like the teachers,encounteredproblematicand surprisingsituationsthat
challengedus to question some of our taken-for-grantedassumptions. Both our own and the
teachers'pedagogicalknowledge and beliefs developed as we struggledwith the problemsof
practice.
Beliefs and Practice

We can clarify the way we currentlywork with teachersby relatingit to two alternative
approaches.One approachassumesthata changein teachersbeliefs will lead to specific
changes in classroompracticeswhich, in turn,will resultin improvedstudentlearning. In
otherwords, changes in beliefs are assumedto come before changes in practice. An extreme
exampleof this approachwould be to conductintensive workshopswith teachersand then to
leave them to theirown devices to figure out what it might mean for theirpractice. Guskey
(1986) observedthat "currentresearchon teacherchange indicatesthatthe assumptionsof this
model may be inaccurate,at least underthe specific conditionsof staff developmentfor
experiencedteachers"(p. 6).
Although we do not subscribeto this approach,Guskey'soutrightdismissal seems
overly hasty. We did attemptto influenceteachersbeliefs duringthe summerinstitute. We
devised situationsin which they could drawon theirfirst-handexperiencesto question the
beliefs thattheirstudentswere learningwith understanding,thatthereis typicallyone way to
solve second grademathematicstasks, and thatcertainconceptualdevelopmentssuch as
constructingan understandingof place value numerationought to be relatively simple even if
studentsdo experiencedifficulties. In doing so, we encouragedthe teachersto make aspects of
theircurrentpracticeproblematic.In effect, we askedthe teachersto reconsiderwhat they
thoughtthey knew. Only then would they have both an initial awarenessof otherpossibilities
andreason and motivationto pursuethese possibilities by developing a new form of practice.
Guskey proposeda second approachto teacherdevelopmentthatis premisedon the
assumptionthat"significantchangesin teachers'beliefs and attitudesare likely to take place
only afterchanges in studentlearningoutcomes are evidenced"(p. 7). This assumptionled
Guskeyto arguethat "changeis a learningprocess for teachersthatis developmentaland
primarilyexperientiallybased"(p. 7). It follows that since "changeoccurs mainly after
implementationtakesplace and evidence of improvedstudentlearningis gained,it is continued
supportfollowing the initial trainingthatis most crucial"(p. 10). This is because "nomatter

144
howmuchadvancedstaffdevelopment occurs,it is whenteacherstryto implementthenew

approach thattheyhavethemostspecificconcernsanddoubts"(p. 10).
We will considerGuskey'sapproach in somedetailbecauseit is easytojumpto the
conclusionthatit is highlycompatiblewiththewaywe attemptto workwithteachers.First,
Guskeydismissesthevalueof gaininganinitialsenseof commitment fromteachers.In
contrast,ourexperienceindicatestheimportance of helpingteachersdeveloppersonal,
experientially-based reasonsandmotivations forreorganizing theirclassroompractice.
Second,he seemsto viewa newformof practiceas a collectionof "concrete andpractical
ideas"(p.6) devisedbyresearchers or staffdevelopersandthengivenready-made to teachers.
He suggests,forexample,that"tobe effectivea staffdevelopment programmust offer teachers
practical ideasthatcanbe efficientlyusedto directlyenhancedesiredstudentlearning
outcomes"(p. 6).
Further,"ifa staffdevelopment effortis to be successful,it mustclearlyillustratehow
thenewpracticescanbe implemented" (p.9). Theemphasisseemsto be on ensuringthat
teachersteachin thewaythestaffdeveloperthinkstheyshouldratherthanon helpingthem
developa newformof practice.In short,thestaffdeveloperis anauthority ratherthana
collaborator whenit comesto pedagogicalissues. To be sure,we wererelativelydirective
oncetheteachersbeganto see theircurrentformof practiceas problematic.Butthiswasto
makeit possibleforthemto learnin theirclassroomsratherthanto ensurethattheytaughtthe
waywe wantedthemto. Third,althoughGuskeyacknowledges that"teachers' knowledgeof
teachingis validatedverypragmatically" (p.7), he takesthisto meanthattheyfocussolelyon
learningoutcomes.Thereseemsto be no roomforthepossibilitythatteacherswill reflecton
whattheyaredoinganddevelopa rationalization fortheiractivity.Instead,theymerelycheck
to see if whattheyhavebeentoldto do works.In fact,Guskeybelievesit essentialthatstaff
developers"ensurethatteachersreceiveregularfeedbackon studentlearningprogress" (p. 9).
Apparently, teachers do not to
attempt interpret students' and
thinking learning in the course of
theirclassroominteractions butinsteadrelyon outcomemeasuresof one sortor another.Our
experiencedirectly contradictsthisassumption.Finally,theverynotionof whatconstitutesa
desirablelearningoutcomeseemsbeyondquestionin Guskey'sapproach.Incontrast,the
issueof whatshouldbe ourgoalsas mathematics educatorswasaddressed repeatedlyin our
discussionswithteachers.Is it improvedtestscoresandmorecorrectanswers,or arewe more
concernedthatstudentsbecomeincreasingly autonomous andtask-involved as theyengagein
meaningful mathematical activity?
In general,ourprimarygoalwhenworkingwithteachershasbeento helpthem
developformsof practicethattheycanjustify. Indoingso, we haveattempted to encourage
teacherautonomy(Kamii,1985). This,we believe,is thekey to whateversuccesswe have

145
hadin initiatingandguidingrelativelyradicalreorganizationsin bothteachers'beliefsandtheir

classroompractices.It is perhapsbecauseGuskey'sapproach encourages teachersto view
themselvesas recipientsof researchers'wisdomthathe is led to assertthatteachersgenerally
opposeradicalalterations to theirpresentinstructional
procedures:
Programs orinnovations thataredramatically differentfromteachers'

currentpractices
or thatrequireteachersto makemajorrevisionsin thewaytheypresentlyteachare
unlikelyto be implemented well,if at all. (p. 9)
Inpresenting therationaleforhis approach, Guskeychallengedtheassumption that

in
changes practices followchanges in beliefsandinstead suggeststhat beliefsdependon
practice.We have difficultywithboth contentionsin that are on
they premised theunderlying
assumption thattherelationship betweenbeliefsandpracticesis oneof linearcausality.In our
view,arguments aboutthedirectionof theassumedcausalitymissthepoint;theverynatureof
therelationship needsto be reconceptualized. Ourcurrentworkwithteachersis basedon the
alternativeassumption thatbeliefsandpracticearedialecticallyrelated.Beliefsareexpressedin
practice,andproblemsor surprises encountered in practicegiveriseto opportunities
to
reorganize beliefs. Forexample,we arguedwhenanalyzingtheprojectteacher'slearningthat
herbeliefsandpracticeswereinterdependent anddevelopedtogether.Andit is precisely
becauseof thisinterdependency thatherclassroomwasherprimarylearningenvironment.
Conclusion
Throughout we
thischapter, haveattempted to demonstrate thatteachersandstudentsmutually
constructedthesocialcontextswithinwhichto learnfromeachother.At anotherlevel,we and
theteachersmutuallyconstructed a socialcontextin thecourseof ourinteractions thatmadeit
possibleforus to learnfromthemandvice versa. Inthecourseof theseinteractions, we
radicallyrevisedourbeliefsabouthowwe couldhelpteachersreorganize theirpractice.At the
outsetof theproject,we tookforgrantedthegoalof attempting to transform
theteachersinto
constructivists
whothoughtjustlike we did. It wasonly whenworkingwithteachersthatwe
becameawareof thegrosshypocrisyimplicitin thisgoal. Clearly,ourtolerancefora diversity
of ideasdidnotextendto ourepistemology.
Ourgoal,as we now see it, is to helpteachersdevelopformsof pedagogicalpractice
thatimprovethequalityof theirstudents' mathematical education,notto spreada particular
philosophicaldoctrine.We arewell awarethattherearesignificantdifferencesin thewayswe
andtheteachersrationalize duringtheirmathematics instruction.Few,if any,of theteachers
wouldagreecompletelywitha statementsuchas "learning is theprocessby whichstudents
their and
reorganize sensory-motor conceptual to
activity resolve experientially-based

146
problematicsituations"even if they could unravelthe terminology. The crucialpoint is thatour

own and the teachers'interpretationsof classroomevents need only be compatiblefor the
purposesat hand. We have learnedto discuss differencesbetween our own and teachers'
only if they aredifferencesthatmake a differencein termsof classroompractice.
interpretations
In this regard,we agree with Kilpatrick's(1987) contentionthatthereis not a one-to-one
correspondencebetween backgroundtheoriesand forms of pedagogicalpractice. It is, in fact,
for this reasonthatwe speakof "formsof teachingcompatiblewith constructivism"ratherthan
"constructivistteaching."

References
Anonymous (1711). Osservazioni,Giornale de'Letteratid'ltalia, 5(6), 137-140. (Reprintedin

Vico, 1858).
Baird,J., & White, R. (1984). Improvinglearning throughenhancedmetacognition:A

classroomstudy. Paperpresentedthe annualmeetingof the AmericanEducational
ResearchAssociation. New Orleans,LA.
Baroody,A. J. (1985). Masteryof the basic numbercombinations:Interalization of

relationshipsor facts? Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation,16(2), 83-98.
Baroody,A. J. (1987a). Children'smathematicalthinking:A developmentalframeworkfor
preschool,primary,and special educationteachers. New York:TeachersCollege Press.
Baroody,A. J. (1987b). The developmentof counting strategiesfor single-digit addition.
Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation,18(2), 141-157.
Baroody, A. J., & Gannon,K. E. (1984). The developmentof the commutativityprinciple

and economical additionstrategies. Cognitionand Instruction,1(3), 321-329.
Baroody,A. J., & Ginsburg,H. P. (1986). The relationshipbetween initial meaningful and
mechanicalknowledgeof arithmetic.In J. Hiebert(Ed.), Conceptualand procedural
knowledge:The case of mathematics(pp. 75-112). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum
Associates.
Bartlett,F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Bartlett,F. C. (1958). Thinking. New York: Basic Books.

Bauersfeld,H. (1988). Interaction,construction,and knowledge:Alternativeperspectivesfor
mathematicseducation. In T. Cooney & D. Grouws (Eds.), Effectivemathematics
teaching (pp. 27-46). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Biggs, E. (1987). Understandingarea.Journal of MathematicalBehavior, 6 (3), 197-199.
Bishop, A. (1985). The social constructionof meaning-asignificantdevelopmentfor

mathematicseducation? For the Learningof Mathematics,5 (1), 24-28.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bogdanov, A. (1909). Science and philosophy. In (anonymouseditor), Essays on the

philosophy of collectivism (Vol.1). St. Petersburg.
Bridgman,P. (1934). A physicist'ssecond reactionto Mengenlehre. ScriptaMathematica,2,

101-117; 224-234.
Brophy,J. (1986a). Teachingand learningmathematics:Whereresearchshould be going.

Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,17, 323-346.
Brophy,J. (1986b). What are the data?-A reply to Confrey.Journalfor Research in

MathematicsEducation,17, 361-368.
195

196
Brown, J. S., & Burton,R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for proceduralbugs in basic
mathematicalskills. CognitiveScience, 2, 155-192.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situatedcognition and the cultureof
learning. EducationalResearcher, 18 (1), 32-42.
Brown, S. I., & Walter,M. I. (1983). The art of problemposing. Philadelphia:The Franklin
InstitutePress.
Brownell,W. A. (1935). Psychological considerationsin the learningand the teachingof

mathematics.In D. W. Reeve (Ed.), The teachingof arithmetic (TenthYearbookof the
National Council of Teachersof Mathematics,pp. 1-31). New York:Bureauof
Publications,TeachersCollege, ColumbiaUniversity.
Brownell,W.A. (1945). When is arithmeticmeaningful?Journalof EducationalResearch,

38(7), 481-498.
Bruner,J. (1986). Actual minds,possible worlds. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
Press.
Bruni,J.V. (1977). Experiencinggeometry. Belmont: WadsworthPublishing Company,

Inc.
Burton,L. (1984). Mathematicalthinking:The strugglefor meaning. Journalfor Research in

Bush, W. S. (1986). Preserviceteachers'sources of decisions in teaching secondary

mathematics.Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation,17, 21-30.
Buswell, G. T., & Judd,C. H. (1925). Summaryof educationalinvestigations relating to

arithmetic.SupplementaryEducationalMonographs,No. 27. Chicago:Universityof
Chicago Press.
Byers, B. (1983). Beyond structure:Some thoughtson the natureof mathematics. In J. C.

Bergeron & N. Herscovics (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Fifth AnnualMeeting of PME-
NA, Montreal.
Carpenter,T. P. (1986). Conceptualknowledge as a foundationfor proceduralknowledge:

Implicationsfrom researchon the initial learningof arithmetic. In J. Hiebert(Ed.),
Conceptualandproceduralknowledge:The case of mathematics(pp. 113-132). Hillsdale,
NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Carpenter,T. P., & Fennema,E. (1988). Researchand cognitively guided instruction. In E.

Fennema,T. P. Carpenter,& S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integratingresearch on teaching and
learningmathematics(pp. 2-19). Madison,WI: Wisconsin Centerfor Educational
Research,University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Carpenter,T. P., Hiebert, J., & Moser, J. M.(1983). The effect of instructionon children's
solutionsof additionand subtractionword problems. EducationalStudies in Mathematics,
14, 55-72.
Carpenter,T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1982). The developmentof addition and subtraction
problem-solving skills. In T. P. Carpenter,J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.),

197
Additionand subtraction:A cognitiveperspective (pp. 9-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

ErlbaumAssociates.
Carpenter,T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisitionof additionand subtractionconcepts

in gradesone throughthree. Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,15, 179-202.
Carpenter,T. P., Moser, J. M., & Romberg,T. A. (Eds.). (1982). Addition and subtraction:
A cognitiveperspective. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Chomsky,N. (1968). Language and mind. New York:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
Chomsky,N. (1971). Syntacticstructures. The Hague and Paris:Mouton.

Clement,John (1982). Algebraword problemsolutions:analysis of a common
misconception. Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation,13, 16-30.
Cobb, P. (1981). Constructivism,the teaching experiment,and modeling. In C. Comiti and
G. Vergnaud(Eds.),Proceedingsof the InternationalConferenceof the International
Groupfor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation (Vol. 1, pp. 50-55). Grenoble,
France.
Cobb,P. (1985). A reactionto threeearly numberpapers. Journalfor Research in

Cobb,P. (1988). The tension between theoriesof learningand theoriesof instructionin

mathematicseducation. EducationalPsychologist,23, 87-104.
Cobb, P. (in press). Multiple perspectives. In L. A. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming
Early ChildhoodMathematicsEducation. Hillsdale, NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Cobb, P., & Steffe , L. (1983). The constructivistresearcheras teacherand model builder.
Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,14 (2), 83-94.
Cobb, P., & Wheatley, G. (1988). Children'sinitial understandingsof ten. Focus on
LearningProblems in Mathematics,10 (3), 1-28.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (in press). A constructivistapproachto second grade
mathematics. In E. von Glasersfeld(Ed.), Constructivismin mathematicseducation.
Holland:Reidel.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1988). Curriculumand teacherdevelopment:

Psychological and anthropologicalperspectives. In E. Fennema,T. P. Carpenter,& S. J.
Lamon (Eds.),Integratingresearchon teachingand learningmathematics(pp. 92-131).
Madison,WI: Wisconsin Centerfor EducationalResearch,Universityof Wisconsin-
Madison.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1989). Young children'semotional acts while doing
mathematicalproblemsolving. In D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and
mathematicalproblem solving: A new perspective (pp. 117-148). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Confrey,J. (1983). Youngwomen, constructivismand the learning of mathematics. Paper

presentedat the annualmeetingof the NorthAmericanChapterof the InternationalGroup
for the Psychology of MathematicsEducation.Montreal.

198
Confrey,J. (1985). A constructivistview of mathematicsinstruction:A theoretical

perspective. Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the AmericanEducationalResearch
Association. Chicago.
Confrey,J. (1986). A critiqueof teachereffectiveness researchin mathematicseducation.

Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation,17, 347-360.
Confrey,J. (1987). "Misconceptions"across subjectmatters:Science, mathematicsand

programming.Proceedingsof the SecondInternationalSeminaron Misconceptionsand
EducationalStrategiesin Science and Mathematics,1, 81-106. Ithaca,NY: Comell
University.
Cooney, T. (1985). A beginningteacher'sview of problemsolving. Journalfor Research in

MathematicsEducation,16(5), 324-336.
Cooper,D., & Clancy, M. (1982). Oh! Pascal! New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Crowley, M. L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the developmentof geometricthought. In M.
M. Lindquist& A. P. Shulte (Eds.), Learningand teaching geometry,K-12 (1987 NCTM
Yearbook,pp. 1-16). Reston, VA: NationalCouncil of Teachersof Mathematics.
Davis, R. B. (1984). Learningmathematics:The cognitiveapproachto mathematicseducation.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
Davis, R. B. (1985a). The role of representationsin problemsolving: Case studies. The
Journalof MathematicalBehavior, 4(3), 281-291.
Davis, R. B. (1985b). Solving the "threeswitch"problem:A case study. The Journal of

MathematicalBehavior,4(3), 281-291.
Davis, R. B. (1987). Theory and practice. The Journal of MathematicalBehavior, 6,97-126.
Davis, R. B. (1988a). The world accordingto McNeill. Journal of MathematicalBehavior,

7(1), 51-78.
Davis, R. B. (1988b). The interplayof algebra,geometry,and logic. Journal of Mathematical

Behavior, 7(1), 9-28
Davis, R. B. (1989). The cultureof mathematicsand the cultureof schools. The Journal of
MathematicalBehavior,8(2), 143-160.
Davis, R. B., & McKnight,C. (1980). The influence of semanticcontenton algorithmic

behavior, Journal of MathematicalBehavior,3(1), 39-87.
De Millo, R., Lipton, R., & Perlis, A. (1986). Social processes and proofs of theoremsand
programs. In T. Tymoczko (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics(pp.
267-285). Boston: Birkhauser.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experienceand education.New York:MacMillan.

Dewey, J. (1963). Experienceand education. New York: Collier.
Diels, H. (1957). Die Vorsokratiker.Hamburg:Rowohlt.

199
Dienes, Z. P. (1963). An experimentalstudy of mathematicslearning. London:Hutchinson.
Dienes, Z. P. & Jeeves, M. (1965). Thinkingin structures. London:HutchinsonEducational.

Dilworth,R. P. (1973). The changingface of mathematicseducation (Finalreportof the
SpecializedTeacherProject, 1971-72). Sacramento,California:CaliforniaState
Departmentof Education.
Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I.V.S., Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers,D. L. (1988). The
mathematicsreportcard:Are we measuringup? (NationalAssessmentof Educational
Progressreport). Princeton:EducationalTesting Service.
Doyle, W., Sanford,J. & Emmer,E. (1983). Managingacademic tasks in junior high school:
Background,design and methodology (ReportNo. 6185). Austin: University of Texas,
ResearchandDevelopmentCenterfor TeacherEducation.
Erlwanger,S. H. (1973). Benny's conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics.

Journal of Children'sMathematicalBehavior, 1(2), 7-26.
Erlwanger,S. H. (1975). Case studies of children'sconceptions of mathematics,part I.

Journal of Children'sMathematicalBehavior, 1(3), 157-283.
Fabricus,W. (1979). Piaget's theoryof knowledge; Its philosophical context. High/Scope

Report, 4(7), 4-13.
Fennema,E., Carpenter,T. P, & Peterson,P. (1986). Teachers'decision making and
cognitivelyguided instruction:A newparadigmfor curriculumdevelopment. Paper
presentedat the seventhannualmeetingof the InternationalGroupfor the Psychology of
MathematicsEducation.London,England.
Feyerabend,P. (1987). Farewell to reason. London/New York: Verso.

Forman,G., & Pufall, P. B. (Eds.) (1988). Constructivismin the computerage. Hillsdale,
NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children'scountingand concepts of number.New York: Springer-

Verlag.
Fuson, K. C., & Hall, J. W. (1983). The acquisitionof early numberword meanings:A
conceptual analysis and review. In H. P. Ginsburg(Ed.), The developmentof
mathematicalthinking(pp. 49-107). New York:Academic Press.
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. (1978). Youngchildren'sunderstandingof numbers.

Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Ginsburg,H. P. (1977). Children'sarithmetic:The learningprocess. New York, NY: Van
Nostrand.
Ginsburg,H. P. (1982). Children'sarithmetic:How they learn it and how you teach it.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Ginsburg,H. P. (1983). The developmentof mathematicalthinking. New York:Academic

Press.

200
Ginsburg,H. P. (1989). Children'sarithmetic(2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Ginsburg,H. P., & Oper, S. (Eds.). (1969) Piaget's theory of intellectual development.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Ginsburg,H. P., Posner, J. K., & Russell, R. L. (1981). The development of mental
additionas a functionof schooling. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 12, 163-178.
Ginsburg,H. P., & Russell, R. L. (1981). Social class and racial influences on early
mathematicalthinking. Monographsof the Societyfor Research in ChildDevelopment,
46:(16) (Serial No. 193).
Goldin, G. A. (1984). Structurevariablesin problem solving. In G. A. Goldin and C. E.
McClintock(Eds.), Taskvariables in mathematicalproblemsolving (pp 103-169).
Philadelphia:FranklinInstitutePress (presentlyHillsdale, New Jersey:LawrenceErlbaum
Associates).
Goldin,G. A. (1987). Cognitive representationalsystems for mathematicalproblemsolving.
In C. Janvier(Ed.),Problemsof representationin the teachingand learningof
mathematics (pp. 125-145). Hillsdale, New Jersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Goldin,G. A. (1989). Constructivistepistemology and discovery learningin mathematics. In

G. Vergnaud,J. Rogalski, & M. Artigue (Eds.),Actes de la 13e ConferenceInternationale
de PME (InternationalGroupfor the Psychologyof MathematicsEducation) (Vol. 2, pp
15-22). Paris.
Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. (1978). Missourimathematicseffectivenessproject: A
programof naturalisticand experimentalresearch(Tech. ReportNo. 142). Columbia:
Universityof Missouri,Centerfor Researchin Social Behavior.
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematicsteaching. New
York:Longman.
Groen,G. J., & Resnick, L. B. (1977). Can preschool childreninvent addition algorithms?
Journal of EducationalPsychology, 69, 645-652.
Gunstone,R., & Northfield,J. (1988, April). Inservice education: Some constructivist

perspectivesand examples. Paperpresentedat the annualmeeting of the American
EducationalResearchAssociation.New Orleans.
Guskey,T. R. (1986). Staff developmentand the process of teacherchange. Educational

Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
Hadamard,J. (1945). Thepsychology of inventionin the mathematicalfield. New York:
Dover Publications,Inc.
Hare-Mustin,R. T., & Marecek,J. (1988). The meaning of difference. American

Psychologist, 43, 455-464.
Harlen,W., & Osborne,R. (1985). A model for learningand teaching appliedto primary
science. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 17(2), 133-146.

201
Hiebert,J. (1984). Children'smathematicslearning:The struggleto link form and

understanding.ElementarySchool Journal, 84, 497-513.
Hiebert,J. (Ed.). (1986). Conceptualand procedural knowledge:The case of mathematics.
Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Holt, J. (1964). How childrenfail. New York:Delta Books.
Howson, G. C. J., Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick,J. (1981). Curriculumdevelopment in

mathematics. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Inhelder,B., Garcia,R., & Voneche, J. (1977). Epistemologiegenetique et equilibration.

Neuchatel/Paris:Delachauzet Niestle.
James,W. (1880). Greatmen, great thoughts,and the environment. AtlanticMonthly,46,

441-459.
Kamii, C. K. (1985). Youngchildrenreinventarithmetic. New York:TeachersCollege

Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). A theory of personality: Thepsychology of personal constructs. New

York: Norton.
Kidder,T. (1989). Among schoolchildren. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.
Kilpatrick,J. (1986). Reflection and recursion. In Carss, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth
InternationalCongresson MathematicalEducation.Boston:Birkhauser.
Kilpatrick,J. (1987). What constructivismmight be in mathematicseducation. In J. C.

Bergeron,N. Herscovics & C. Kieran(Eds.), Proceedings of the EleventhConference of
the InternationalGroupfor the Psychologyof MathematicsEducation(pp. 2-27).
Montreal:Universityof Montreal.
Kintsch, W. & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understandingand solving arithmeticword problems.

Psychological Review, 92, 109-129.
Kitchener,R. (1989). Genetic epistemology and the prospectsfor a cognitive sociology of
science: A critical synthesis. Social Epistemology,3(2), 153-169.
Kline, M. (1980). Mathematics:The loss of certainty. New York:Oxford University Press.
Koretz,D. (1988). Arrivingin Lake Wobegon:Are standardizedtests exaggerating

achievementand distortinginstruction?AmericanEducator,12(2), 8-52.
Kouba, V. (1986, April). How young childrensolve multiplicationand division word

problems. Paperpresentedat the NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematicsresearch
presession, Washington, D.C.
Labinowicz,E. (1985). Learningfrom children:New beginningsfor teaching numerical
thinking. Menlo Park,CA: Addison-Wesley.
Labinowicz,E. (1987). Children'sright to be wrong. ArithmeticTeacher, 35(4), 2 & 20.

202
Lakatos,I. (1976). Proofs and refutations(J. Worral& E. Zahar,Eds.). Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversity Press.
Lampert,M. (1988). The teacher'srole in reinventingthe meaningof mathematicalknowing
in the classroom.Proceedings of the NorthAmericaChapterof the Psychology of
MathematicsEducationGroup (pp. 433-480). NorthernIllinois University.
Landis,J. H. (1990). Teachers'predictionand identificationof children'smathematical

behavior:Two case studies. Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation. RutgersUniversity.
Landis, J. H. and Maher,C. A. (1989). Observationsof Carrie,a fourthgrade student,doing

mathematics. TheJournalof MathematicalBehavior,8(1), 3-12.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognitionin practice: Mind,mathematicsand culturein everydaylife.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Lawler,R. W. (in press). Constructingknowledge from interactions.Journal of Mathematical
Behavior.
Lerman,S. (1989). Constructivism,mathematics,and mathematicseducation. Educational

Studies in Mathematics, 20, 211-223.
Lesh, R., & Landau,M. (Eds.). (1983). Acquisitionof mathematicalconcepts and processes.
New York:Academic Press.
Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (1987). Problem solving. In T. Post (Ed.), Teaching
mathematicsin grades K-8: Research-basedmethods. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
Lochhead,J. (1983a). Beyond Emile. Paperpresentedat the annualmeeting of the American

EducationalResearchAssociation.Montreal.
Lochhead,J. (1983b). Constructivistapproachto teachingmathematics. In J. C. Bergeron

& N. Herscovics (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth AnnualMeeting: PME/NA.
Lortie,D. C. (1975). School teacher. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Lunkenbein,D. (1985, April). Cognitivestructuresunderlyingprocesses and conceptionsin

geometry. Paperpresentedat the researchpresessionof the annualmeeting of the National
Council of Teachersof Mathematics.San Antonio, TX.
Mager,R. (1962). Preparinginstructionalobjectives. Palo Alto, California:Fearon.

Magoon, A. J. (1977). Constructivistapproachesin educationalresearch. Review of
EducationalResearch,47(4), 651-693.
Maher,C. A. (1986, June).Teacherdevelopmentin mathematics:A model. Paperpresentedat

the workingconferenceon Models for TeacherDevelopment.RutgersUniversity.
Maher,C. A., & Alston, A. (1988, July). Implementinga modelfor teacher developmentin
mathematics.Paperpresentedto the Sixth InternationalCongresson Mathematical
Education. Budapest,Hungary.
Maher,C. A., and Alston, A. (1989). Is meaningconnected to symbols? An interview with

Ling Chen. The Journal of MathematicalBehavior, 8(3), 241-248.

203
Maturana,H. (1980a). Biology and cognition. In H. Maturana& F. Varela (Eds.),

Autopoiesis:The organizationof the living. Dordrecht:Reidel.
Maturana,H. R. (1980b). Man and society. In F. Benseler, P. M. Hejl, & W. K. Kock
(Eds.), Antopoiesis, communication,and society (pp. 11-32). Frankfurt,West Germany:
CampusVerlag.
McKnight,C. (1987). The underachievingcurriculum. Champaign:Stipes Publishing
Company.
McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, S. D. Travers, K.
J., Cooney, T. J. (1987). The underachievingcurriculum:Assessing U.S. school
mathematicsfrom an internationalperspective. Champaign,IL: Stipes.
McNeill, R. (1988). A reflection on when I loved math, and how I stopped. Journal of
MathematicalBehavior, 7(1), 45-50.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Montaigne,Michel de (1972). Essais (Vol.2). Paris:LibrairieGeneraleFrancaise.

Moyer, M. B., & Moyer, J. C. (1985). Ensuringthatpracticemakes perfect:Implicationsfor
childrenwith learningdifficulties. ArithmeticTeacher,33(1), 40-42.
NACOME. (1975). Overviewand analysis of school mathematics,Grades K-12.
Washington,DC: ConferenceBoardof the MathematicalSciences.
NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics.(1989). Curriculumand evaluationstandards
for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM, Inc.
NationalResearchCouncil. (1989). Everybodycounts:A reportto the nation on thefuture of
mathematicseducation. Washington,DC: NationalAcademy Press.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitivepsychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Nicholls, J. G. (1983). Conceptionsof ability and achievementmotivation:A theory and its

implications for education. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & W. H. Stevenson (Eds.),
Learningand motivationin the classroom (pp. 211-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitiveethos and democraticeducation. Cambridge:Harvard

University Press.
Noddings, N. (1973). Constructivismas a base for a theory of teaching. Unpublished

doctoraldissertation,StanfordUniversity.
Noddings, N. (1974). Competencetheoriesand the science of education. Educational

Theory, 24, 356-364.
Noddings,N. (1984). Caring:Afeminine approachto ethics and moral education.Berkeley:
University of CaliforniaPress.

204
Noddings,N. (1986). Teachingas a heuristicenterprise. Paperpresentedat the annual

meeting of the Psychology of MathematicsEducationGroup. East Lansing,Michigan.
Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caringand its implicationsfor instructionalarrangements.
AmericanJournal of Education,96(2), 215-230.
Noddings, N. (1989). Theoreticaland practicalconcernsaboutsmall groupsin mathematics.

The ElementarySchool Journal, 89(5), 607-623.
Novak, J., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Nussbaum,J. (1982). Alternativeframeworks,conceptualconflict and accommodation:
Towarda principledteachingstrategy. InstructionalScience, 11, 183-200.
Osborne,R., Bell, B., & Gilbert,J. (1982). Science teaching and children's view of the
world. Hamilton, New Zealand:S.E.R.U., University of Waikato.
Papert,S. (1980). Mindstorms:Children,computers,andpowerful ideas. New York: Basic

Books.
A. N. (1980). Social interactionand cognitivedevelopmentin children.

Perret-Clermont,
New York:Academic Press.
Perry,M., Church,R., & Goldin-Meadow,S. (1988, April). Learning a principle versus

learninga procedure:Lookingbeyondwhatis taught. Paperpresentedat the annual
meetingof the AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,New Orleans.
Peterson,P., & Clark C. (1978). Teachers'reportsof theircognitive processes during
teaching. AmericanEducationalResearchJournal, 14(4), 555-565.
Peterson, P., Swing, S., Stark,K., & Waas, C. (1984). Students'cognitions and time on
task duringmathematicsinstruction.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,21(3), 487-
515.
Piaget, J. (1937). La constructiondu reel chez l'enfant.Neuchatel:Delachauxet Niestle.
Piaget, J. (1948). To understandis to invent. New York: Viking.
Piaget, J. (1953). Logic andpsychology. Manchester,England:ManchesterUniversity

Press.
Piaget, J. (1964). Learningand development. In R. E. Ripple, & V. N. Rockcastle (Eds.),

Piaget rediscovered (Reportof the Conferenceon CognitiveStudiesand Curriculum
Development). Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversity.
Piaget, J. (1965). The child's conception of number. New York: Norton.
Piaget, J. (1969). Mechanismsof perception (G. N. Seagrim,Trans.). New York: Basic
Books.
Piaget, J. (1970a). Genetic epistemology. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Piaget, J. (1970b). Le structuralisme.Paris:Presses Universitairesde France.

205
Piaget, J. (1970c). Science of educationand the psychology of the child. New York: Orion.
Piaget, J. (1970d). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1971a). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (1971b). Insights and illusions of philosophy. New York: World.
Piaget,J. (1980a). Adaptationand intelligence:Organicselection and phenocopy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (1980b). Afterthoughts.In M. Piattelli-Palmarine(Ed.),Language and learning:

The debate betweenJean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press.
Piaget, J. (1980c). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance. In

M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.),Languageand learning:The debatebetweenJean Piaget and
Noam Chomsky. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Piattelli-Palmarini,M. (1980). How hardis the "hardcore"of a scientific program? In M.

Piattelli-Palmarini(Ed.),Languageand Learning:ThedebatebetweenJean Piaget and
Noam Chomsky. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Pierce, C. S. (1935). Collectedpapers of Charles SandersPierce (Vol. 5, C. Hartshome& P.

Weiss, Eds.). Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Pittendrigh,C. S. (1958). Adaptation,naturalselection, and behavior.In A. Roe & G. G.

Simpson (Eds.), Behavior and evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Plato. (1956). Great dialogues of Plato. New York:New AmericanLibrary.
Polya, G. (1962). Mathematicaldiscovery:On understanding,learning,and teachingproblem

solving. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Popkin, R. (1979). The historyof scepticismfrom Erasmusto Spinoza. Berkeley/Los

Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress.
Quine, W. V. 0. (1969). Epistemology naturalized. In W. V. O. Quine (Ed.), Ontological
relativityand other essays. New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). A developmentaltheory of numberunderstanding.In H. P. Ginsburg
(Ed.), The developmentof mathematicalthinking(pp. 109-151). New York: Academic
Press.
Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematicsfor instruction.

Reyes, L. H. (1984). Affective variablesand mathematicseducation. ElementarySchool

Journal, 84, 558-581.
Riley, M. S., Greeno, J. G., & Heller, J. I. (1983). Development of children'sproblem-

solving ability in arithmetic. In H. P. Ginsburg(Ed.), The developmentof mathematical
thinking(pp. 153-200). New York: Academic Press.

206
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.) (1984). Everydaycognition: Its developmentin social context.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Rorty,R. (1979). Philosophyand the mirrorof nature.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity

Press.
Rosenshine, B. (1976). Classroom instruction. In N. Gage (Ed.), The psychology of

teachingmethods(Seventy-seventhYearbook,pp. 335-371). Chicago: NationalSociety
for the Study of Education.
Ross, S. (1986, April). The developmentof children'splace-value numerationconcepts in

grades two throughfive. Paperpresentedat the annualmeeting of the American
EducationalResearchAssociation. San Francisco,CA.
Rowell, J.A. (1989). Equilibrationand the teaching of science. Synthese,80(1), 141-162.

Scheman,N. (1989). Commentaryon SandraHarding's "Themethod question." Newsletter
on Feminism and Philosophy, 88(3), 40-44.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematicalproblemsolving. New York:Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What'sall the fuss aboutmetacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld

(Ed.), Cognitivescience and mathematicseducation (pp. 189-216). Hillsdale, NJ:
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (in press). Learning:The microgenetic analysis
of one student'sevolving understandingof complex subjectmatterdomain. In R. Glaser
(Ed.), Advancesin instructionalpsychology (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum
Associates.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflectivepractitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schutz,A. (1962). Theproblem of social reality. The Hague, Holland:MartinusNijhoff.
Siegel, H. (1988). Rationalityand epistemic dependence.EducationalPhilosophyand

Theory, 20(1), 1-6.
Siegler, R. S. (1987). Strategychoices in subtraction. In J. Slobada & D. Rogers (Eds.),

Cognitiveprocess in mathematics(pp. 81-106). Oxford,England;Oxford University
Press.
Siegler, R. S., & Shrager,J. (1984). Strategychoices in addition:How do childrenknow

what to do? In C. Sophian (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229-293). Hillsdale,
NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Simmel, G. (1885). Ueber eine Beziehung der Selectionslehrezur Erkenntnistheorie.Archiv

fur systematischePhilosophie, 1, 34-45.
Simon, H. (1979). Models of thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Skinner,B. F. (1953). Science and HumanBehavior. New York: The Free Press.

207
Slobin, D. I. (1971). Psycholinguistics. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Smedslund,J. (1977). Piaget'spsychology in practice. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 47, 1-6.
Snow, R. (1972). A model teacher trainingsystem:An overview (Researchand Development

Memorandum92, Ed. 066 437). Stanford:Centerfor the Researchand Development in
Teaching.
Starkey,P., & Gelman, R. (1982). The developmentof additionand subtractionabilities prior
to formal schooling in arithmetic. In T. P. Carpenter,J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg
(Eds.), Additionand subtraction:A cognitiveperspective (pp. 99-116). Hillsdale, NJ:
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Steffe, L. P.(1983). The teachingexperimentmethodologyin a constructivistresearch

program. In M. Zweng, T. Green, J. Kilpatrick,H. Pollak, & M. Suydam (Eds.),
Proceedingsof the FourthInternationalCongresson MathematicalEducation(pp. 469-
471). Boston: Birkhauser.
Steffe, L. P. (1986, April). Mathematicalteachereducationin a constructivistframework.

Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,
San Francisco.
Steffe, L. P. (1987, April). Principles of mathematicalcurriculumdesign in early childhood

teachereducation. Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the AmericanEducational
ResearchAssociation. Washington,DC.
Steffe, L. P. (1988, April). Mathematicslearning and teachingfor today'sschools. Paper

presentedat the annualmeetingof the NationalCouncilfor the Teachersof Mathematics.
Chicago.
Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1983). The constructivistresearcheras teacherand model builder.
Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation,14, 83-94.
Steffe, L. P., Cobb, P., & von Glasersfeld,E. (1988). Constructionof arithmeticalmeanings
and strategies. New York:Springer-Verlag.
Steffe, L. P., von Glasersfeld, E., Richards,J., & Cobb, P. (1983). Children's counting
types:Philosophy, theory,and applications. New York:PraegerScientific.
Steffe, L. P., Shrum, J. W., Clifton, P. D. Hart, N., & Ireland,E. K. (1985). Final report:
Secretary'sdiscretionaryprogram,planninggrantto develop the GeorgiaTeacherFellow
Programin Science and Mathematics.In A. Buccino & C. Purvis (Eds.). Designing and
implementinga teachercareer ladder. Athens:The ClarkeCounty(Georgia)Schools and
The College of Educationof the Universityof Georgia.
Stephens,W., & Romberg T. (1985). Reconceptualizingthe role of the mathematicsteacher.

Paperpresentedat the AnnualMeetingof the AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.
Chicago.

208
Stevens, A. L., & Collins, A. (1980). Multipleconceptualmodels of a complex system. In

R. E. Snow, P. Federica,& W. E. Montague(Eds.), Aptitude,learning and instruction:
Cognitiveprocess analyses of learning andproblem solving (Vol. 2, pp. 177-188).
Sund, R., & Picard,A. (1972). Behavioralobjectivesand evaluationalmeasures:Science and

mathematics. Columbus,Ohio: Merrill.
Thom, R. (1973). Modernmathematics:Does it exist? In Howson, A.G. (Ed.),

Developmentsin mathematicaleducation:Proceedingsof the SecondInternational
Congresson MathematicalEducation(pp. 194-209). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Thompson,P. (1985). Experience,problemsolving, and learningmathematics:

Considerationsin developing mathematicalcurricula. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teachingand
learningmathematicalproblemsolving:Multipleresearchperspectives(pp. 189-236).
Thoresen,C. (1988). The constructivistconcept:Primacyof the obscure. The Counseling

Psychologist, 16(2), 249-255.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding (Vol. 1). Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press.
Turner,M. (1967). Philosophyand the science of behavior. New York:Appleton-Century-

Crofts.
Vaihinger,H. (1913). Die Philosophie des Als Ob. Berlin:Reuther& Reichard.

Van Engen, H. (1949). Analysis of meaningin arithmetic. ElementarySchool Journal.49,
321-329; 335-400.
Vico, G. B. (1858). De antiquissimaItalorumsapientia (1710). Naples: Stamperiade'Classici

Latini.
Vinner, S. (1983). Conceptdefinition,concept image, and the notion of function.

InternationalJournalfor MathematicsEducation,Science and Technology,14(3), 293-305.
Voigt, J. (1985). Patternsand routinesin classroominteraction.Researches en didactiquedes

mathematiques,6, 69-118.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1974). Piaget and the radical constructivistepistemology. Paper

presentedat the ThirdSoutheasternConferenceof the Society for Researchon Child
Development. ChapelHill, NC.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1980). Adaptationand viability.AmericanPsychologist, 35(11), 970-
974.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1981). The "truth"aboutPythagoras. Problem Solving. 3(5 & 6).
von Glasersfeld,E. (1982). Subitizing:The role of figuralpatternsin the developmentof

numericalconcepts. Archives de Psychologie. 50, 191-218.

209
von Glasersfeld,E. (1983). On the concept of interpretation.Poetics, 12, 207-218.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1984). An introductionto radicalconstructivism. In P. Watzlawick

(Ed.), The inventedreality (pp. 17-40). New York: Norton.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1985). Reconstructingthe concept of knowledge. Archives de
Psychologie, 53, 91-101.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1987a). Learningas a constructiveactivity. In C. Janvier(Ed.),
Problemsof representationin the teachingand learningof mathematics(pp. 3-17).
von Glasersfeld,E. (1987b). Preliminariesto any theoryof representation.In C. Janvier

(Ed.),Problemsof representationin the teachingand learning of mathematics (pp. 215-
225). Hillsdale, New Jersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1988, July). Environmentand communication. Paperpresentedat the
Sixth InternationalCongresson MathematicalEducation.Budapest,Hungary.
von Glasersfeld,E. (in press). Abstraction,re-presentation,and reflection. In L. P. Steffe

(Ed.), Epistemologicalfoundationsof mathematicalexperience.New York: Springer-
Verlag.
von Uexkiill, J. (1970). Streifziigedurch die Umweltenvon Tieren und Menschen (with
Georg Kriszat).Frankfurtam Main:Fischer. (Originallypublishedin 1933).
Vuyk, R. (1981). Overviewand critiqueof Piaget's genetic epistemology (Vols. 1 & 2). New
York:Academic Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thoughtand language. Cambridge,MA.: M.I.T. Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The developmentof higherpsychological processes.

Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Weber,R. (1986, April). The constraintsof questioningroutinesin reading instruction. Paper

presentedat the meeting of AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation. San Francisco,
CA.
Wertheimer,M. (1959). Productivethinking(Enlargededition). New York:Harper& Row.

Wertsch,J. V. (1985). Vygotskyand the socialformation of mind. Cambridge:Harvard
University Press.
Whimbey,A., & LochheadJ. (1980). Problemsolving and comprehension. Philadelphia:

FranklinInstitutePress.
Whitney,H. (1985). Takingresponsibilityin school mathematicseducation,The Journal of

MathematicalBehavior, 4(3), 219-235.

210
Wittgenstein,L. (1961). Tractatuslogico-philosophicus.London:Routledge& Kegan Paul.

Wittgenstein,L. (1964). Remarkson thefoundations of mathematics. Oxford:Blackwell.
Wood, T. (in press). Whole class interactionsas the negotiationof social contexts within
which to constructmathematicalknowledge. In C. Keitel (Ed.),Mathematics,education
and society. Berlin:UNESCO.
Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (in press). The contextualnatureof teaching:Mathematics
and readinginstructionin one second-gradeclassroom. ElementarySchool Journal.
Woods, S. S., Resnick, L. B., & Groen, G. J. (1975). An experimentaltest of five process
models for subtraction.Journal of EducationalPsychology, 67, 17-21.

View publication stats

Chapter 9: Classrooms As Learning Environments For Teachers and Researchers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chapter 9: Classrooms As Learning Environments For Teachers and Researchers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 9: Classrooms As Learning Environments For Teachers and Researchers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter 9: Classrooms as Learning Environments for Teachers and

Article in Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph · January 1990

Paul Cobb Erna Yackel

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

PaulCobb, TerryWood and Era Yackel

Thischapterdescribesresearch thatis attemptingto coordinate view of learning

Theresearchreportedin thispaperwas supported

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

specific conceptualdomains. Not surprisinglythis has posed majordifficulties for educators

In so far as Piagetianpsychologists focus on logicality as a variable(e.g., conserveror

Any functionin the child'sculturaldevelopmentappearstwice or on two planes. First

of development,interalization is a process involved in

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

anundefined primaryconstructin his theoryandhasresistedsubsequent attemptsto elaborate

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

The Classroom Teaching Experiment

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

In summary,althoughthis approachto mathematicsinstructionis generallycompatible

Initial Induction of the Project Teacher

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

In an attemptto renegotiatethe social normsof theirrelationship,the projectdirector

Reflections on the Induction Process

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

occurredwhen she beganto realize thathercurrentpracticemight be problematic. We were

The Classroom as an Environment for the Teacher's Learning

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

mathematicalproblemsthey encounterin the course of theireverydaylives (cf. Lave, 1988;

The Negotiation of Social Norms as an Opportunity to Learn

Whole Class Interactions

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

In particular,the childrentacitlyassumedthatthey were expectedto figureout the responsethat

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

I have become a betterlistener. Teachersare basicallytalkerswho feel a strongdesire

It was preciselybecause she learnedthe importanceof listeningwhile interactingwith

Small Group Interactions

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

For example, she wrote in notes for otherteachers:

Studentswere motivatedto work hardduringmathtime becauseof the personal

These commentsindicatethatdoing work was of greatimportanceto the teacher.

The Teacher's Reconceptualization of Her Role

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

This last commentindicatesthatthe teacherseemed to be awarethatshe and the

My teachingrole is pleasantlydifferent Ratherthanbeing the "personwith all the

In short,the teacher'sreconceptualizationof her role went handin handwith the

Negotiating Mathematical Meanings as an Opportunity to Learn

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

Facilitating Mathematical Learning and Communication

Rickhadtwosetsof multilinkshe was addingup. AndyouknowwhatI did? AndI

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

can'tdo it thatway."He wascountingby ones. I didmoreto confuseRickthanto

Our Current Views on Teacher Development

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM

The Summer Institute

This content downloaded from 129.59.95.115 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:09:31 AM