Mathematical Thinking and Learning

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmtl20

About time: Syntactically-guided reasoning with

analog and digital clocks

Darrell Earnest

To cite this article: Darrell Earnest (2022) About time: Syntactically-guided reasoning
with analog and digital clocks, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 24:1, 70-89, DOI:
10.1080/10986065.2021.1881703

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2021.1881703

Published online: 04 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 520

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmtl20
MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING
2022, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 70–89
https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2021.1881703

ARTICLE

About time: Syntactically-guided reasoning with analog and digital

clocks
Darrell Earnest
Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, College of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Around the globe, young students are expected to learn about time, yet how Received 26 June 2020
is it that they themselves make sense of this topic? From a sociocultural Revised 18 January 2021
perspective, sense-making about time emerges in relation to properties of Accepted 22 January 2021
available tools and representations, such as analog clocks or digital notation. KEYWORDS
Such interactions with the symbols and structural properties of clocks are Clock-reading; student
examples of syntactically-guided reasoning, a key domain of early algebra. In thinking; elementary math;
this paper, I focus on how students’ syntactically-guided reasoning emerged representations; time;
when reasoning about non-routine time problems with different clocks, elapsed time; early algebra;
whether or not such reasoning was consistent with accepted conventions syntactically-guided
of time measure. I present three case studies of typical Grade 2 students reasoning
describing time on a particular clock (analog or digital) as they solved tasks
related to time identification and elapsed time. I describe how symbolic
properties of clocks enabled pathways of thinking about time-related ideas
in relation to that particular clock. Implications for the treatment of time in
elementary mathematics are discussed.

Any mathematical tool and the conventions for its use, such as those for an analog clock, are not invented
by students. Such conventions reflect a cultural history of the development and use of mathematical tools
and a collective agreement to the rules governing their meaning and use. Mathematical meaning is not
intrinsic to a representation; rather, such meaning was agreed-upon over time by established users and
communicators of such representations (i.e., mathematicians). While symbols and symbol systems have
conventional meanings that can mediate one’s thinking and communication (Sfard, 2007; Vygotsky,
1978), such meaning is not necessarily readily accessible to individuals learning new content or
encountering unfamiliar problems. In this paper, I consider students’ reasoning about time,
a challenging topic (Earnest, 2017, 2019; Earnest & Chandler, in press) that young students encounter
in the early elementary grades. Drawing upon case study methodology (Yin, 2014), I present three second
grade students working with different clocks to reveal how properties of the clocks interplayed with
students’ descriptions about time. Such descriptions illuminate how time ideas are mediated by physical
and representational objects of available tools, even when students’ interpretations do not reflect agreed-
upon meanings for how that tool is used.
Rather than inventing conventions for using and interpreting mathematical tools, children learn
about such conventions in the context of social activity (Saxe & Esmonde, 2012; Sfard, 2007; Vygotsky,
1978). Because even new or unfamiliar representations typically feature some symbols students have
previously encountered, particular symbolic properties can provide a foothold in relation to the
broader set of symbols for a user to interpret mathematical meaning. Through syntactically-guided
reasoning – or, “guided action on symbols within organized systems of symbols” (Kaput, 2008, p. 7)
that is a core aspect of algebraic thinking (Blanton et al., 2011) – one may eventually draw upon

CONTACT Darrell Earnest dearnest@educ.umass.edu Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, College of
Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 813 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA 01003.
© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 71

structural properties of tools and representations to make inferences that otherwise may remain
hidden (Brizuela & Earnest, 2008; Earnest, 2019). At the same time, one may also interpret the
properties of a mathematical tool in ways that conflict with the accepted meaning, but in ways that
still lead to inferences that may otherwise remain hidden; such inferences provide an opportunity to
document what children know about a particular topic, and where they may need further support.
In this paper, I first consider syntactically-guided reasoning with the objects of analog and digital
clocks. I secondly consider research in children’s understanding of time before turning to the case
study analysis.

Syntactically-guided reasoning with analog and digital clocks

In Kaput’s (2008) definition, syntactically-guided reasoning involves an individual user’s guided action
of particular symbols within a broader system with conventional, or agreed-upon, meaning. Such
conventions of symbol systems enable a coherent meaning for the mathematical situation modeled
with those symbols; Sfard (2007) might refer to such agreed upon meaning as reflecting endorsed
narratives, or stories, in mathematics discourse. Syntactically-guided reasoning speaks to the mediat­
ing role of symbol systems in learning (Sfard, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978). As Kaput stated, syntactically-
guided reasoning involves “actions on generalization expressed in conventional symbol systems”
(Kaput, 2008, p. 11). Given that meaning is not intrinsic to a symbol, the expression of generalization
through symbols is dependent not only on conventional meaning, but also on how an individual user
interprets that meaning.
At the same time, a given mathematical symbol does not necessarily have a singular, conventional
meaning; such agreed-upon meaning derives from relations among a series of available objects. For
example, consider the numeral “4.” The conventional meaning of “4” is related to the broader
discursive context of this symbol. A “4” to label a set of four apples is different from a “4” used in
the notation “3/4” or the “4” in “4:30.” The symbol “4” takes on meaning in relation to a broader set of
discursive features, including the set of symbols accompanying the “4.” Given the multiplicity of
discursive meanings for a given symbol, an individual’s syntactically-guided reasoning may reflect one
mathematical discourse (e.g., whole number) over another (e.g., rational number, time). In other
words, the “actions on generalizations expressed in conventional symbol systems” (Kaput, 2008, p. 11)
is interwoven with the particular mathematical narrative an individual associates with available
symbols to make any generalization.
An analog clock measures duration over a 12-hour period from either midnight to noon or noon to
midnight. Consistent with other standard measurement tools, the intervals around an analog clock
reflect the conventional treatment of linear scales, which feature numerals, tickmarks, and intervals.
For time, such intervals reify an invisible and untouchable quantity as length units with conventions
consistent with number lines. The analog clock features the two (or three) time units on the same line
along the clock’s periphery, essentially superimposing different units onto one another. Such super­
imposition of proportional units thereby reflects an intricate, geometric tool to measure time across
the day. To indicate the time 3:50, for example, the hour indicator points five-sixths of the distance
between 3 and 4, while the minute hand points five-sixths of the distance from 12 around the entire
clock. Two common analog clock manipulatives – one with mechanically linked hands and the other
with independent hands – reflect this proportionality very differently (Earnest, 2017).
Digital clocks, on the other hand, express time through numbers, one for the hour and the other for
minutes and separated by the “:” symbol and avoiding any superimposition of units. Digital clocks
allow for an easy and quick read of precise time to the minute. Its numeric expression of time eschews
any need to coordinate the position of two different hand indicators on an analog clock. Given that
children typically learn about number prior to learning about interpreting intervals, digital clocks
enable earlier access to more individuals to identify precise time. Research has shown that time
identification is easier with digital clocks (Friedman & Laycock, 1989). Properties of digital clocks
enable a representation of time across the day as beginning at 0 and ending at 23:59; such a time idea is
72 D. EARNEST

less salient or unavailable with an analog clock’s structure, underscoring how tools may enable unique
pathways of thinking and communication. Conversely, digital notation does not make salient the
proportional character of units as the analog clock does; for 3:50, the analog clock’s hour hand
positioning five-sixths of the distance between 3 and 4 makes salient how far into the hour the time
is, whereas the hour in digital notation for any time in the 3 o’clock hour is identical to any other time
within the same hour.

Children’s understanding of time

Around the globe, young children in early grades are expected to learn about time (Mullis et al.,
2016; National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO), 2010). However, scholars have highlighted the paucity of research on time
learning (e.g., Burny et al., 2012; Earnest, 2017, 2019; Friedman & Laycock, 1989; Kamii & Russell,
2012), indicating that learning goals for time content are based on a thin research foundation.
Further, a challenge in interpreting extant research stems from consequential differences in study
designs anchored in particular theoretical perspectives of learning. Despite limited time research,
findings consistently described challenges children encounter when clock-reading or determining
elapsed time (Burny et al., 2012; Earnest, 2017, 2019; Kamii & Russell, 2012). In fact, even research
among middle and high school students in the U.S. revealed challenges encountered when inter­
preting intervals of elapsed time (Earnest, 2015; Ellis et al., 2015; Lobato et al., 2012), suggesting that
difficulties in seeing how representations model time continue past the elementary grades. Such
findings are concerning given that representations of time – whether charting plant growth in
a fourth-grade classroom or interpreting graphs of exponential growth during the global corona­
virus pandemic – are consequential to communicating and interpreting worldly phenomena with
accuracy.
This project’s sociocultural perspective involving syntactically-guided reasoning and mathematics
discourse is a departure from prior time research. A discursive approach illuminates the varied
semiotic resources – from the symbolic structure of clocks to the words used to describe time –
when reasoning with this invisible quantity. Given the central role of mediation in thinking and
learning (Vygotsky, 1978), this project has explored children’s descriptions of time in the context of
common manipulatives and notation. In doing so, this project has sought to contribute to time
literature by addressing a conjecture that students’ descriptions of time are inextricably linked with
properties of available tools and representations. Through syntactically-guided reasoning with
a particular tool, students’ descriptions about time may proceed along different pathways (Earnest,
2017, 2019). Such pathways are interwoven with aspects of time discourse in which children have likely
been participants.
Prior research. Research from a constructivist perspective has considered when children begin to
attend to duration as a property of an event (e.g., Fraisse, 1984; Long & Kamii, 2001; Piaget, 1969;
Wilkening et al., 1987). Time is not just the numbers indicated on a clock or stopwatch, but rather
a distinct attribute of an event that, eventually, individuals can attend to separately from other
properties of that same event. Piaget (1969) found that children begin to attend to duration around
age 9, though other researchers found that such attending did not develop until later (Kamii & Russell,
2010).
Given that such research pursuits pertained to mental schemes and identifying points in develop­
ment when children could reasonably attend to duration as its own attribute of an event, the
constructivist research cited above was conducted absent of a standard tool for time. Piaget’s (1969)
concern, for example, pertained to attending to duration as a property of an event and coordinating
this with spatial attributes of that event; his focus thereby did not involve standard time tools or units.
In fact, the focus on time in the present study – on time measured across the day – reflects
a convention that the event we call “day” begins and ends at midnight,1 a human invention simply
not germane to Piaget’s pursuits.
 MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 73

Other constructivist research sought to capture when children efficiently calculate elapsed time
with digital notation (Kamii & Russell, 2012). Kamii and Russell found that, when an elapsed time
crossed the hour mark, children across elementary grades experienced difficulty determining the
resulting time due to what they called “children’s inability to coordinate hierarchical units” (p. 309).
This was because of the children’s inability to coordinate the different composite temporal units (i.e.,
12 hours and 60 minutes) in their calculations. Consistent with findings from the present project
(Earnest et al., 2018), they found that children treated hours and minutes as separate from each other.
They also found that even students in Grade 5, past the typical point of time instruction (see National
Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO), 2010), performed poorly with such calculations.
Again, this project considers tools for time as inextricably linked with thinking and communicating
about time. Unlike Piaget (1969) and other constructivist research pertaining to duration, Kamii and
Russell (2012) did indeed focus on the measure of time across the day, yet from a different theoretical
position than the present study. I note that in their experiment, Kamii and Russell did not provide
participants with a tool for time. They noted that if a child sat for a long time, the interviewer asked if
that child wanted a pencil or see a picture of clocks without hands, with that child’s response typically
being “No.” Their study did not report how many of their 126 students received these prompts, though
I interpret their methods as suggesting that few of the students did. In other words, it seems that most
participants in their study did not have access to a time tool. From a sociocultural perspective, it is
reasonable that access to such a tool would have enabled alternate pathways of thinking different from
those Kamii and Russell identified; I further consider this in the case study analysis below.
In a notable exception, Williams (2012) reported a cognitive ethnography in which he observed
children reasoning about time in the context of standard units and tools. He identified the types of
errors young students encountered when interpreting the analog clock. For example, children often
treated any point within an interval (e.g., 6–7) as having the same meaning (e.g., every point is 6, which
Williams called a “container” metaphor), and that children often interpreted the hour based on the
most proximate numeral to the hour hand. From the perspective of syntactically-guided reasoning,
I conjecture that such container or proximity errors would be highly unlikely with digital notation,
though Williams did not explore this comparison. He also found that some children described
the hour hand as an object moving along a path, and these children often displayed sophisticated
understanding about the meaning of time on the clock.
I further note that additional research reported children’s analog clock-reading skills (Boulton-
Lewis, Wilss & Mutch, 1997; Burny et al., 2012, 2013; Friedman & Laycock, 1989; Springer, 1952;
Vakali, 1991), with many of these studies coming from a constructivist perspective. Findings overall
confirmed that children most easily interpret time to the hour and half-hour, results corroborated in
this project’s findings (Earnest et al., 2018). Yet some studies did not make a theory of learning explicit.
Springer’s (1952) study, for example, reported how children ages 4–6 identified times to the hour, half-
hour, and quarter hour, and stated the study purpose as “necessary for formulating a program of
instruction on time” (p. 83). At that point, digital clocks were not typically available. In other words,
such research likely had a practical instructional concern related to young children being able to
identify the time in order to know that particular events were beginning or ending. As mentioned,
I have also found, consistent with Springer, that children more easily identify time to the hour and
half hour. Yet, from a sociocultural perspective, I consider that such a finding is interwoven with the
fact that scheduled events tend to begin on the hour or half hour and, importantly, that in time
discourse we collectively tend to emphasize times to the hour and half hour (12:00, 4:30) over other
times (12:17, 3:50), likely contributing to children’s overall familiarity with these landmark positions
on analog clocks, on which the minute hand saliently points either straight up or down.
Time understandings from a sociocultural perspective. I now share findings of the present
project. I contend that the tools for time themselves play a consequential role in how children reason
about time; even words for time interact with one’s descriptions of time (Earnest & Chandler, in
press). Symbols on clocks have a conventional meaning, and that meaning is not always consistent
74 D. EARNEST

with the use of the same symbols in other contexts. For this reason, one’s syntactically-guided
reasoning may lead to interpretations that may or may not be consistent with conventional meaning.
I consider here an analog clock with linked hands, with independent hands, and digital notation.
An analog clock with linked hands is a common classroom manipulative that encodes in its
properties the convention that time units are proportional to each other. A user, however, may
incorporate such feedback in ways that may or may not reflect this conventional meaning, thereby
illuminating their reasoning with this tool. For example, I found a Grade 2 student, identifying the
time on a 3:50 clock, identified the time as 4:50 due to the proximity of the hour hand to the numeral 4
(Earnest, 2019). As she accurately moved the minute hand to account for 30 minutes elapsed, the clock
properties moved the hour hand to the 4–5 interval. This resulted in further reflection as she sought to
address emerging conflict about her starting time (4:50) being later than the ending time (4:20).
Eventually accurately identifying the starting time as 3:50, her descriptions of generalizations
expressed in the clock – or, syntactically-guided reasoning – shifted to descriptions of intervals due
to properties of and symbols on this clock.
Yet, a user may interpret this clock in ways that do not reflect this conventional meaning, despite
such meaning being encoded in its properties. In a different analysis, a Grade 4 student was asked to
identify 6:30 and then find the time after 30 minutes (Earnest, 2017). After correctly identifying the
start time and accurately maneuvering the hand 30 minutes, he interpreted the hour hand as being just
before the 7 – and therefore within the 6–7 interval. He identified the resulting time as “six o’clock.”
We might imagine another student similarly interpreting the hour hand as just before the 7 and,
because of the relationship of the two hands, interpret the time as 6:59. Despite the student above that
drew upon the clock’s linked hands and new hour hand position as feedback (Earnest, 2019), this
fourth grade student showed how such a feature does not mean that a user incorporates the conven­
tional meaning into their description of time. In both cases, students’ syntactically-guided reasoning
revealed their time ideas.
We would expect students assigned to the analog clock with independent hands to describe time in
ways that reflect the unique properties of that tool. In particular, analyses thus far have identified two
key narratives – part-whole relations and whole number – that students applied to each hand (Earnest
& Chandler, in press). Both narratives can be a part of time discourse, though some aspects to either
narrative may also conflict with time discourse. Whether a student drew upon a whole number or part-
whole relations narrative correlated with their success in solving such tasks, particularly for the hour
hand. For example, applying a whole number narrative, a Grade 2 student asked to indicate 4:30.
matched the 4 in 4:30 with the numeral 4 on the clock to inaccurately position the hand, the most
common manifestation of whole number narratives for the hour hand. Conversely, many students also
applied a whole number narrative to the minute hand, counting by 5s around the clock to accurately
position it. Analyses involving this tool have revealed that a whole number description of time on the
clock typically was very successful for the minute hand yet unsuccessful for the hour hand for these
reasons.
Consider a different Grade 2 student that applied a part-whole narrative to interpret the hour hand.
Indicating the time 4:30, this student accurately positioned the hour hand at the 4–5 midpoint; this
student described the position as follows: “It’s past the four <sweeping his finger from the 4 to the 5> by
half because it was 30 minutes into the hour” (Earnest & Chandler, in press). Such a description – one
that revealed the student intentionally positioning the hour hand – is importantly different than
matching the “4” in the time with the “4” on the clock. As mentioned, we found that a whole number
description was likely to lead to success with the minute hand, but not the hour hand; a part-whole
relations description was likely to lead to success for both hands. Part-whole relations narratives are
consistent with conventions of time discourse, yet whole number descriptions at times are consistent
and other times inconsistent with such discourse.
Digital notation represents precise time to the minute, with prior research establishing that children
interpret digital time more easily than an analog clock (Friedman & Laycock, 1989). Because digital
time does not feature length units, some of the syntactically-guided reasoning mentioned above seems
 MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 75

unlikely to manifest in the same way. I have found that with digital notation, students applied whole
number descriptions to their elapsed time calculations. A fourth grader easily read 7:00 and was asked
for the time after an hour and a half; in her explanation, she stated she first added an hour to 7 to get 8,
and then, because the prompt said “half,” wrote 30 for the minutes to accurately find 8:30 (Earnest,
2017). Her strategy was consistent when asked to identify 5:30 and find the time after an hour and
a half; she first added an hour to 5 to get 6, and then, because the prompt stated “and a half,” wrote 30
for the minutes, to find the time 6:30. When the interviewer attempted to clarify through two
countersuggestions, first saying one student said 5:30 plus one hour (not an hour and a half) would
be 6:30, and then saying another student said that 5:30 plus an hour and half would be 7:00 (not 6:30) –
this student firmly repeated about the initial prompt that, “all you really do is just an hour, and then
a half. You just automatically know it [the answer] is thirty” (p. 213). She described her generalization
with digital notation: an elapsed time involves “half,” the resulting time “automatically” ends in 30.
Her syntactically-guided reasoning involved acting on that generalization whether the starting time
was to the hour or to the half hour.

Purpose of the present study

How do Grade 2 students – an age targeted for direct time instruction – engage in syntactically-guided
reasoning in ways that illuminate their time ideas in the context of particular tools? I conduct a deep
analysis (Geertz, 1973) to reveal the ideas they bring to the topic of time. Building on project findings
related to students in Grades 2 and 4 reasoning with different clocks (Earnest, 2017), the present study
features three case studies of syntactically-guided reasoning with different clocks. Each clock offers
a window into how students interact with available symbols and properties. I note that the analysis
includes details about accuracy of responses; however, I provide such detail to help contextualize
students’ descriptions of time and illuminate their reasoning with respect to accepted conventions.
Because the study design reflected a prediction that different tools would lead to different pathways of
thinking, the present analysis offers a theoretical replication (Yin, 2014) in which I expected different
descriptions of time for predicted reasons, building on prior findings (Earnest, 2017). I reserve
comments specific to standards (NGA Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO), 2010) for implications. I address the following research question: How do typical
grade 2 students describe their time ideas as they engage in syntactically-guided reasoning with clocks?

Method
The present analysis reflects a multiple case study design (Yin, 2014) of students working with
a particular clock. Participants were recruited from Grade 2 classrooms from six elementary schools
in urban, suburban, and rural areas in western Massachusetts.2 All schools were classified as Title
I schools, meaning that all have been identified as having a high percentage of students from low-
income families (see Table 1 for more demographic information)3. In order to create three interview
conditions each with 24 Grade 2 students, I first administered an assessment featuring time identifica­
tion and elapsed time tasks (N = 292) (see Earnest & Chandler, in press, for all assessment tasks). I used
assessment score together with parental consent to assign students to one of three conditions such that
each group featured a similar range of students in terms of time knowledge. I conducted a post-hoc
analysis to confirm that there was no difference based on assessment performance across the three
groups (p = .575) (see also, Earnest, 2017).

Procedures and tasks

Interviews featured 16 elapsed time tasks.4 Tasks featured one of four possible starting times: time to
the hour (h:00), time to the half hour (h:30), time on the first half of the clock (h:10 or h:20), and time
on the second half of the clock (h:40 or h:50). Four elapsed durations were provided (phrased here
76 D. EARNEST

Table 1. District demographics as a percentage of population in district schools.

District 1 District 2 District 3
Rural Urban Suburban
(n = 17) (n = 147) (n = 128)
Student Race and Ethnicity African American 0.8 9.5 1.9
Asian 0 14.5 0.4
Hispanic 6.6 22.8 8.5
Native American 0.8 0.1 0.4
White 81.8 45.8 86.4
Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Multi-Race, non-Hispanic 9.9 7.2 2.3
Selected Populations First Language not English 0.8 26.7 7.8
English Language Learners 0.8 16.8 2.6
Students with Disabilities 14.9 19.5 15.4
High Needs 42.1 48.7 36.1
Economically Disadvantaged 30.6 31.8 25.6
3f
Source: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/search/search.aspx. Demographics reflect information reported to the Massachusetts
Department of Education. Because research questions did not concern issues related to racial or gender identity, these data
were not collected from individual participants in this sample.

in hour units): an hour, a half hour, an hour and a half, or 3 hours. Unit types were provided in
either hour units (e.g., half an hour) or minute units (e.g., 30 minutes). Fourteen of the 16 tasks were
matched in pairs, one for each unit type (see Figure 11, Appendix 1). I use the shorthand of, for
example, “6:30 plus 30 minutes” to refer to the task of identifying the 9:30 clock and then reading the
prompt, “What time will it be in 30 minutes?”
Participants were assigned to one of three conditions. Condition A featured an analog clock with
linked hands; Condition B featured an analog clock with independent hands; Condition C featured
digital notation. Regardless of condition, all students were administered all tasks. To address any
potential order effect of tasks, three orders were administered, with an equal number of participants
randomly assigned to each order. Performance differences in interviews based on task order were not
significant (p = .341).
To present tasks for Conditions A and B, the interviewer positioned the clock hands out of sight
of the interviewee and, presenting the clock, asked the student to identify the time and explain their
thinking5. As reported in Earnest (2017), regardless of the response, the interviewer then asked, “If
this is the time, what time will it be in . . . ” followed by the target elapsed time. For Conditions A and
B, the interviewer presented a card featuring the starting time on that analog clock. For the analog
clock, the starting time would be unavailable as soon as the student moved either hand; for this
reason, if the student appeared unsure of the starting position, the interviewer would remind the
student by drawing attention back to the card. The interviewer then asked the student to explain
their response. The interviewer at times presented students with countersuggestion in order to
clarify a particular student statement. For Condition C, the interviewer presented the student with
a piece of paper on which was pictured the starting time in digital notation and, to the right of this,
an empty box. The interviewer asked the student to read the time before asking for the new time,
with the target elapsed time printed above the empty box.

Analytic methods
Four coders independently analyzed video and student work to determine students’ spoken responses,
positions of clock hands (Conditions A and B) and written work (Condition C). To identify focal
interviews, I considered average performance on the written assessment. I determined the mean
assessment score, which was 13.58 out of 35 items correct (SD = 6.702) for Grade 2, and then
identified students in each condition that scored either 13 or 14 on the assessment. This resulted in
 MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 77

identifying two students, Devon (District 1) and Ellis (District 2), with a score of 13 and one, Finn
(District 3), with a score of 14 (all pseudonyms).
With focal students identified, our team generated content logs using video and analyzed data with
a focus on syntactically-guided reasoning. I then documented the relationship of the assigned tool’s
symbols and properties with student descriptions in the interview. I use two focal problems to present
the analysis; I use additional problems for clarification. The first focal task features a starting time of
6:30, and the second task featured a starting time of 3:50; both tasks included an elapsed time of
30 minutes.

Results
I now turn to the case study analysis with a focus on each student’s time ideas as they engaged in
syntactically-guided reasoning. I further consider as appropriate how each student drew upon
different mathematical narratives – specifically, part-whole relations and whole number – as they
engaged in time discourse.
Condition A: Analog clock with linked hands. Devon was assigned to Condition A featuring the
clock with linked hands. Before presenting Devon’s responses on the two focal interview tasks, I first
consider responses on the written assessment for analogous tasks in digital notation. Devon responded
accurately to 3:30 plus 30 minutes, answering 4:00. For the task matching the second focal interview
task, Devon responded incorrectly that 4:40 plus 30 minutes was 5:40 (Figure 1). I turn to the interview
to consider Devon’s syntactically-guided reasoning, particularly how Devon would interact with an
analog clock as opposed to digital notation for when elapsed time crossed the hour.

Figure 1. Devon’s responses on written assessment tasks similar to focal interview tasks.

On the focal 6:30 task, Devon accurately and confidently identified the starting time.
Devon: Six thirty.

Interviewer: How do you know?

Devon: Because the long hand is pointing to the thirty and the short hand is pointing past the six.

Devon’s response for the hour hand – “the short hand is pointing past the six” – suggests the efficient
application of a procedure for reading the hour hand on a clock and, at the same time, a clockwise
trajectory of the hands (“past”) as they measure time.
The interviewer then asked what time it would be in 30 minutes. After pausing for about 5 seconds,
Devon began to move the minute hand clockwise, with video indicating counting by ones – starting
and stopping thirty times – to do so.
Devon: It will be seven o’clock.

Interviewer: And how do you know?

Devon: Because I moved this hand thirty minutes.

Attempting to draw attention to the 30 movements, the interviewer recreated the way in which Devon
counted each minute.
78 D. EARNEST

Figure 2. Devon (a) points to “6,” and (b) while stating “another half an hour,” gestures from the 6 up to the 12.

Interviewer: I saw you moving it like this <replicates Devon’s prior movement of the minute hand>. How did you
know how to move it like that?

Devon: Because each dot is a minute.

Devon’s justification suggested syntactically-guided reasoning, specifically that the word “minute”
in the prompt interacted with the indicator and dots on the clock’s periphery, enabling actions on
generalizations Devon was making about elapsed time on the clock. Underscoring the role of words in
syntactically-guided reasoning, data support that Devon interpreted elapsed time differently depend­
ing on the units in the prompt. Recall that this focal task (6:30 plus 30 minutes) was matched with an
analogous task (9:30 plus half an hour). Interestingly, Devon solved the analogous task accurately yet
very differently. Similar to 6:30, Devon accurately identified “nine-thirty.” When provided the elapsed
time of half an hour (rather than 30 minutes), Devon moved the minute hand in one swift action – not
30 small movements – from the 6 clockwise to 12.

Interviewer: That was so fast! How do you know?

Devon: Because this <from 12 to 6> is half of it. And half of another hour <gestures from the 6 clockwise to 12,
Figure 2a> is to the 12, and that [hour hand] is pointing to the 10.

Interviewer: “It’s half of it.” What do you mean by “it”.

Devon: Half of an hour.

Unlike “30 minutes,” the “half an hour” prompt led Devon to solve the problem differently, support­
ing the statement above that words are interwoven with available clock properties and resulting time
ideas described. Of note is that the two different solutions each reflected conventions of time discourse.
On the second focal task, the interviewer presented Devon with the 3:50 clock (Figure 3). After a pause,
Devon appeared unsure about how to identify the time. Devon provided an unexpected response.

Devon: <pause> Fourteen?

Interviewer: Fourteen? And how do you know?

Devon: Because there’s a ten here and a four here. (Figure 3)

Interviewer: And how did you know “fourteen”?

Devon: Because ten plus four equals fourteen.

 MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 79

Figure 3. Devon identified the 3:50 clock as “fourteen.”.

Figure 4. Devon identified the 4:20 clock as “nine.”.

Devon’s response was inaccurate and, notably, did not correspond to the standard format of how we
state the time of day; or, the response did not reflect conventions of time discourse. In fact, this
moment marked the application of a whole number narrative, comporting with common early
elementary activities of finding whole number addition combinations. The interviewer then asked
for the time after 30 minutes. Consistent with the 6:30 plus 30 minutes task above, Devon moved
the minute hand – accurately – in 30 short bursts corresponding to the minute marks on the clock.
Because of the mechanically linked indicator together with Devon’s precise accounting, Devon landed
accurately on 4:20 (Figure 4). Devon then identified the time.

Devon: Um, nine?

80 D. EARNEST

Figure 5. Ellis’s responses on written assessment tasks analogous to focal interview tasks.

Interviewer: And how do you know?

Devon: Because five plus four is nine, and that [hour hand] is kind of pointing to the five <gesturing from the
endpoint of the hour hand directly to the five>

Interviewer: And how did you know how to move the hand?

Devon: Because I counted these [dots].

In the three tasks presented here, Devon engaged in syntactically-guided reasoning responding to
time prompts. Devon effortlessly accounted for elapsed time in conjunction with the indicator, the
clock’s periphery, and words used in the time prompts. At the same time, Devon applied whole
number narratives to descriptions of time, an application that violated accepted conventions of time
discourse. Although easily identifying the time to the hour or half hour, such success did not extend to
the non-routine times 3:50, 4:20.
Condition B: Analog clock with independent hands. Ellis was assigned to use the clock with
independent hands. On the written assessment tasks corresponding to the focal interview tasks, Ellis
responded incorrectly to both (Figure 5). For 3:30 plus 30 minutes, Ellis responded with “3:60,”
reflecting accurate calculation but without regrouping the 60 minutes as one hour. Ellis responded
“4:70” to the 4:40 plus 30 minutes task, reflecting a similar accuracy in computation but without
regrouping. Given responses with digital notation, of note was how Ellis would interact with the
analog clock, a very different tool for time on which there is no obvious way indicate 4:70.
On the first focal task, Ellis accurately identified the time as 6:30. Because Ellis had already justified
h:30 times in the interview, the interviewer did not ask for additional clarification in the interest of
completing the interview. I draw upon a different h:30 problem (4:30) to share the description Ellis
gave for other h:30 tasks.

Ellis: Because that [hour hand] is still in the fours, it’s not touching the five. So it’s four, and I know that [short
hand is] thirty ‘cause five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty.

Notably, Ellis’s descriptions of the hour hand reflected what Williams (2012) referred to as a container
metaphor (“It’s still in the 4s”), though of course, just because Ellis did not describe an interval did not
mean the idea was unavailable. Ellis did not need to partition in order to identify the time accurately.
Recall that Devon’s application of a whole number narrative (“fourteen?”) led to an inaccurate
response; Ellis’s counting by 5s (“five, ten, fifteen, . . . ”) reflected how a whole number narrative can
be consistent with accepted conventions of time discourse.
The interviewer asked Ellis what time it would be 30 minutes later. Holding the hour hand in place
between 6 and 7 – a property enabled by the independent hands – Ellis moved only the minute hand
clockwise until pointing at the 12; in other words, the minute hand moved accurately but the hour
hand remained at the 6–7 midpoint (Figure 6a). Ellis first identified the time.

Ellis: Six o’clock?

Interviewer: Tell me how you solved it.

Ellis: Because it was thirty minutes, like that <gesturing to the 6>. And, the hour stays the same, ‘cause it’s not
hours. And that [30 minutes] is also half an hour. So, you go half the clock.
 MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 81

Figure 6. Ellis (a) moves the minute hand from the 6 clockwise to the 12 for the focal task, similar to how they (b) moved the minute
hand from an analogous task.

Ellis referenced the equivalence of 30 minutes and half an hour together with a distance on the clock
(“so you go half the clock”), drawing upon the minute indicator. However, the justification for keeping
the hour hand in the same place – “’cause it’s not hours” – was not yet clear. The interviewer sought to
clarify:

Interviewer: So, I think I’m understanding how you move this [minute] hand. How did you think about this
[hour] hand?

Ellis: It stays the same because, um, it stays the same ‘cause no hours passed <gesturing to “30 minutes” printed on
the card>.

Ellis seemed to be interpreting the 30 minutes elapsed in the prompt as indicating “no hours passed.”
Ellis’s response suggested one of two possibilities: Either, like Devon, Ellis interpreted the elapsed time
in conjunction with the unit provided in the prompt: “What time will it be in 30 minutes” meant that
one had to account for minutes only. Alternatively, Ellis may have considered that a duration of less
than one hour – whether presented as “30 minutes” or “half an hour” – indicated movement of
the minute hand only, an achievable pathway with this clock’s independent hands. This alternative was
supported by their mention of, “And that [30 minutes] is also half an hour,” which suggested Ellis saw
the two expressions as equivalent. Either possibility appeared consistent with assessment solutions in
digital notation (Figure 5). To address this lack of clarity, I further consider the matched 9:30 plus half
an hour task and the tasks with an elapsed time greater than one hour. On the task analogous to the
focal task – 9:30 plus half an hour – Ellis moved the minute hand clockwise from the 6 to the 12, kept
the hour hand at the midpoint of the hour interval, and identified the resulting time as “nine o’clock”
(Figure 6b).

Ellis: If you go thirty minutes, you would end up there (Figure 6b). And the hour hand stays the same, ‘cause it’s
half an hour, so it’s minutes.

Ellis kept the hour hand at the initial position whether the prompt provided was 30 minutes or half
an hour, and this response was consistent with other elapsed times less than one hour, suggesting Ellis
applied a rule for elapsed time less than one hour meaning only the minute hand moved. Note that
Ellis did not express reaction to the impossibility of responses (i.e., that 9:00 cannot be thirty minutes
after 9:30).
How, then, did Ellis indicate an elapsed time greater than one hour? For the four tasks featuring an
elapsed time greater than one hour (90 minutes or an hour and a half), Ellis indeed moved the hour
indicator, though inaccurately hand placements. For starting times on the hour, Ellis moved the hour
hand from one numeral to the next (i.e., from 4 to 5 for 4:00 plus 90 minutes, or from 7 to 8 for 7:00
plus an hour and a half); Ellis also did this for one of the half-hour starting times (5:30 plus an hour
and a half). For the remaining task, 1:30 plus 90 minutes, Ellis moved the hour hand to the 2–3
82 D. EARNEST

Figure 7. Ellis moved the minute hand from 10 to 4 while keeping the hour hand static.

midpoint. In other words, Ellis’s statement that the hour hand does not move if the elapsed time is less
than one hour and does if it is more than one hour was consistent across interview tasks.
Turning to the second focal task, Ellis once again identified the time accurately. Unlike Devon’s
response of “fourteen,” Ellis counted by 5s moving their finger to point to each numeral on the clock
until reaching the numeral “10.”

Ellis: Three fifty. . ..’cause it [the hour hand] is not all the way on the four yet, so it’s three. And five, ten, fifteen,
twenty, twenty-five, thirty, thirty-five, forty, forty-five, fifty.

Interviewer: Great. What time do you think it will be in thirty minutes?

Ellis once again used the minute hand to account for groups of 5 with each numeral on the clock
supporting that count. Ellis moved it in quick bursts from “10” then pausing momentarily on each
numeral until reaching the 4 (due to clock properties, Ellis struggled to physically move the minute
hand underneath the hour hand on the manipulative while keeping the hour hand static) (Figure 7).

Ellis: If you start at 50—five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty <gesturing to the minute hand position at 4>.
And the hour hand stays the same.

Interviewer: And how come the hour hand stays the same?

Ellis: ‘Cause it’s “half an hour,” not “an hour and a half.” So, the minute hand would start there [10] and end up
there [4].

Interviewer: And the hour hand stays where it is?

Ellis: Mm hm.

Ellis did not identify the time that corresponded with this clock solution, which in our system does not
have a name. At this point, the interviewer interpreted Ellis’s explanation as meaning that a time less
than one hour does not move the hour hand but a time greater than one hour does in fact make
the hour hand move.
As stated above, the analog clock does not readily enable a time like 4:70, Ellis’s response on the
assessment task. Notably, Ellis drew upon properties of the analog clock in a way that similarly kept
the hour unchanged.
Condition C: Digital notation. Finn was assigned to use digital notation in Condition C. On the
written assessment tasks similar to the focal interview tasks, Finn responded accurately to 3:30 plus
30 minutes to answer 4:00, like Devon (Figure 8). On the 4:40 plus 30 minutes task, Finn incorrectly
 MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 83

Figure 8. Finn’s responses on written assessment tasks analogous to focal interview tasks.

Figure 9. Finn wrote “7:00” in the box.

answered 5:00. As I describe, Finn’s response below for 3:50 plus 30 minutes – 4:65 – did not seem to
reflect a similar solution pathway, though it corroborated the challenge with crossing the hour in
digital notation.
On the first focal task, 6:30 plus 30 minutes, Finn easily read the time in digital notation, consistent
with all students in Grades 2 and 4 on all tasks for digital time identification. When the interviewer
asked for the time 30 minutes later, Finn wrote “5” before immediately crossing it out. Finn then wrote
“7:00” in the box (Figure 9). Finn explained:

Finn: Because 6:30 and thirty minutes, that makes an hour. So that [6] turns to 7, and you don’t have any left, so
it’s o’clock.

Finn accurately determined the new time and, in doing so, drew upon important conventions of time
discourse related to regrouping (“you don’t have any left”). Turning to the second focal task, Finn
easily read “three fifty.” When the interviewer asked what time it would be in 30 minutes, Finn began
by writing “4:” followed by a pause. Finn then began to count to three using their fingers. Pausing
again while making an indiscernible noise (“Hm”), Finn wrote 50 + 30 = 80 in the U.S. standard
algorithm, seeming to consider the time 4:80.

Finn: That’s not a time though. So . . . <10 second pause> Eighty? Um.

Finn then wrote down a new computation: 35 + 30 = 65.

Finn: Four sixty-five. But I don’t think that’s a time. Is it a time? Hm.

Interviewer: I heard you say that maybe it’s not a time. Tell me how you thought about it.

Finn began by going back to the initial “50+30=80” calculation:

Finn: I thought, fifty plus thirty equals eighty. And that’s definitely not a time <draws an X through that
computation>. So, um, it’s 35, since three and five <circles the “3:5” in 3:50, see Figure 10>, 35. Plus 30 equals 65.

Finn indicated an awareness that there are some numbers – like 80 – that, when in the minutes, do
not make a time. This observation seemed to lead to dismissing the possibility of 4:80. Yet how would
one then compute the new time? Drawing upon the available numerals, Finn identified the 3 and 5 in
“3:50,” a salient feature of digital notation and one that is not represented on an analog clock.
84 D. EARNEST

Figure 10. Finn crossed out the computation 50 + 30 = 80 and then circled the “3:5” in 3:50.

Discussion
A goal of the present paper was to report how typical Grade 2 students described their time ideas as
they engaged in syntactically-guided reasoning with clocks. This focus illuminates how young students
drew upon features of clocks in connection with the task they were solving, providing evidence their
time-related ideas. In this discussion, I synthesize findings above related to syntactically-guided
reasoning. I conclude with consideration of implications of these cases.

Time identification and elapsed time on analog and digital clocks

Case studies of syntactically-guided reasoning revealed three different pathways to describe time.
Although case studies must be interpreted humbly, analysis of each case above corroborated that
descriptions about time were interwoven with symbolic properties of the provided clock.
Regardless of condition, the three case studies reported above featured children easily identifying
time to the half hour (6:30) and, in two of the three cases, successfully determined the new time if
30 minutes passed. If we were to consider just landmark times, we might conclude – falsely – that these
children had little issue with time on either analog or digital clocks. Such a potential conclusion is
called into question when looking at time identification to a 5-minute mark that was not the hour or
half hour. Devon, assigned to use the analog clock with linked hands, identified time in nonstandard
ways (“fourteen?”), indicating the application of whole number narratives that were inconsistent with
time discourse. Unlike a prior analysis (Earnest, 2019), the feedback encoded in the clock’s linked
hands did not emerge in Devon’s description of time. Unlike Devon, Ellis accurately identified 3:50;
however, Ellis’s result when accounting for elapsed time and keeping the hour hand stationary
suggested a treatment of clock hands (or, units) as independent from one another rather than as
proportional. As with other students with digital notation (Earnest, 2017), Finn had no issue reading
digital notation, seeming to read the hour and minute values as independent whole numbers.
Yet Devon and Ellis, while both inaccurate, displayed some important and sophisticated ideas in
their syntactically-guided reasoning on an analog clock. One might conclude based on identifying the
time as “fourteen” that elapsed time would be too challenging for Devon. However, Devon accurately
accounted for the elapsed 30 minutes, and in fact the different approaches based on the elapsed unit
suggest that Devon is indeed thinking deeply about the mathematical meaning encoded in the clock’s
structure. Likewise, Ellis’s descriptions of how and when the hour hand moves might suggest
incomplete ideas related to time. However, like Devon, Ellis’s solution for showing the elapsed
30 minutes reflected an accurate maneuvering of the minute hand to account for those 30 minutes.
Similar to Devon, Finn displayed competence when considering time to the half hour with
30 minutes elapsing. Such competence did not support the solution for 3:50 plus 30 minutes. Both
of Finn’s responses – 4:80, 4:65 – doubly accounted for 30 minutes. After determining the impossi­
bility of 4:80, Finn drew upon the “3:5” to find, when added to 30 minutes, an answer that perhaps
 MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 85

would not so obviously violate time convention. Finn seemed to encounter conflict reconciling how to
add 30 minutes to 3:50 with time discourse (“is that a time?”).
The idea that time passes may be one that a typical second grader is ready to explore and represent,
at least with a single unit. Both Devon and Ellis accounted for 30 minutes of elapsed time using the
movable indicator available on the clock. Devon further illuminated how words for time units became
interwoven with syntactically-guided reasoning, moving the indicator differently for 30 minutes and
half an hour. Unlike Kamii and Russell's (2012) conclusions about challenges with elapsed time, which
they found based on interactions with digital notation alone, Devon’s and Ellis’s elapsed time solutions
indicate that children may have productive insights about elapsed time when having access to tools
that can keep track of it while eschewing the regrouping errors that arise with calculations in digital
notation. Although Devon and Ellis were both inaccurate, and more research is necessary, their
solutions point to a different way young students may begin to engage with the idea of elapsed time.

Implications
As Devon, Ellis, and Finn engaged in syntactically-guided reasoning using their assigned clocks, their
descriptions about time interplayed with available properties of that clock. As reported above, each of
these three typical second grade students shared ideas that at times reflected and other times violated
conventions, indicating that time was not a topic any of them had yet mastered. At the same time,
available symbolic and structural properties interplayed with pathways of thinking unique for each tool.
The analog clock is a tool that features multiple intervals, whereas a digital clock features no
intervals. The presence of intervals did not mean that time was suddenly interpreted conventionally.
For example, Devon responded with “fourteen” when identifying the 3:50 clock indicated attention to
numerals most proximate to each hand, while Ellis incorrectly identified “six o’clock” when having
the hour hand at the 6–7 midpoint, stating a time that was 30 minutes before (not after) 6:30.
However, the two analog clocks enabled syntactically-guided reasoning with interval and indicator
properties in ways consistent with time conventions. When responding to the time 30 minutes later,
both Devon and Ellis moved the minute hand on the clock along the path. Their accounting
procedures each attended to the minute units symbolized on the clock, with Devon counting by
ones and Ellis counting by fives. In particular, Devon’s responses were striking: after reporting a time
in a nonstandard format (“fourteen”), Devon accurately manipulated the minute hand to land on the
correct resulting time of 4:20 (which they identified as “9”), and in fact interacted with the clock
differently depending on the unit (hours or minutes) in the prompt. Devon even treated the distance
from 6 to 12 as one interval when asked about a half hour elapsed time.
Although murmurs in popular culture have hinted at doing away with the analog clock in
instruction altogether (see Turner, 2018), the present study provides evidence that structural proper­
ties of the analog clock support insights into conventions of time measure. Students were assigned to
one and only one clock, and therefore interview data cannot clarify how Devon and Ellis might have
interacted with digital notation. As reported above, data from the written assessment provided some
information about how they would respond to analogous tasks in digital notation. In both cases, their
responses corroborated that they encountered challenges when elapsed time crossed the hour.
Of course, Finn provided a snapshot of how one might respond using a representation that made
whole numbers salient without intervals or an indicator providing a visualization of time. Prior
research had already indicated challenges elementary students face when calculating elapsed times
that result in crossing the top of the hour (Kamii & Russell, 2012), as the 3:50 plus 30 minutes task did.
With any case study, findings must be interpreted humbly; with that caveat, I do note that, even with
no interval or indicator available in the clock’s structure, Finn did indeed draw upon structural
features. In this case, the structural properties seemed related to a final answer that Finn felt was
closest to a real time as possible. Ultimately selecting the 35 as available in “3:50.” Finn’s reasoning
with syntactic properties of digital notation proceeded down a pathway unique to that notation for
time.
86 D. EARNEST

Our team has questioned whether the early elementary emphasis on analog and digital clocks is
ready for reevaluation, and specifically whether the analog clock ought to be an instructional target for
upper elementary grades (see Earnest, 2017, 2019; Earnest & Chandler, in press), when the parallels
between time discourse and rational number discourse could be leveraged. Easier-to-read digital
clocks are ubiquitous in our increasingly technological world, leading to a question of why standards
documents (e.g., National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO), 2010) – which frame time learning goals as identical for analog and
digital clocks for each grade – do not differentiate expectations between the two very different
representations of time (Earnest, 2019). The upper elementary focus on fractions dovetails with
time discourse. Not only would such opportunities enable students to apply emerging fractions
ideas to the clock, such a shift in instructional focus may create additional opportunity to use the
intervals of time on an analog clock as a springboard to reason with the intervals of time on a function
graph (see Earnest, 2015).

Limitations
I identify three limitations. First, the study above features three case studies. While I made efforts to
identify typical students, this analysis did not report how pervasive the particular ideas that Devon,
Ellis, and Finn shared were. Second, each interview featured one and only one type of clock and,
furthermore, did not include direct instruction as a part of it. Students like Devon, Ellis, and Finn may
have expressed different ideas had other clocks been accessible or had those clocks been functioning
clocks (rather than manipulatives or notation), and also may have responded differently if provided
with instruction. Third, although this study involved time discourse and time tools, it did not involve
the experience of duration as a property of an event, and therefore cannot speak to how such
experiences might lend themselves to interacting with time tools.

Future Research
The goal of this project and data set has been to document from a sociocultural perspective how children
across elementary grades think about time (Earnest, 2017, 2019; Earnest et al., ; Earnest, Radtke, & Scott,
2017; Earnet et al., 2018). Findings have revealed how time ideas and accuracy in solving time problems is
inextricably linked to the available tool and words used in the task. Future research ought to document
the relationship between the experience of duration as a property of an event together with tools for time.
As mentioned above, the analog clock reifies duration as units of length; how is it that children
themselves might engage with such a process of attending to duration and representing it as length
units? How might instruction support treating length-units on an analog clock as duration?
Preliminary data from an exploratory intervention with pairs of Grade 5 students indicated that this
transition – from attending to duration to representing time as length – is challenging but productive
(Earnest et al., 2020). We engaged pairs of students in a situation where time, as measured by sand
timers of unknown durations, indicated how long each student could play with slime, an activity these
students were familiar with and fond of. Future research ought to consider how the context of an event
can support the transition to treating length as time and avoid ideas that adults agree are important,
such as time to the hour or half-hour. If time is a relevant aspect to an event in instruction, representing
it on paper or measuring it with a tool would become important elements of that learning environment.

Notes
1. This convention was enabled through the development of mechanical clocks. Some cultures across history would
describe the event “day” differently, for example, in relation to available sunlight.
2. I report here information related to Grade 2 only. This data set comes from a larger study that included students
(N = 612) from across elementary grades (see Earnest, 2017).
 MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING 87

3. Source: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/search/search.aspx. Demographics reflect information reported to the

Massachusetts Department of Education. Because research questions did not concern issues related to racial or
gender identity, these data were not collected from individual participants in this sample.
4. Interviews also included 7 Hand Positioning tasks as described in Earnest & Chandler (in press) that are not
a focus of the present analysis.Interviews also included 7 Hand Positioning tasks as described in Earnest &
Chandler (in press) that are not a focus of the present analysis.
5. Because research questions do not pertain to sex or gender identity and I did not ask participants to report this
identity, I use they/them pronouns to refer to individual participants. Note that, when referring to previously
published reports in which gender pronouns were used, I continue to use those pronouns to clearly reference
those reports.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Stephanie B. Purington, Amy L. Smith, and three anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier
versions of this manuscript. Special thanks to Michelle Eastman, Alicia C. Gonzales, and Anna M. Plant, who assisted in
coding and analysis, and to the students and teachers who generously shared their time with me.

Notes on contributor
Darrell Earnest is an associate professor of education in the College of Education at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst. He received his Ph.D. in Cognition and Development from the University of California, Berkeley, in 2012. His
research and teaching focus on the interplay of mathematical representations with learning and teaching, as well as the
role of time representations in supporting time management among undergraduate students. His work has been
published in Cognition & Instruction, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, and Mathematics Education Research Journal, among other venues.

ORCID
Darrell Earnest http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4330-4966

References
Blanton, M., Levi, L., Crites, T., & Dougherty, B. (2011). Developing essential understanding of algebraic thinking for
teaching mathematics in grades 3–5. In R. M. Zbiek (Ed.), Essential understanding series. Series.National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Boulton-Lewis, G., Wilss, L., & Mutch, S. (1997). Analysis of primary school children’s abilities and strategies for reading
and recording time from analogue and digital clocks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(2), 136–151. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF03217308
Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2008). Multiple notational systems and algebraic understandings: The case of the Best
Deal Problem. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades (pp. 273–301).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burny, E., Valcke, M., & Desoete, A. (2012). Clock reading: An underestimated topic in children with mathematics
difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407773
Burny, E., Valcke, M., Desoete, A., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2013). Curriculum sequencing and the acquisition of
clock-reading skills among Chinese and Flemish children. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 11(3), 761–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9362-z
Earnest, D. (2015). From number lines to graphs in the coordinate plane: Investigating problem solving across
mathematical representations. Cognition and Instruction, 33(1), 46–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.
994634
Earnest, D. (2017). Clock work: How tools for time mediate problem solving and reveal understanding. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 48(2), 191–223. https://doi.org/org/10.5951/jresematheduc.48.2.0191
Earnest, D. (2019). The invisible quantity: Time intervals in early algebra. Manuscript accepted for publication. Infancia
Y Aprendizaje/Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 1–57 https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2019.
1615199
Earnest, D., & Chandler, J. (in press). Making time: Words, narratives, and clocks in elementary mathematics. Accepted
for publication in Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
88 D. EARNEST

Earnest, D., Gonzales, A. C., & McGrail, C. M. (2020 April). Slime time: Using hourglasses during play to generate
representations of elapsed time [Poster Session]. American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, San
Francisco, CA. (Conference Canceled)
Earnest, D., Gonzales, A. C., & Plant, A. M. (2018). Time as a measure: Elementary students positioning the hands of an
analog clock. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 4(1), 188–214. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v4i1.94
Earnest, D., Radtke, S., & Scott, S. (2017). Hands together! An analog clock problem. Teaching Children Mathematics, 24
(2), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.24.2.0094
Ellis, A., Özgür, Z., Kulow, T., Williams, C. C., & Amidon, J. (2015). Quantifying exponential growth: Three conceptual
shifts in coordinating multiplicative and additive growth. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 39(2015), 125–155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.06.004
Fraisse, P. (1984). Perception and estimation of time. Annual Review of Psychology, 35(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.000245
Friedman, W. J., & Laycock, F. (1989). Children’s analog and digital clock knowledge. Child Development, 60(2),
357–371. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130982
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz. Basic Books.
Kamii, C., & Russell, K. A. (2012). Elapsed time: Why is it so difficult to teach? Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 43(3), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.3.0296
Kaput, J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra
in the early grades (pp. 5–17). Erlbaum.
Lobato, J., Hohensee, C., Rhodehamel, B., & Diamond, J. (2012). Using student reasoning to inform the development of
conceptual learning goals: The case of quadratic functions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(2), 85–119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2012.656362
Long, K., & Kamii, C. (2001). The measurement of time: Children’s construction of transitivity, unit iteration, and
conservation of speed. School Science and Mathematics, 101(3), 125–131. https://doi.org/org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.
2001.tb18015.x
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds) (2016). TIMMS 2015 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and
Curriculum in Mathematics and Science. Boston College, TIMSS, & PIRLS International Study Center. http://
timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/
National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
(2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Author.
Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of time (A. J. Pomerans, Trans.).
Saxe, G. B., & Esmonde, I. (2012). Cultural Development of Mathematical Ideas: Papua New Guinea Studies. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/org/10.1017/CBO9781139045360
Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from
a commognitive standpoint. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10508400701525253
Springer, D. (1952). Development in young children of an understanding of time and the clock. The Pedagogical
Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 80(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1952.10533613
Turner, C. (2018, April 24). Schools are removing analogue clocks from exam halls as teenagers ‘cannot tell the time.’
The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/04/24/schools-removing-analogue-clocks-exam-halls-
teenagers-unable/
Vakali, M. (1991). Clock time in seven to ten year-old children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 6(3),
325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173154
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wilkening, F., Levin, I., & Druyan, S. (1987). Children’s counting strategies for time quantification and integration.
Developmental Psychology, 23(6), 823–831. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.23.6.823
Williams, R. F. (2012). Image schemas in clock-reading: Latent errors and emerging expertise. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 21(2), 216–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.553259
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Appendix 1

Figure 11. Sixteen elapsed time tasks featured in the interview (pictured with Condition A, analog clock with mechanically linked hands).
MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING
89