Leaning on Mathematical Habits of Mind

Author(s): Sarah Sword, Ryota Matsuura, Al Cuoco, Jane Kang and Miriam Gates
Source: The Mathematics Teacher , Vol. 111, No. 4 (January/February 2018), pp. 256-263
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/mathteacher.111.4.0256

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/mathteacher.111.4.0256?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Mathematics Teacher

This content downloaded from

146.200.146.246 on Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:17:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
256 MATHEMATICS
MATHEMATICS TEACHER
TEACHER || Vol.
Vol. 111,
111, No.
No. 4
4 •• January/February
January/February 2018
2018

This content downloaded from

146.200.146.246 on Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:17:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Leaning on
Mathematical

Habits
of Mind
Two high school classroom situations illustrate
how routinely promoting the two practices of
experimenting and describing in increasingly
precise language can support students’ modeling.

Sarah Sword, Ryota Matsuura, Al Cuoco, Jane Kang, and Miriam Gates

M
athematical modeling has taken on increasing curricular importance in the
past decade due in no small measure to the Common Core State Standards
in Mathematics (CCSSM) identifying modeling as one of the Standards
for Mathematical Practice (SMP 4, CCSSI 2010, p. 7). Although research-
ers have worked on mathematical modeling (Lesh and Doerr 2003; Pollak
2003, 2012), much remains to be learned about modeling and how to teach students to
use modeling appropriately, particularly at the secondary level.
This article uses high school classroom episodes to address an aspect of modeling called
mathematizing, the process of translating a given situation into its mathematical model
(Blum and Ferri 2009). We use these classroom episodes to illustrate and analyze—

• the ways of thinking that help students’ engagement with mathematizing; and
• how teachers can support students in developing such ways of thinking.

The teachers that we describe lean on mathematical habits of mind, which are the spe-
cialized ways of approaching mathematical problems and thinking about mathematical
concepts that resemble the ways employed by mathematicians (Cuoco, Goldenberg, and
Mark 1996). In the episodes, we observe a focus on two habits:

• Experimenting. As students build mathematical models, they can search for and try
to explain patterns, generalize from examples, and seek regularity and coherence in
repeated calculations (CCSSI 2010).
• Describing in increasingly precise language. Language can serve to both unpack and
compress complex ideas. Thus, the process of describing “what’s going on mathemati-
cally”—imprecisely at first, perhaps, but with increasing precision—can support stu-
dents in mathematizing.

Vol.
Vol.111,
111,No.
No.44••January/February
January/February2018
2018| |MATHEMATICS TEACHER 257
MATHEMATICSTEACHER 257
Copyright © 2018 The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. www.nctm.org.
All rights reserved. This material may not be copied or distributed electronically or in any other format without written permission from NCTM.

This content downloaded from

146.200.146.246 on Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:17:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mathematizing is difficult. Even understanding
what it is can be hard for students. Through these
two episodes, we describe concretely what teach-
ers can do to implement mathematical modeling
tasks, bring out these mathematical habits, and
support student thinking.

MS. SMITH: MODELING A

TRADITIONAL WORD PROBLEM
Ms. Smith (all names in this article are pseud-
onyms) teaches second-year algebra at a “high-
needs” urban high school with over 90 percent
underrepresented minorities. In the episode below,
which is part of a unit on quadratic functions, the
teacher guides students to experiment by seek-
ing and expressing regularity in repeated calcula-
tions. NCTM’s Focus in High School Mathematics:
Reasoning and Sense Making in Algebra (Graham,
Cuoco, and Zimmermann 2010) gives the following
description:

This habit [of seeking and expressing regularity

in repeated calculations] manifests itself when
one is performing the same calculation over and
over and begins to notice the “rhythm” in the
operations. Articulating this regularity leads to
a generic algorithm, which is typically expressed

We focus on the use of repeated

calculations with concrete values
to derive and understand this
mathematical model.

with algebraic symbols and can be applied to any

instance and transformed to reveal additional
meaning, often leading to a solution of the prob-
lem at hand. (p. 25)

Episode Description
The teacher begins the class by posing a question:
Barry has a 20 meter roll of wire mesh
fencing. He would like to enclose a rectan-
gular chicken coop with an area as large as
ematical model. The following description has been
slightly edited to better highlight the mathematical
habits that we wish to illustrate.
Smith draws a rectangle on the board to show
PREVIOUS PAGE: MRNOVEL/THINKSTOCK

possible, using a barn wall as one of the sides.
What values for the length and width would
give him the largest area?
To solve this problem, students are expected to
create a model—a quadratic expression that rep-
resents the area of the coop in terms of its length.
We focus on the use of repeated calculations with
concrete values to derive and understand this math-
how many sides the wire mesh covers. She says,
“We first need to come up with an equation. Before
we do that, just kind of look at it. If the length is
one, then what does the width have to be?” A stu-
dent guesses nine and then corrects himself by say-
ing, “Oh, it has to be eighteen. I thought there were
four sides.”
Smith continues, “So when the length is one, the
width has to be eighteen because they have to add

258 MATHEMATICS TEACHER | Vol. 111, No. 4 • January/February 2018

This content downloaded from

146.200.146.246 on Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:17:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

up to twenty. What if the length is two?”
Students answer that it must be sixteen.
“What if it’s three?”
Students answer that it must be fourteen.
The teacher asks, “When the length is three,
what did you do to get the width of fourteen?”
A student responds, “There are two sides for the
NAISUPAKIT/THINKSTOCK
three. So the width is fourteen, because the pieces
have to add to twenty.”
Smith then challenges the students to general-
ize by asking, “How do we write a formula for the
width? Let’s say the length is x.” As she circulates
around the room, she sees students struggling to
This content downloaded from
146.200.146.246 on Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:17:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Fig. 1 Students used specific cases to arrive at a general
formula.
express the algorithm—which they definitely under-
stand—in precise algebraic language. She leans over
a student who is pressing on both sides of his head
as if to squeeze out the correct expression.
T: If the length is four, what’s the width?
S: Twelve
T: How did you get that?
S: Well, the two sides give me eight. Then they
have to add to twenty—oh, you subtract from
twenty! That’s what you do. You subtract eight
from twenty, which is how much wire he has, to
get the width.
T: What if the length is five?
S: It’s ten, because the two sides make ten, and you
subtract that from twenty.
T: What if the length is x?
S: Then it’s twenty minus two x: (20 – 2x).
T: OK, why twenty and why two?
S: Twenty because that’s the original number we
need—20 meters. Then we’re taking away the
two x’s. Whatever x is, we’re multiplying it by
two because both sides are there. So, it’s twenty
minus two x, (20 – 2x). Do the first one—two
times one is two, and twenty minus that gives
you eighteen, right?
Smith brings the class back together and asks
the student to reiterate his derivation of the for-
mula. On the board, the teacher writes 20 – 2x as
well as the two x’s for the lengths. After verifying
this expression with a few data points, such as
x = 1 and x = 5, students are fully satisfied that
they have obtained the correct formula for the
width (see fig. 1). To finish creating a model for
the area of the coop, Smith asks, “We came up
with the formula 20 – 2x for the width. What’s the
formula for the area?”
A student replies, “It’s length times width. So x
times twenty minus two x: (x • (20 – 2x)).”
How the Teacher Supports Student Thinking
Smith’s students are initially unfamiliar with this
problem, so 20 – 2x does not jump out at them as
Vol. 111, No. 4 • January/February 2018 | MATHEMATICS TEACHER 259
 into a mathematical model.
In the postlesson interview, Smith emphasized
the value of explicitly teaching her students exper-
imentation techniques, such as repeating concrete
calculations. To foster a culture of exploration,
she is careful not to overly correct students but
to encourage them instead: “Let’s just try it out,”
because “that’s the way to figure out if something
will work or will not work.”
Also during the lesson, Smith asks a student to
articulate his thinking by having him explain how
he derived the formula. (“OK, why twenty and
why two?”) Through explaining, the student is
8+2 2 better able to understand for himself why the for-
8+2 2 mula should be 20 – 2x. This illustrates the value
10 ++
8
Fig. 2 This diagram shows 22 binary
the 22 tree after three of language not only for describing one’s under-
iterations. 108++22 22 standing, but also as a means to gain understand-
++82+ ing. By pushing them to verbalize precisely, Smith
+82.5
1010 22 22 2
Table 1 Tree Height h(n) after n Iterations helps students understand the formula.
1010 8 +
+ 22 222
+ 2.5
n h(n) In this episode, the teacher guides students to
1010
10.5 +10
+ +8+
2.5
2.5 2+22 222 22
0 build a simple model of a classical situation. But
10.51010 8
++2.5+
+2.5 228 222 the techniques involved—repeating calculations
1 ++ 22
82.5 22 222
10
10.5
10.5 +10++10 +
2.5
2.5
2.625 2 until a rhythm emerges, and articulating ideas in
2 10
10.5 10+ 2.5+ 2 222 increasingly precise language—are viable for more
10.5 + 2.625
3 +10 +2.5+2.5
22 222 complicated models, too.
10.5
10.5
Δ(n) + 10
10.52.625+
2.5
4 Δ(n) 10.5
10.5 10 +
+ 2.625 22
2.5
MS. JOHNSON: CREATING
5 10
10.5 ++ 2.5
2.5 2222
10.5
2 Δ2(n)=10.5 8+ +2.6252.625 MODELS OF FRACTALS
2 Δ210.5
(n)=10.5 + + 2.5 22
8 2.625 Ms. Johnson teaches at a secondary school
8+2 2
Table 2 The Difference of Successive Heights
8+2 2 2=2 Δ24(n)= 8 +2.625
10.5
10.5 + 2.5 22 (grades 7–12) where more than 75 percent of stu-
= +82.625 2 (n)
10.5 2
dents qualify for free and reduced-price lunch. Her
n h(n)
108++22 22 2 =2 (n) 24
+ 2.625 2 8 advanced algebra class is studying fractals. In this
0 108++228 22 2 =22 =2
0.5 4 =10.5
1/82 lesson, students are working to derive mathemati-
1 ++ 22 222
+82.5
1010 0.52 =2 =4 1/ 2 4 cal models—formulas for length, height, area, and
2 1010 +2 2
+ 2.5 =2 =21/=44 1/ 2
0.5
0.5 1/2 so on—for various fractal shapes. She has students
3 1010
10.5 +2.5
++2.5 2 22 0.50.5= 2 1/=4 1/ 2 1/4 experiment with fractals until they have a fair
4 10 + 2.5 2 0.50.5
= 2
1/ = 4 1/ 2 1/32 amount of experience—generating their own data
10.5 0.125 2 = 1/ 32
and “look[ing] closely [at their data] to discern a
5 10
10.5 +
10.5 + 2.625 2 2.5 2 0.5
0.125 = 2 1/
= 4
1/ 32
pattern or structure” (CCSSI 2010, p. 8). Students
+(n) 0.5
0.125 =2 = 1/ 41/ 32
1)10.5
Let (n) = h (n + 10.5 – +h2.625 2.5be22the difference
Δ(n) 2
of successive heights. sense some pattern within their data. They work
10.5
10.5
Δ(n) + +2.625
2.5 22 Δ(n)0.125 2 = 1/ 32
2
to describe this pattern, using precise mathemati-
10.5 + 2.625 2
Δ(n) ΔΔ 0.125
(n)
(n) = h(n 2+ 1)−
2 = 1/ 32
h(n) cal language to create a model that encapsulates
a way of expressing the Δ third =side.
h(n +Experimenting their observations. The teacher supports students
2 Δ210.5= + 8 2.625 2 Δ(n) 2
(n) (n) 1)− h(n)
gives them a productive Δmeans (n) 2 to approach the as they struggle with articulating their thinking
2 Δ2(n) = 8 Δ(n) = h(n + 1)− h(n)
mathematizing process embedded in the problem. clearly and operationally.
2 =2 Δ2 (n)
4To = facilitate
8 Δ(n) = h(n + 1)− h(n)
the process, the teacher guides stu-
22= 2 dents Δ(n) = h(n +with
4= 8through repeated calculations 1)− h(n)
concrete Episode Description
2 2
0.52 =2 =4 1/ 2=
numbers: 8 “What if x = 1? What if x = 2? What if A group of students is studying the binary tree,
x =
2 =2 =4 1/ 2
0.5 3?” When working with a struggling student, which is defined by recursive branching. It starts
she has him consider another concrete example. with a vertical segment of length 8 cm. This seg-
=2 =2
0.50.5 1/=44 1/ 2
(“If the length is four, what’s the width?”) Stu- ment splits into two branches, each with length
0.5
0.5 =dents21/= 4 1/ 2
recognize a pattern in their thinking. They 4 cm (half the length of a branch from the previ-
0.5
0.125 221/== 41/
0.5=realize 1/32
that2 “they are repeating the same calcula- ous iteration) and making a 135-degree angle with
0.5 =
tions
0.125 2 = 1/ 32 1/ 4
over and over again” (CCSSI 2010, p. 8); the original segment, and thus, a right angle with
2 = 21/
0.5
0.125 namely, = 41/ 32 are always subtracting twice the
they each other. This process continues recursively
Δ(n)
0.125 length 2 =from twenty. These repeated calculations
1/ 32 (see fig. 2). Students begin by generating data.
Δ(n) 2
allow students to encapsulate their experiences Johnson said this in an interview:
Δ(n) = h(n2+=1)−1/
0.125 32
2
Δ(n) h(n)
Δ(n)
260 MATHEMATICSΔTEACHER
2
(n)= h(n|+Vol.
1)−111,h(n)
No. 4 • January/February 2018
ΔΔ(n)
(n)=2 h(n + 1)− h(n)
Δ(n) = h(n + 1)− h(n)
Δ(n) = h(n + 1)− h(n) This content downloaded from
146.200.146.246 on Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:17:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I think there’s a lot of merit to doing some
of these [calculations] by hand, too. . . .
Because when you can see it happening, you
can follow that pattern; but when you have
to generate it and follow it, I think you’re
really having to engage in a deeper level with
what’s going on.

Table 1 is an abbreviated version of student

work. In it, h(n) refers to the tree height in cen-
timeters after n iterations of branching. Students
notice that in going from one iteration to the next,
the added height alternates between being rational
and irrational. There seems to be a pattern in how
these added heights decrease. Students try to write
an equation for h(n) that captures these observa-
tions. One idea is to write 8 as 64 and express

8+2 2
Reflecting and verbalizing
students’
2 2.
thinking
is a first
4. step in
writing down a precise model.
0.5 2.
64
64 64
the other rational quantities64similarly, 0.5 2 64 keeping
more information
64 in square roots. 8 + 2
After 2listening
64
to their explanations, 8 + 2
the 2 8
teacher+ 2 2
64 8 + 2 264. 8 + 2 2 the
emphasizes
importance of carefully recording2ideas:
8+2 2 64 2. 64
8 + 2 2
8 + 2 22 2. 2 2. 64, 28,2.2 2.
S: Can you help us think 64 out our process just
2 2. Because we can 4.2
8 + 2explain
really quickly? 8 + 2what’s
2
22 but2. 64write4.
happening, 2. we4.can’t 4. 4; it 4.
down—so,
8 cm [for8the + 2initial
2 0.5
you have4. 2. 2.2 and
2 height], 2.
then
you’re going 4. to go to 8 + 2 0.5
2
0.5 2. 0.5 2.cm. 2.
4. 4. So, 0.5 it’s
2. like root to 8 under the square root to 4 under the
you’re adding this 2 2. And when you go to square root.
the next0.5 one, 2.it’s like you’re adding 4.0.5 2 4. S: Yeah.
0.5 2.
0.5 2. 0.5 22 2. 0.5 2
T Ah, OK. 0.5 2 4 0.5 2 T: Here’s what I would say: Write. But make sure
4. 64.
S: And so,0.5 then 2 you’re adding 0.5 2. 0.5 2. you write this down in a way that you’re going
0.5 2 64.
T: So, if it’s 0.5 2 —so, you64. 4. 64.
went8,from64. adding— to remember what you meant by that.
S: Whoa, whoa, whoa.0.5 So,2.[the0.5initial64, height]
2 0.5 8,
64.
would be 64. 64. So,64, you0.5go 2.64,
8,64, 8, and 2 The values in the (n)2 column of table 2
4.8, 64, 8,
then this would be—hold 0.5 2 on. I just had my decrease in an interesting manner, with ratios that
64, 8, 64. 4;
thought—You 64, 8,know what
8, 0.5 2 4; 2 I’m saying, though:
64. alternate between 1/2 and 1/8. More precisely,
then you add, 64, like,4;the 4; you Δ(n)get what 4; I’m (n + 1)2 / (n)2 equals 1/2 when n is even and
64.
saying, though.
4; 64,4. 8, 64, 8, 1/8 when n is odd.
T: So, this was4; 4;the 4. 64. 4.
4. Δ(n + 1) 4./ Δ(n)
2 2
GAUSSIAN_BLUR/THINKSTOCK

S: Mmm-hmm. 64, 8, How the Teacher Supports Student Thinking

4. 4; 4 4;
T: And this is—what4. 4would 64, this
48, be? Or what In this episode, the teacher tries to get students to
4. 4 4, 4
was—No, wait, no. You 4; were saying that this is verbalize their thinking thoroughly and precisely, to
adding 4 here— 4. 8, 4. help them develop a model for the tree height. Then
4
4 4;
8, equivalent 8,
S: Then this would be 8, to 8, and this she encourages them to write down their observa-
4.
would be8,equivalent to adding4 4. tions. During the interview following this lesson,
8,
T: OK. So this8,went from 4. 4. 4
4. 644.under the4.square Johnson emphasized the value of reflecting on their
4
8,2Δ(n) 8,
2
4. Vol. 111, No. 4 • January/February 2018 | MATHEMATICS TEACHER 261
4.
4.
2 4
Δ(n) Δ(n)2 Δ (n)
Δ(n)2
8,
4.Δ(n2 + 1)4./2Δ(n)
2 2
Δ(n)2 2
ΔΔ(n)
(n)2 Δ(n + 1) 8, /ΔΔ(n / Δ(n)
(n)+2 1) Δ(n)
2 2
(n 2+ 1)2 / Δ(n)2This content downloaded from
4. Δ(n + 1) /2 Δ146.200.146.246
Δ(n + 1)2 / 2Δ(n)2 2 Δ(n)4, Δ(n)2 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
on Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:17:05 +00:00
Δ (n + 1) /
2 4,
Δ(n + 1) / Δ(n) Δ(n)4.
2 4,
4,

experiments. She explained how her students often
get caught up in the task of generating the data in the
modeling cycle, but she also wants them to focus on
what she called the “reflection piece” needed to cre-
ate a mathematical model.
Her students can generate the data and they
have a feel for these data. As she explained in the
interview, “[they] can explain what’s happen-
ing, but [they] can’t write [it] down [precisely].”
Reflecting and verbalizing their thinking is a first
step in writing down a precise model. What we
see in the dialogue are the ways in which Johnson
encourages students to describe in increasingly pre-
cise language to help them mathematize. She does
this by reiterating and summarizing what students
say, but without providing any new insights of her
own. Also important is how Johnson takes valu-
able classroom time to allow students to reflect. She
does not just move on to the next problem.
At the end of the lesson, students still do not
have a formula for h(n). But by expressing the
values of the height in a different way—writing
262 MATHEMATICS TEACHER | Vol. 111, No. 4 • January/February 2018
This content downloaded from
146.200.146.246 on Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:17:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
64
8+2 2
2 2.
4.
0.5 2.
0.5 2
64.
64, 8,
4;
4.
8,
4.
Δ(n)2
Δ(n + 1)2 / Δ(n)2
2 as 4, for example—they begin to impose and
uncover hidden structure within the data. Just as
Smith’s students did, Johnson’s students are also
using language as a means to gain understanding.
By giving students ample time to reflect, reit-
erating what she hears them say, and encourag-
ing them to record what they observe, Johnson
provides opportunities for her students to acquire,
develop, and use the mathematical habits of exper-
imenting and describing. She sees these habits
as two sides of the same coin, both critical to the
modeling process. Johnson fosters both habits in
her students—she said during the interview, “they
learn to become really good thinkers and express-
ers of knowledge.”
CONCLUSION
MRNOVEL/THINKSTOCK
The focus of these episodes is not the chicken
coops or fractals, but the thinking that is entailed
in doing the work of mathematizing. The epi-
sodes illustrate how students obtained (or tried to
obtain) the mathematical model and what teachers
did to support this process. In these episodes, this
mathematizing step is supported by two essen-
tial mathematical habits of mind: experimenting
and describing in increasingly precise language.
In both Smith’s and Johnson’s classes, data were
used to describe the given situation—generating
and using these data to see that a pattern exists
are both components of experimentation. Smith
encouraged students to go back to the data and try
several repeated calculations to work toward their
formula. For Johnson’s students, experimenting
was more about trying different ways of express-
ing their data to capture the underlying patterns—
and she gave them the time and prodding needed
for this reflection piece.
Certainly, mathematical habits of mind are not
the only tools students can use for mathemati-
cal modeling. But by incorporating these habits
into the work of modeling, teachers help students
become more proficient at experimenting and
describing, which have broad use across all of
mathematics. In particular, in generating data as
students did in both episodes, patterns and struc-
tures emerge, and the real value of mathematical
thinking emerges. Let’s give Johnson the last word:
She claims that she engages students in this kind of
thinking as part of mathematical modeling because
she wants them to “have a bit of wonder about
these things.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) under grant no. DRL-1222340
and grant no. DRL-1222426. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the NSF.
REFERENCES
Blum, Werner, and Rita Borromeo Ferri. 2009. “Math-
ematical Modelling: Can It Be Taught and Learnt?”
Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application
1 (1): 45–58.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI).
2010. Common Core Standards for Mathematics.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief
State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.
org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards.pdf
Cuoco, Al, E. Paul Goldenberg, and June Mark. 1996.
“Habits of Mind: An Organizing Principle for
Mathematics Curricula.” Journal of Mathematical
Behavior 15 (4): 375–402.
Graham, Karen, Albert Cuoco, and Gwendolyn
Zimmermann. 2010. Focus in High School Math-
ematics: Reasoning and Sense Making in Algebra.
This content downloaded from
146.200.146.246 on Mon, 01 Jul 2024 05:17:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Lesh, Richard, and Helen M. Doerr (eds.). 2003.
Beyond Constructivism—Models and Modeling Per-
spectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning,
and Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
and Associates.
Pollak, Henry O. 2003. “A History of the Teaching
of Modeling.” In A History of School Mathematics,
edited by George M. A. Stanic and Jeremy
Kilpatrick, pp. 647–69. Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
———. 2012. “Introduction: What Is Mathematical
Modeling?” In Mathematical Modeling Handbook,
edited by Heather Gould, Diane R. Murray, and
Andrew Sanfratello, pp. viii–xi. Bedford, MA: The
Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications.
SARAH SWORD, ssword@edc.org, is a
senior research scientist at Education
Development Center, Inc. (EDC) in
Waltham, Massachusetts. Her work
includes research and instructional
design as well as teacher professional
development that focuses on improving
student achievement by providing
teachers with the knowledge and skills
valuable in their profession. RYOTA
MATSUURA, matsuura@stolaf.edu, is an
associate professor of mathematics at
St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota.
He is interested in understanding how
teachers acquire mathematical habits of
mind and apply these habits to their
classroom instruction. AL CUOCO,
acuoco@edc.org, is a distinguished
scholar at EDC. For more than two
decades, he taught high school
mathematics to a wide range of students. His
mathematical interests are in algebra and number
theory. Recent work has focused on the
development of mathematical habits of mind in
teachers and students. JANE M. KANG, jmkang@
g.harvard.edu, is a doctoral student at the Harvard
Graduate School of Education. She is a former high
school math teacher and research associate at
EDC. MIRIAM GATES, mgates@edc.org, is a
research associate at EDC and a doctoral student in
mathematics education at Boston College. She has
research interests in secondary mathematics
teacher education and understanding the
relationships between professional development
and classroom practice.
Vol. 111, No. 4 • January/February 2018 | MATHEMATICS TEACHER 263