TEACHERS VIEWS AND USE OF EXPLANATION

IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS
Jarmila Novotn
Abstract
This study analyses teachers of mathematics views on explications in teaching mathematics.
Various types of explanations are characterised and investigated from the point of view of their
pedagogical, cognitive and social impact on learners. The theoretical frame for the research is
based in the Theory of didactical situations (Brousseau, 1997). Based on questionnaires filled
in by Czech teachers, the reality of teachers views and perception of their own practice
concerning the use and forms of explanation are studied.

1. Explanation in teaching/learning process

Using explanation in a mathematics classroom is a normal procedure1, but its
roles and forms vary. Predominantly explanation is seen as a tool for describing
relevant phenomena, developing students logical thinking, and guiding students
by inductive judgement to generalising. It leads to clarifying interrelations,
demonstrating and justifying (Skalkov, 1999, p. 172). Although explanation is
not often explicitly studied in literature, it is present in the background of most
papers dealing with communication and reasoning.
In this paper the concept of explanation is developed in the sense of
(Mopondi, 1995). Explanation is characterized by its function as a tool that is
used by a speaker for understanding or giving a sense to the object of
communication, of a debate, or a discussion The role of an explanation is to
make clearer the meaning of an object (method, term, assignment) maintaining
formally the necessary distance between the object of the action or study and the
tools. (p. 12). In the learning/teaching process, explanation is a tool used by
both, teacher and students. Its goal is to manifest comprehension.
Varieties of explanation can be classified using a number of variables2 from
which we will concentrate on the following (1 refers to the general situation,
2 the individuals involved, 3 to the academic/ intellectual context, 4 to the
result, 5 refers to the formal structure of the explanation):
(1) Type of situation (teaching/learning, communication, discussion)
1

Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education; e-mail: [email protected].

Traditionally, explanation belongs to monological teaching methods where the information

is transmitted in the direction teacher to students (together with e.g. narrative, description or
lecture). (Skalkov, 1999) states that in practice, individual forms of explanation often
pervade. In this perspective, explanation is seen as the task fulfilled by the teacher with
students passively receiving what is presented. We see explanation in a much broader sense:
Communication in school is a mutual interchange of information among participants of the
educational process, i.e. students have an active role in the whole process (Mare &
Kivohlav, 1995).
2
In (Mopondi, 1995, p. 13-14) the most important variable is transmitter receiver, the
subordinate ones are its goals, nature of the demand, object, type, form and type of
occurrence.

 (1) Type of occurrence of the explanation (necessary for the progress of a

didactical action, arising naturally from the situation, accidental, etc.)
(2) Transmitter (author) of the explanation (teacher, student(s)) and receiver
of the explanation (teacher, one student, group of students) (one-one; onemany; many-one)
(3) Nature of the demand for explanation (proposed by the transmitter,
demanded by the receiver, generally spontaneous); linked with the activity of
students (active student produces an explanation during a discussion,
passive student receives an explanation as a piece of information)
(3) Objects of the explanation (explanation of an order, a mistake, a
statement, an algorithm etc.); linked with the purpose of the explanation (for
the teacher: to obtain information about students, e.g. to detect the location a
misunderstanding/mistake, to eliminate a misunderstanding/ mistake; for
students: to build up knowledge, to find an appropriate solving procedure,
etc.)
(4) Results of the use of explanation (for a teacher: facilitation of students
comprehension, feedback about the level of students comprehension, etc.; for
students: inclusion of a piece of knowledge into an existing knowledge
structure, building a new structure, conversion of knowledge into a tool for
problems solving, etc.)
(5) Character of the explanation (a range of levels from purely formal to a
deep involvement in the explanation object)
(5) Form of the explanation (e.g. description, reformulation, visualisation,
presentation of examples or counterexamples; for more details see chapter 3);
linked closely with the age of participants
(5) Language of explaining (a range of levels from the exact language using
special terminology to the natural language without any scientific precision)
(5) Frequency of the use of explication
From the variables proposed above, the vast diversity of explanation is
obvious. This diversity leads to difficulties in detecting each of them in
teaching/learning situations.
2. Our research
The work presented here is a part of a longitudinal study of the deliberate
implementation of modes of explanation in teaching/learning situations in
school mathematics. It focuses on teachers theoretical perception of explanation
and teachers own school practice. The study represents an introductory part of a
broad set of problems, for example the consequences of the use of different
forms of explanation and the frequency of their and contexts in which they are
used.

2.1. Research questions and methods

The research questions for the study are:
Theoretical perspective: What modes of activity do mathematics teachers
accept as explanations in their teaching (in cases of both types of
transmitters)? What differences do they perceive and employ in relation to the
age of the students?
Practical perspective: How do teachers project the theoretical perspective into
their own teaching practice?
For the initial part of this study, questionnaires were used which cover both
the cases of transmitters a) a teacher, b) a student. It was divided into two main
sections each of which was devoted to one of the research questions: the
Theoretical part with questions covering the forms and implementation of
explanation; and the Practical part with questions reflecting teachers own
practice in both cases a) and b).
The main goal of the study was to map the situation with mathematics
teachers. In order to be able to detect more clearly which views are more general
and what is specific to the teaching/learning of mathematics, three groups of
teachers participated in the investigation: Group A were 12 primary school
teachers and there were two control groups: Group B of 11 secondary
mathematics teachers (to reinforce detection of age factors), and Group C were 7
secondary teachers of non-mathematical subjects (to reinforce detection of what
is specific for teaching/learning of mathematics). The comparison of the
theoretical and practical parts was previewed to detect the distance between
theory and school reality.
2.2. Analysis of teachers responses to the questionnaire
2.2.1. Theoretical perspective
Forms of explanation
Question: What do you consider as explanation? (Underline types that you
consider to be an explanation, possibly add further that are missing.)
Description, rephrasing, definition, proof, presentation of a counterexample,
commentary, illustration, use in another situation, analogy, decomposition into
sub-cases, model.
Group A: All respondents underlined Presentation of counterexample,
Illustration and Model.
Definition was not underlined as an explanation suitable for primary level
children). This can possibly be ascribed to the influence of the age of students.
Group B: The mostly underlined form was illustration (10/113), the less
Definition (3/11).
3

b/c expresses that b respondents from c choose the answer.

Added forms: Demonstration of context, reminding previous experiences

Group C: All proposed types were underlined by at least 2 respondents. The
items mostly underlined were Description, Illustration, Use in another situation
and Analogy, the less one Decomposition into sub-cases. It suggests that
Decomposition into sub-cases is specific for mathematics (science) teaching.
Three respondents (3/7) underlined Definition. This suggested that definitions in
mathematics have a special status in comparison with non-mathematical
domains.
Four questions related to two cases of the transmitter were posed:
(i) Which goals does explanation fulfil?
(ii) Which pitfalls does explanation bring?
(iii) In what phases of the teaching process do you consider explanation to be
most effective?
(iv) How does explanation differ in relation to the age of students?
In the following text we summarise answers of Group A. Stock answers in
Groups B and C follow (their frequency is not discussed). The answers are
categorised according to about whom the answer speaks: T teacher, S
student(s). The answers that occurred in more than one of Groups A, B and C
are underlined.
a) Teacher as the transmitter
Question (i), goals
Group A: In the answers, the possibility of better understanding childrens
reactions and the subsequent more appropriate action of the teacher (T) and
understanding relationships and conclusions (U) were emphasized. In
comparison with Groups B and C, the answers were much more student than
subject matter oriented.
Typical answers:
T: Faster introducing of students into the subject matter (Groups B, C), more
effective (Groups A, B)
T: Higher number of possibilities to address students with different levels of
mathematics abilities (Groups A, B, C)
T: Presentation of interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary relations (Group B)
T: Locating students difficulties (Groups A, B, C)
T: Delivery of knowledge to students with understanding (Groups A, B)
S: Illuminating concepts and processes that are not clear to students (Groups A,
B, C)
S: Help when solving problems (Groups A, B)
S: Achieving precision of concepts (Group B)
S: Relating new knowledge to previous ones (Groups B, C)

S + T: Mediation of contacts between the teacher and students (Group A, C)

Question (ii), Pitfalls
Groups A and C
In these groups, the danger of using inappropriate language and lack of
understanding the terms used was emphasized. It did not occur in Group B. It
looks to be the age effect in Group A and the precise nature of mathematical
language with older students which is not so strong in other school subjects.
Typical answers:
T: Extra work for the teacher more preparation (Group B)
T: Excessive teachers use of monologue, transmissive way of teaching
(Group B)
T: Unsatisfactory focus on individual differences of students (Groups B, C)
S: Unsatisfactory involvement of students in the teaching/learning process,
increase of students passivity (Groups B, C)
S: Decrease of students attention (Groups A, B)
S: Decrease of students responsibility for their education (Group B)
S: Insufficient use of students previous knowledge (Group B)
Question (iii), Phases of teaching process
In all groups, answers belong to three domains: phases of the lesson time,
phases of the lesson activity, (individual or group) needs. As no essential
differences in the answers occurred, all groups are summarised together. The
answers do not look to be significantly age or subject matter dependent. The
constructivist nature of the use of explanation was significantly emphasized.
Phases of the lesson - time:
Most answers concerning this domain proposed the opening of the lesson; in
one answer it was stated that the appropriate period is the first half of the
week
After the phase of discovering
Phases of the lesson - activity:
Introduction of new subject matter
Revision
Problem solving
Commenting on results of assessment
When students do not understand, or make too many mistakes
Needs:
S: When a student needs a help
S: When a group of students do not understand
T: When the teacher needs to get the feedback about students understanding

Question (iv), Age

In all groups, answers were similar. They belong to four domains: form,
length, language and frequency of explanations. Respondents common opinion
was that with younger children, the explanation should be more concrete, shorter
but more frequent. It is necessary to use more illustrative forms. It was noted
that explanation based on examples from real life situations are more important
for younger students. Proving was not thought to be as acceptable for younger
children. The precision and technical level of language was considered as more
important for older students.
One answer in Group B was: The only difference which depends on students
age is in the level of complexity of solved problems, there are no differences in
any other aspect.
b) Student(s) as the transmitter
In all groups the answers were similar. We present the common ones. Single
occurrences in one of Groups A, B or C are mentioned separately.
Question (i), Goals
T: Easier opportunity to find students misunderstandings and location of
mistakes
T: Possibility to follow students argumentation in details, understanding of it
T: Involving students in the work, increasing of motivation
T: Learning students preferred language
S: Development of students creativity, argumentation, independence, ability to
draw conclusions
S: Forming working skills
S: Development of interaction and communication skills
S: Increasing students self-confidence
Only in Group B were the consolidation and verification of knowledge
explicitly expressed. It looks to be typical for mathematics.
Note: The role in institutionalisation (Brousseau, 1997) of knowledge did not
occur.
Question (ii), Pitfalls
T: Considerable time requirements, difficult (impossible) lesson planning and
guiding students which demands the necessity to improvise
T: Necessity to handle individual mistakes and inaccuracies, and the negative
impact of it on others
T: Misunderstanding between students and the teacher concerning explained
items
S: Imbalance in students involvement, passivity of some of them
S: Negative impact of presented mistakes etc.
S: Lower use of previous experiments and existing structures

In Groups B and C, there were two respondents who did not see any pitfall
but stressed the positive sides only: Even an incorrect explanation is an asset.,
Process is equally conductive, or even more, than the result.
Question (iii), Phases of teaching process
The answers copied the answers from the case a).
Question (iv), Age
The age differences concerned the level of using visualisation and modelling,
the language and the use of concrete examples, all of them simpler with younger
students. The use of the case b) (student(s) as transmitters) was strongly
recommended only for older students. The independence in selecting the
explanation form and the level of abstraction was considerably emphasised in
Group B. In one case in group B, hints were proposed of a suitable form of
explanation for all ages.
2.2.2. Practical perspective
Both cases a) (10 questions) and b) (7 questions) are dealt separately, one
question concerns both of them. All questions ask for the respondents own
practice.
a) Teacher as the transmitter
The first group of questions covers phases of lessons, of the educational
process, and forms used by the respondent and the frequency of using them;
these questions are directly linked with the theoretical perspective. The second
group deal with planning the use of explanation, use of erroneous explanation,
demanded precision of the language and consequences of too rare or too
frequent use of explanations.
In the answers to the first group, theoretical perspective was repeated mainly
in Groups A and C. It suggests that the answers in the Theoretical part were
based on respondents practical experience. The restriction of forms to
visualisation, modelling and illustration, use in other situations, rephrasing and
(surprisingly) use of hints occurred.
Answers to the second group of questions brought new information. All
teachers except one (Group C) indicated that they choose the places for using an
explanation when planning the lesson; their decision is based on their
experience. The possibility of increasing the number of explanations according
the situation in the class was explicitly expressed by two teachers in Group B.
The need for precision of explanation by the teacher was commonly accepted.
Only one teacher explicitly mentioned the benefits of lowering precision to help
weaker students.
The diversity in answers concerning the deliberate use of explanations
containing error was considerable. In Group A explanation containing error is

used. In group B 3/11 respondents do not use any form of such explanation, the
others use it as a tool for emphasizing more difficult places, for attracting
students attention, for breaking students acceptance of facts without
understanding; two teachers do not use such explanation before sufficiently
long practice of the subject matter. In Group C this question was not answered.
The deliberate use of explanation containing error looks to be specific for
mathematics (and natural sciences).
As to the frequency of using explanation, all respondents mentioned the
danger of students passivity in the case of too frequent use and building
incorrect knowledge if explanation is used only very rarely.
b) Student(s) as the transmitter
The questions cover the nature of the demand for explanation (spontaneous or
on the teachers invitation), erroneous explanations (handling of them or the
possibility of their further use) and the frequency of incorporating explanations
in the lessons.
Teachers use both spontaneous and invited explanations; all of them praised
the advantages of spontaneously proposed explanations. (Typical answer: Let
the person who has something to say speak, everybody will learn from mistakes
that occur.) For correcting mistakes, discussion about mistakes (mediated by
the teacher if necessary) is taken as the correct solution. (Typical answer: We
all learn from mistakes, and why it is a mistake.) As to the frequency, the
danger of too frequent use of explanation was mentioned in all answers (only
for being listened to was mentioned in various forms); in case that the use of
explanation is too rare, the danger of passivity of students was emphasized in
Group A and the danger of underdeveloped communication skills in Groups B
and C. The frequency of incorporating explanation showed to be age dependent
in the answers.
3. Concluding remarks
The study confirmed the diversity in approaches to explanation in
teaching/learning of mathematics. It focused on teachers views and approaches
to explanation. It will continue by studying situations of explanations from the
theoretical perspective and by observing and analysing the school reality. Our
main interests are positive and negative impacts of the use of explanation in
teaching/learning processes.
References
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. [Edited
and translated by N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, V. Warfield].
Dordrecht /Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (French version:
Brousseau, G. (1998). Thorie des situations didactiques. Grenoble: La
pense sauvage.)

Mare J., Kivohlav J. (1995). Komunikace ve skole. [Communication in the

school.] Brno: Masarykova univerzita. (In Czech.)
Mopondi, B. (1995). Les explications en classe de mathmatiques. Recherches
en Didactique des Mathmatiques, Vol. 15, n 3, 7-52.
Skalkov J. (1999): Obecn didaktika. [General Didactics.] Prague: ISV Publ.
(In Czech.)