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

net/publication/320170942

The learning and teaching of measurement: Coordinating quantity and number

Chapter · September 2017

CITATIONS READS

22 7,014

2 authors:

Jeffrey Barrett John P. Smith

Illinois State University Michigan State University
40 PUBLICATIONS   609 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   2,590 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strengthening Tomorrow's Education in Measurement View project

Mathematics Transitions Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John P. Smith on 30 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 14
Learning and Teaching 1
2

Measurement: Coordinating 3
4
Quantity and Number 5
6
7
8
John P. Smith III 9
Michigan State University, East Lansing, 10
Michigan 11
12
Jeffrey E. Barrett
13
Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 14
15
16
17

I
18
n this chapter, we summarize research on learning mathematical topic. This view is reflected in the quantity- 19
and teaching measurement, focusing on five physical specific focus of most published research studies. It is 20
quantities prominent in students’ experience, school also reflected in curriculum and teaching where closely 21
learning, and published research—length, area, vol- related topics (e.g., length measure and area measure) 22
ume, angle, and time—allotting space in rough pro- are presented as discrete and separate content. To coun- 23
portion to published research on each. We structure ter this risk, we emphasize issues and results that hold 24
our review around three core issues in teaching and across quantities, especially the nature of units, equi- 25
learning: (1) The development of students’ understand- partitioning, and unit iteration, principles that constitute 26
ing, including major intellectual challenges; (2) cur- a “child’s theory of measure” (Leher, Jaslow, & Curtis, 27
ricular treatments, both traditional and experimental; 2003). We believe presenting the measurement of each 28
and (3) teachers’ knowledge and instructional practice. quantity as a separate and apparently unrelated math- 29
Across quantities, research has primarily focused on the ematical topic is problematic because core mathematics 30
first issue. Much less attention has been given to curricu- consists of the principles that structure the measure- 31
lar treatments, teachers’ knowledge, and instructional ment of all quantities. We also point to connections to 32
practice, and very little to relating classroom experiences learning and teaching in other content areas (with refer- 33
to students’ understanding. With respect to quantities, ences to other chapters in this volume) because measure- 34
much more attention has been given to length, area, and ment concepts play important roles in other domains of 35
volume than to angle and time—a deficit we hope future elementary mathematics. We conclude by highlighting 36
research will address. We regret that our review does not progress made since Battista’s (2007) review and present 37
include all quantities that children explore and measure; our agenda for future research and development. 38
weight and temperature are notably absent. Producing a Though our primary task is to summarize what our 39
chapter of reasonable length drove this decision. field knows about learning and teaching measurement, 40
Our quantity-specific approach risks validating and we also raise a basic issue about children’s introduction 41
reinforcing current educational thinking and practice to mathematics in the elementary years. As indicated by 42
that presents each quantity as a separate and distinct standards, curricula, assessments, and teaching practice, 43
44
45
46
47
We are grateful to Jinfa Cai for the opportunity to prepare this chapter, to Art Baroody and one anonymous reviewer for their
48
insightful comments and suggestions on a prior draft, and to Darrell Earnest for his review and suggestions on a prior version of the
section on time and its measure. We also appreciate and acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in fund- 49
ing the research and development work that has supported our understanding of and contributions to scholarly work on this topic 50
(Smith, REC-0634043 and DRL-0909745; Barrett, DRL-0732217 and DRL-1222944). The research summaries, interpretations, 51
and recommendations expressed in this chapter express the authors’ views and may not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. 52

355
1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 355 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 356 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 elementary school mathematics strongly emphasizes work Measurement converts continuous quantities into dis-
2 with discrete quantities (sets of objects), counting, and crete forms by segmenting them into countable collec-
3 base-10 number and operations (M. S. Smith, Arbaugh, tions of equal-size parts (equipartitioning). The selection
4 & Fi, 2007). Measurement of continuous quantities (those of appropriate units is key to this process. Historically,
5 not initially countable)—as well as geometry and statis- many factors have influenced the choice of measurement
6 tics and probability—receives much less attention. This units. For example, the shape of the human body oriented
7 tradition is troubling because it leaves students ill pre- the foot as a customary unit of length, and the Roman
8 pared to work with continuous quantities in everyday duodecimal numeration system (base-12) led to the hour
9 activity and without the conceptual foundation to learn as the basic unit of time segmenting a day. From a more
10 and understand subsequent (and critical) mathematics mathematical perspective, every measure (e.g., “4 centi-
11 and science content. We will not, however, argue for a meters”) expresses a ratio—a multiplicative comparison
12 specific vision of elementary mathematics that redraws (“4 times as big”) between a continuous quantity and the
13 the balance between attention to discrete and continuous chosen measurement unit (1 centimeter).
14 quantities. That is an important question for mathematics Though tangible evidence is scarce, most historians
15 education, but not an appropriate task for this chapter. believe that the measurement of space had begun by
16 Instead, we hope our review raises awareness of and brings the second millennium BCE, driven by practical needs
17 attention to the issue. to divide land, especially after spatial boundaries were
18 Our review builds on prior work that has summarized destroyed by floods (Dilke, 1987; Jourdain, 1956). Edu-
19 measurement research in the context of research on geom- cational practice reflects this history, as length measure-
20 etry and spatial thinking (e.g., Battista, 2007; Clements & ment receives substantial attention in the early grades.
21 Battista, 1992). Our review extends beyond the spatial Similarly, tangible quantities such as volume, weight, and
22 quantities (length, area, volume, and angle) emphasized capacity (or “liquid volume”) submitted to measurement
23 in those reviews to include time, a nonspatial quantity. relatively early in human history, likely to support trade
24 Though we see metric measurement (that assigns numer- and exchange. Greek mathematicians—Euclid, Pythagoras,
25 ical values to segments of continuous quantities) as dif- and Eratosthenes most famously—were responsible for
26 ferent from descriptive geometry, decoupling the two many advances in measurement and geometry; geometry
27 domains would be a profound mistake. To cite but one literally means “earth measure” (Lehrer, 2003). Geometry
28 example of close connection, understanding area and provided descriptive characterizations of two- and three-
29 volume measurement is impossible without knowledge dimensional shapes in terms of their spatial properties,
30 of the geometry of two- and three-dimensional shapes. where measurement was essentially metric, imposing
31 But measurement has its own mathematical character numbers on spatial quantities (length, area, angle, and
32 and presents its own teaching and learning challenges, volume).
33 so it merits attention as a distinct domain of elementary If classical mathematics was the study of number and
34 mathematics. In that spirit, we first examine the mathe- space (Steen, 1990), measurement represents their unity
35 matical nature of measurement and how progress in mea- and provides access to each. It provides tangible spatial
36 surement has structured the world we experience. meanings for number and arithmetic operations (e.g.,
37
numbers as lengths and addition and multiplication as
38
The Nature and History of Measurement additive and multiplicative combinations of lengths) that
39
generalize across number systems (Lehrer & Slovin, 2014).
40
Most historical accounts indicate that human work in It also provides tools for the precise structuring of space;
41
measurement began with the measure of space, particu- Cartesian (rectangular) and polar coordinate systems
42
larly length and area (Dilke, 1987). Fundamentally, mea- are constructed from length and angle measure.
43
surement involves the assignment of numerical values to Extending measurement beyond space and weight
44
continuous quantities to support comparison, ordering, was one of the most powerful achievements of European
45
and computation. To appreciate the cultural achievements civilization. Many quantities we see as measurable (e.g.,
46
of measurement, consider continuous quantities like time, time, temperature, heat) were initially seen in qualitative
47
temperature, and speed that are part of our everyday and categorical terms, not as quantities that could be seg-
48
experience. They are intangible, but we have mastered mented and counted (Crosby, 1997). The widening reach
49
them through measurement. Conceiving of each as a quan- of measurement supported huge advances in trade, sci-
50
tifiable aspect of experience, not simply as qualities, has entific discovery, and technological invention. Practical
51
been an important human achievement (Crosby, 1997). measurement work to develop units and tools interacted
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 356 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 357

with conceptual efforts to understand quantities as mea- remains in our systems and practices (especially in cus- 1
surable. Conceptual clarity about focal quantities and the tomary and metric systems). Notations and abbrevia- 2
tools and processes to measure them effectively emerged tions for writing and communicating measures are also 3
together, as a dialectical unity, not as a linear sequence conventional. The distinction between mathematical 4
(H. Chang, 2004). This historical lesson has implications principles and conventional practices is as important in 5
for teaching and learning: Educators should not presume measurement as in any mathematical domain. Students 6
that children understand quantities, spatial or nonspatial, should come to understand which aspects of measurement 7
as measurable in the same ways adults do. Where some reflect the structure of the physical world and which are 8
productive intuitions emerge early (e.g., lengths, heights, human choices. 9
and liquid volumes can be compared and ordered), a more 10
sensible premise is that children develop their understand- Measurement in School Mathematics and Science 11
ing of quantities as measurable as they engage in practical 12
attempts to measure them. Measurement plays a foundational role in both school 13
A shared set of conceptual principles structures the mathematics and science, especially in the elementary 14
measurement of all quantities. Together they constitute years. It is a basic component of scientific inquiry 15
a general theory that underlies and justifies measure- (Michaels, Shouse, & Schweingruber, 2008), and school 16
ment practice. We distinguish seven principles, though 17
science engages students in measurement practices and
our formulation is neither unique nor complete. First, 18
presumes competence in measurement in later grades
measurement begins with selecting or constructing some 19
(e.g., in introducing and developing new concepts). In
smaller segment of the target quantity (a unit) that can 20
elementary mathematics, measurement may be the most
be used to partition it (and all similar quantities) into 21
practical of all content domains, providing meaning and
some number of equal-size parts (identical units). Second, 22
applicability for work with numbers and operations. Yet
successful measurement requires that some number of 23
the metric study of space extends into high school and
identical units exhausts (fills) the target quantity (tiling). 24
collegiate mathematics, including graphing and analysis
Measures are counts of identical units. Third, tiling, via 25
in Cartesian and polar coordinate systems, solid geom-
physical or mental action, is also achieved by repeatedly 26
etry, calculus and its applications, and vectors and vector
placing or sweeping one unit through the target quan- 27
spaces.
tity (unit iteration). Fourth, all measurement units can 28
Early in schooling, students around the world are
be subdivided into smaller subunits and combined into 29
introduced to measurement via the quantities of everyday
larger units (hierarchical units). Greater precision in mea- 30
experience: Length, capacity, time, weight, temperature,
surement often depends on using successively smaller 31
volume, and soon area and angle (van den Heuvel-
subunits. Fifth, using smaller units necessarily results 32
Panhuizen & Buys, 2008). For each, school curricula typ-
33
in larger measures of the target quantity, as more repli- ically provide hands-on, qualitative experiences before
34
cas are needed to exhaust it (the inverse relation). Sixth, shifting to more exact measurement. Comparing and
35
because all units measure some amount of a target quan- ordering precede identifying, placing or iterating, and
36
tity, a measure in one unit can be always converted to a enumerating units by counting or arithmetic computa-
37
measure in another, within or between measurement tion. Curricula typically organize teachers’ and students’
38
systems (e.g., customary and metric; unit conversion). work by particular quantity rather than by shared prin-
39
Last, measures of a target quantity are additive; the sum of ciples or processes. Where measurement could unify
40
measured parts will equal the measure of the initial whole learning in mathematics and science (Lehrer & Schauble,
41
(additivity)—though unit conversion may be required. 2005; T. D. Thompson & Preston, 2004), the school day
42
These principles are mathematical in nature. They and learning activities are typically divided into discrete
43
reflect the structure and uniformity that humans have suc- subjects, (e.g., “math time” and “science time”). In this
44
cessfully imposed on the physical world, but they are not organizational scheme, teaching the principles and pro-
45
free choices. The conventional aspects of measurement, cesses of measurement is most often part of elementary
46
however, result from arbitrary human decisions (Dilke, mathematics, not science.
47
1987; Nunes & Bryant, 1996). Even though its genesis In the upper elementary grades, measurement using
48
was the human body, the standard “foot” remains an computation (e.g., of areas and volumes) gradually sup-
49
arbitrary length unit. Units and systems of units have plants measurement with nonstandard units and stan-
50
historically differed widely across cultures, and despite dard tools. Though area and volume are typically defined
51
pressures toward global standardization, some diversity in spatial terms (as the amount of space enclosed in
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 357 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 358 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 two-dimensional shapes and three-dimensional regions), Pimm, & Skelin, 2012). Deep understanding of integral
2 measuring these quantities centrally involves numeri- calculus depends on the ability to segment (infinitely)
3 cal reasoning. Formulas for specific shapes and regions continuous quantities, compute with those discrete parts,
4 (e.g., the area of a rectangle is the product of its length and and recompose the result as another continuous quantity.
5 width) replace rulers and measuring cups as basic tools. Given the emphasis placed on science, technology,
6 This transition involves more than a shift to numerical engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning in many
7 methods; it also introduces students to the construction countries, failure to understand the nature of measure-
8 of new quantities from more familiar ones via multiplica- ment in the elementary and middle school grades carries
9 tive composition (P. W. Thompson, 1994; P. W. Thompson a heavy cost for students, as so much subsequent work
10 & Saldanha, 2003). Many quantities introduced in mid- in technical fields depends on that foundation. And the
11 dle school science share this compositional character. costs of weak understanding of measurement are not only
12 Students may explore density in “sink and float” activities, borne by the college bound. Measurement, especially spa-
13 but its exact measure depends on the multiplicative com- tial measurement, is a component capability in many lines
14 position of mass and volume. Similarly, velocity can be of skilled work that do not require a college education
15 experienced as felt speed but measured precisely only via (Bakker, Wijers, Junker, & Akkerman, 2011; Kent, Bakker,
16 displacement (length) and time. Force (mass and accel- Hoyles, & Noss, 2011; J. P. Smith, 1999).
17 eration), work (force and distance), and torque (distance Despite its central role in mathematics and science,
18 and weight) are all similar compositions. Where multipli- measurement often receives much less instructional
19 cative composition has frequently supported scientific attention than number and operation—counting, base-10
20 progress, discussions of how new quantities are created number, and arithmetic (M. S. Smith et al., 2007). Per-
21 multiplicatively are rare in classrooms. Instead, the focus haps as a result, student learning in measurement in the
22 of classroom discussions more often becomes numerical United States and other countries lags behind perfor-
23 and computational as quantitative referents drop away mance in other mathematical domains (Lee & Smith, 2011;
24 (e.g., “4 centimeters long” becomes “4”; A. G. Thompson, Strutchens, Martin, & Kenney, 2003; T. D. Thompson &
25 Philipp, Thompson, & Boyd, 1994). Preston, 2004)—though this is not universally the case
26 Measurement also provides conceptual access to other (van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & Wijers, 2005). In U.S. ele-
27 important mathematical concepts. The concept of frac- mentary mathematics textbooks, measurement lessons
28 tions depends on partitioning whole quantities into same- typically appear late in each year’s materials (J. P. Smith,
29 size parts (National Governors Association Center for Males, Dietiker, Lee, & Mosier, 2013; J. P. Smith, Males,
30 Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers & Gonulates, 2016). Actual instructional attention to
31 [NGA & CCSSO], 2010, p. 24). Measurement also pro- measurement is more difficult to gauge. But since text-
32 vides entry into data and statistics, as repeated measure- book content strongly shapes what teachers in many
33 ment of the same quantity generates a distribution of countries teach (e.g., Grouws, Smith, & Sztajin, 2004;
34 measures whose features can become the object of study Hino, 2002; B. Kaur, 2014), the content and structure of
35 (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 20 & 25; Lehrer, Kim, & Jones, curricula shape students’ experience with measurement
36 2011). Unit iteration and composition provide connec- in many classrooms. Measurement is presented in highly
37 tions to and shared structure for base-10 number and procedural terms in elementary mathematics textbooks
38 operations and measurement (Langrall, Mooney, Nisbet, in the United States (J. P. Smith et al., 2013; J. P. Smith
39 & Jones, 2008)—though such connections are rarely et al., 2016) and other countries (Lee & Smith, 2011).
40 emphasized in classrooms. For example, conceptualizing Little attention is given to the conceptual principles that
41 a row of square units as a composite in reasoning about constrain and justify measurement procedures. Virtually
42
rectangular area is as fundamental an advance as con- no attention is given to examining how shared prin-
43
ceptualizing a composite unit of 10 in multidigit addi- ciples structure measurement across quantities (Curry,
44
tion and subtraction (Reynolds & Wheatley, 1996; Wood, Mitchelmore, & Outhred, 2006; J. P. Smith et al., 2013).
45
Cobb, Yackel, & Dillon, 1993). Bar graphs, equal inter-
46
val scales, and Cartesian coordinate axes and graphs all Length and Its Measure
47
depend on understanding length measurement. Congru-
48
ence and similarity are visually accessible to elemen- In the United States and other countries, length mea-
49
tary students, but analytic access depends on the length surement is introduced early in school (van den Heuvel-
50
and angle measurements embedded in transformations Panhuizen & Buys, 2005; Outhred, Mitchelmore, McPhail,
51
(isometries and dilations; Lehrer & Slovin, 2014; Sinclair, & Gould, 2003). Length is an entry point and foundation
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 358 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 359

for measurement more generally and so receives extensive whether to extend or challenge his claims (Piaget, Inhelder, 1
curricular attention, typically more than other quanti- & Szeminska, 1960). He argued that measurement made 2
ties. In the United States, the Common Core State Stan- little sense without the child’s recognition of a stable 3
dards for Mathematics (CCSSM) focus more extensively attribute to measure. With length, he showed that young 4
on length than any other quantity (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). children often attended to the endpoints of a path, not 5
The prominent attention given to length is sensible for to the linear space between them. When presented with 6
multiple reasons. Because it is visually salient, physically two paths of different lengths whose endpoints aligned 7
tangible, and experientially real, length is accessible and (i.e., one straight, the other bent), many reported their 8
meaningful for young children. They experience length as lengths were the same—a result replicated by others 9
an attribute of everyday objects, their bodies, and physi- (Hiebert, 1981, 1984; Hart, 1981). Understanding that 10
cal activities (e.g., walking paths). Length is embedded in paths whose endpoints align are not always equal in 11
many measurement tools (e.g., thermometers, graduated length and more generally, that length is “conserved” 12
cylinders, and measuring cups) and a component in the (unchanged) when paths and objects are moved or are 13
composition and measurement of other quantities (e.g., cut up and reassembled develops over time. Children’s 14
area, volume, and work). Most cultures provide widely experience of walking paths where different lengths 15
available tools—“rulers” of different sorts—to measure correspond to different time intervals contributes to 16
length, but they must be correctly positioned relative to their understanding. Piaget also argued that qualitative 17
the target object before the user can “read off” an accurate comparison—which of two objects or paths is longer or 18
length measure. taller—precedes understanding measurement as a “met- 19
U.S. national performance on length measurement ric” process (e.g., to determine how much longer or taller). 20
tasks has been adequate for basic knowledge and skills True measurement is motivated when objects or paths 21
(e.g., using a ruler to measure a line segment) but drops cannot be directly compared. Indirect comparison (com- 22
for tasks that require reasoning or understanding con- paring each object to a third that can be moved between 23
cepts and tools. In the most well-documented task, U.S. them) precedes and supports the need for choosing and 24
grade 4 and 8 students have consistently performed using length units. The difference between qualitative 25
poorly when measuring the length of an object that is comparison and “metric” measurement is reflected in 26
not aligned at the ruler’s zero mark (Blume, Galindo, Battista’s (2006) distinction between nonmeasurement 27
& Walcott, 2007; Kamii & Clark, 1997). Not until grade 12 and measurement reasoning (see below). Understanding 28
length measurement metrically means appreciating that
does performance on this item rise to 80% correct (Kehle, 29
linear space can be measured more precisely as the count
Wearne, Martin, Strutchens, & Warfield, 2004). 30
of some number of length units. 31
Length units and their properties. Units of length (and 32
Development of Students’ Understanding other quantities) are conceptual not physical objects, 33
though educators often ignore this distinction. More pre- 34
Despite the attention given to length measurement in cisely, the unit is not the object itself (e.g., a paperclip), 35
schools, researchers in numerous countries have found but one of its attributes, typically a salient one. Conceptu- 36
that students’ understanding is often shallow and fragile ally, a unit is simply a “chunk” of the target quantity. Any 37
(United States—Strutchens et al., 2003; United Kingdom— linear extent (distance between two points) can serve as a 38
Hart, 1981; Singapore—Lee & Smith, 2011; Australia— unit of length. Talking about physical objects like paper- 39
Outhred et al., 2003). This research has focused on two clips, tiles, and centimeter cubes as “units” of length is
40
main issues: (1) how students come to understand length sensible, but also potentially misleading. In educational
41
units and (2) how (and why) they struggle to understand discussions, collections of objects that are treated as units
42
rulers. The first involves the gradual coordination of iden- are called “nonstandard” units. In our discussion, we will
43
tical units, exhausting space, and respecting endpoints; place units in quotes (“units”) when physical objects are
44
the second concerns why rulers “work” and how ruler described as units.
45
measure relates to length measures from “units.” Both Research has shown that students’ understanding of
46
presume understanding length as a stable attribute of length units develops over time in activities where stu-
47
objects and paths. dents use them and reflect on their use. Appropriate use
48
Piaget’s foundation: Conservation of length and the and understanding of “units” require conceptual coordi-
49
origins of metric measurement. Piaget’s early studies nation, the simultaneous satisfaction of the constraints
50
of the development of children’s conceptions of space of filling space, using identical units, avoiding overlaps
51
and measurement influenced most subsequent research, between units, and respecting endpoints.
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 359 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 360 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 Exhausting linear space. Once students see length as count “units” that touch the corner but fill no space on
2 a stable attribute of objects and paths, they generally the path (Battista, 2006; 2012). Such continuous place-
3 appreciate the need to fill linear spaces completely with ment of units that avoids gaps at the corners is likely a
4 units, especially when those units fill space “evenly.” But generalization of the requirements for measuring sim-
5 when the lengths of paths are not exact multiples of the ple paths. This error also arises when students find the
6 unit, they may leave space between units to avoid over- perimeter of polygons drawn on grids.
7 lapping the endpoints (Lehrer et al., 2003). As Piaget’s Understanding rulers. Most length measurement in
8 early work suggested, the endpoints of the path or object everyday activity involves rulers, not placing “units.”
9 appear to have special status; children attend more to Rulers take many particular forms (foot rulers, tape mea-
10 aligning units to the endpoints than to filling the space sures, meter and yardsticks, and distance wheels), but all
11 completely. demarcate equal intervals of linear space and enumerate
12 Identical units. Students may fill the linear space com- intervals from a zero point. Even young children learn
13 pletely but without respecting the need for identical the standard procedure for ruler measurement—aligning
14 units. This issue can remain invisible if only identical one end of the object with zero and reading off the length
15 “units” are available to students. If they have access to from the mark closest to the other end (Ellis, Siegler, &
16 collections of different-size “units,” students may com- Van Voorhis, 2003; Nunes, Light & Mason, 1993). But
17 bine them in filling the space (Curry et al., 2006), espe- numerous studies have shown that students may not be
18 cially in the primary grades (Lehrer, Jenkins, & Osana, thinking of counts of intervals when they read off mea-
19 1998). To appreciate students’ challenge, it is importance sures from rulers (Barrett, Jones, Thornton, & Dickson,
20 to recognize that keeping “units” identical competes with 2003). Some count all the ruler marks that lie opposite
21 the goals of filling the space, avoiding gaps between “units,” and between the endpoints of the object (Barrett et al.,
22 and not overlapping the endpoints. 2003; Nunes et al., 1993), yielding measures one unit
23 Unit iteration. Students do not easily see that reusing greater than the actual length. This error may result from
24 or moving “units” is acceptable as long as each location the strong primary grade emphasis on counting discrete
25 is noted or marked and counted. Some simply stop their sets of objects (Bragg & Outhred, 2001; Ellis et al., 2003).
26 work if they run out of “units” before the space has been Some students shift between counting intervals and
27 filled (Lehrer et al., 2003). The iteration of length “units” counting marks, depending on the task (Barrett et al.,
28 involves coordinating a sequence of locations and counts 2012). When the zero mark has been removed or when the
29 of successive placements with the sweep of fingers or endpoint of an object is aligned at a mark other than zero,
30 “units” through the space. Even with support, some stu- students as late as upper elementary school incorrectly
31 dents as late as grade 2 struggle to coordinate these pro- report the mark number aligned with the opposite end
32 cesses (Barrett et al., 2012). (Bragg & Outhred, 2004; Hart, 1981; Nunes et al., 1993).
33 Inverse relation. Students’ understanding that smaller Researchers have also presented “rulers” with unequal
34 units produce larger measures develops through the intervals or without numerical information to assess
35 primary years (K–2), but varies with the demand of the students’ understanding. Grade 1 students who were
36
task. When asked to build a straight path with smaller asked to place numbers on equal interval rulers with-
37
“units” equal in length to a given complex path composed out numerical marks often assigned “1” to the first mark
38
of larger “units,” grade 1 students have placed the same (skipping “0”) or created inconsistent numerical scales
39
number of smaller “units” as larger ones (Hiebert, 1984). (Nunes & Bryant, 1996). Younger students (K–grade 2)
40
(Those who made this error also struggled to conserve have accepted and used “rulers” with unequal intervals
41
length.) However, Nunes and Bryant (1996) reported that (Nunes & Bryant, 1996; Pettito, 1990) more frequently
42
most of their grade 2 students successfully compared than grade 3 students (Lehrer, Jenkins, & Osuma, 1998).
43
the length of two ribbons, one measured in inches and Some scholars have questioned Piaget’s claim that
44
the other in centimeters. Despite this developing com- work with nonstandard “units” should precede and moti-
45
petence, even secondary students can incorrectly reason vate students’ use of standard units and rulers (Clements,
46
about the lengths of paths solely in terms of the number 1999). Even preschool children understand some fea-
47
of “units,” independent of their size (Hart, 1981). tures of rulers (e.g., equally spaced numerals) and their
48
Complex paths. Students who can accurately mea- contexts of use from everyday activity observing adults’
49
sure the length of simple paths (single line segments and measurement activity (MacDonald & Lowrie, 2011).
50
objects) may struggle when paths are curved or jagged. Given the choice of nonstandard “units” or rulers to solve
51
To measure paths with corners, students may place and length comparison tasks, primary grade students in
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 360 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 361

some studies preferred rulers and used them more effec- Drawing on task-based interviews, Battista (2006, 1
tively than their peers working with “units” (Boulton- 2010, 2012) has proposed a learning trajectory for 2
Lewis, Wilss, Mutch, 1996; Nunes et al., 1993). length measurement that distinguishes and coordinates 3
Collectively, this research has shown that students’ “nonmeasurement” and measurement reasoning, where 4
correct use of rulers does not, in itself, indicate they nonmeasurement designates reasoning about length with- 5
understand how length units are embedded in rulers. out appeal to numbers. Students typically begin with the 6
These results have implications for students’ understand- former (i.e., direct comparison) but progress through 7
ing of numerical scales more generally (e.g., in construct- levels of understandings of both types. The most sophisti- 8
ing and using Cartesian coordinate axes). cated levels integrate reasoning of both types in situation- 9
Relating rulers to “units.” Given these results, it is not appropriate ways. Students’ thinking progresses over 10
surprising that the relationship between length “units” time toward greater sophistication, but not in a single 11
and ruler intervals has remained murky for many stu- deterministic way. Different students take different paths, 12
dents. Making the correspondence between “units” and progress at different rates, and reason differently depend- 13
ruler intervals explicit has increased the likelihood that ing on the features of tasks. In contrast to others, Battista 14
students understand and use rulers appropriately (Cullen has argued that his levels are independent of students’ 15
& Barrett, 2010; Levine, Kwon, Huttenlocher, Ratliff, & specific learning experiences with length (Barrett & 16
Deitz, 2009). Understanding is indicated and likely sup- Battista, 2014). 17
ported by students’ physical engagement with ruler inter- Clements and colleagues’ learning trajectory for length 18
vals (e.g., by successive pointing or sweeping gestures; is similar in many respects (Barrett & Battista, 2014; 19
Cullen & Barrett, 2010). Barrett et al., 2012; Clements et al., in press; Sarama, 20
Estimation. Where most research on length measure- Clements, Barrett, Van Dine, & McDonel, 2011). To test 21
ment has concerned students’ work to produce exact an initial version, these researchers worked with a small 22
length measures, some studies have focused on length sample of students for three years using tasks designed 23
estimation, when exact measurement is unnecessary to challenge each student’s current understanding. The 24
or impossible. Length estimation tasks occur frequently revised trajectory has presented learning as an invariant 25
in elementary curricula (K. Chang, Males, Mosier, & path through eight ordered levels, beginning with recog- 26
Gonulates, 2011; Tan-Sisman & Aksu, 2012) and every- nition and isolation of length as an attribute and use 27
day activity (Sowder, 1992). Research has shown that of direct comparison, developing progressively richer 28
students often estimate lengths either by iterating an understandings of units (and of rulers as composed of 29
imagined unit or visually comparing the target object or units), and eventually being able to internalize mental 30

distance to a known proximal length (Hartley, 1977; actions that require no physical tools (“units” or rulers). 31

Sowder, 1992). The spatial resources in the physical set- 32

Both early and later levels use nonnumerical thinking.
tings influence students’ approach to estimation (Gooya, 33
Though Clements and colleagues have proposed an invari-
Khosroshahi, & Teppo, 2011). Though students may not 34
ant sequence of levels, they have also acknowledged that
spontaneously use “benchmarks” (objects approximately 35
students may reason at “lower” levels of understanding
equal to one or more units) to estimate lengths, their esti- 36
when presented with low- or high-demand tasks. Their
mates become more accurate when instruction supports 37
analyses have generally validated their initial trajec-
38
this approach (Joram, Gabriele, Bertheau, Gelman, & tory, but in contrast to Piaget’s claim, their students did
39
Subrahmanyam, 2005). not use indirect comparison prior to using units. In con-
40
Learning trajectories. Building on research about trast to Battista, Clements and colleagues have argued
41
students’ understanding, researchers have begun to state that students’ learning experiences, specifically length
42
and test theories of ordered levels of understanding measurement tasks with particular characteristics and
43
of length measurement to characterize its development demands, must be a component of the trajectory.
44
over time. These learning trajectories have presented Other researchers have proposed levels of under-
45
quite similar portraits of learning (i.e., the content of standing primarily to support teacher learning and richer
46
the levels of understanding) but have been grounded instruction. Researchers at the Freudenthal Institute have
47
in different theoretical assumptions about students’ proposed a “learning-teaching” trajectory that identifies
48
learning—specifically about the role of tasks and activi- steps in primary students’ learning to measure length,
49
ties in shaping growth and change (see Lobato & Walters, among other quantities (van den Heuvel-Panhuizen &
50
this volume, for a general discussion of research on learn- Buys, 2008). Their trajectory identifies three steps:
51
ing trajectories and progressions). (1) comparing and ordering qualitatively, (2) successively
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 361 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 362 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 placing “units,” and (3) reading off measures from tools. curricula’s presentation of length measurement in the
2 Clarke and colleagues have proposed a similar series of primary years (K–grade 3), focusing on the frequency
3 “growth points” for length and other quantities, from and placement of specific concepts, procedures, and
4 identifying an attribute, to comparing and ordering, to conventions. All three presented roughly the same con-
5 placing and enumerating “units,” to estimating and mea- tent sequence (qualitative comparison, then measure-
6 suring with standard units, to solving a range of mea- ment with nonstandard units, then ruler measurement)
7 surement problems (Clarke, Cheeseman, McDonough, & and focused on procedures (e.g., using rulers and com-
8 Clarke, 2003). puting perimeters). Conceptual content, even key princi-
9 Confrey and colleagues have ordered the CCSSM ples like unit iteration, appeared infrequently and often
10 measurement standards (including those for length) and after the procedures they justify. Little attention was
11 mapped their connections to number and geometry given to communicating concepts’ importance to teachers.
12 standards (Confrey, Maloney, & Corley, 2014). Draw- This analysis aligns with the commonly expressed fear
13 ing on research discussed above, they have proposed that measurement teaching is too procedurally focused
14 “bridging standards” to fill gaps in the CCSSM sequence. (Stephan & Clements, 2003; Lehrer, 2003). Similarly,
15 Bridging standards for length (a) distinguish length from Tan-Sisman and Aksu’s (2012) analysis of the Turkish
16 other attributes of objects, (b) focus on indirect compari- national curriculum guide for grades 1–5 found explicit
17 son as an important step in understanding length, and attention to some conceptual principles (e.g., conserva-
18 (c) explicitly link tiling with “units” to length measures tion and zero point) but not others (e.g., accumulation of
19 (i.e., using N “units” means the target length is N linear distance and the inverse principle). If teachers’ lessons
20 units). Despite the substantial level of agreement across are shaped by procedurally focused curricula (Grouws
21 these trajectories, there is currently no consensus on the et al., 2004), students’ continuing challenges to under-
22 place of indirect comparison in the transition from qual- stand length measurement become more sensible.
23 itative comparison to metric length measurement. Researchers have developed and tested alternative cur-
24 In the last two decades, researchers have focused care- ricular approaches to learning length measure. Stephan
25 fully on mapping the development of students’ under- and colleagues designed and taught a sequence of activi-
26 standing of measurement, frequently with a focus on ties for grade 1 students to build their understanding of
27 length. From Piaget’s foundational work, studies have length measurement and base-10 number via number
28 documented students’ work to recognize and coordinate lines (Stephan, Bowers, Cobb, & Gravemeijer, 2003). It
29 constraints on the nature of use of length units and to began with bodily experience (students pacing off dis-
30 understand and use rulers appropriately. Recent efforts tances heel to toe), introduced smaller length units, and
31 have attempted to integrate specific insights into more used 10 such units to structure longer measuring strips
32 coherent and complete models of learning in the form (rulers marked in decades of units). An important learn-
33 of multiyear learning trajectories. These trajectories ing goal was that students would connect physical length
34 contain a great deal of common content but have also units (paces and cubes) with marks on the measuring
35 differed on or left open important issues, including the strip. Lehrer and colleagues found that a similar sequence
36 role of particular tasks in charting learning, the nature was productive for older students who had been taught to
37 of progress through levels of understanding, and their use rulers without understanding (Lehrer et al., 2003).
38 usefulness for teachers (see Wickstrom, Baek, Barrett, Building on the work of Davydov (1975), Dougherty and
39 Cullen, & Tobias, 2012; Wickstrom, 2014). Perhaps the colleagues developed and tested the Measure Up curricu-
40 most basic question is whether these trajectories reflect lum that builds all of elementary mathematics from work
41 prior views of order in learning through the assessments with continuous quantities (including length) and relations
42 used to characterize student thinking, thereby reifying between them. This approach—a radical departure from
43 that order and precluding the examination of other paths. the traditional focus on discrete quantity—builds from
44
qualitative comparison (e.g., length A is longer than B)
45
Curricular Approaches to more exact relationships (e.g., A = 2B if two B lengths
46
equals one A length) and introduces mathematical sym-
47
Because classroom activities play an important role in bolism early (Dougherty, 2008). Pure numbers and arith-
48
students’ learning, researchers have examined the oppor- metic are developed as abstractions from quantitative
49
tunities provided by elementary mathematics textbooks relationships and operations.
50
for learning length measurement. J. P. Smith and col- Clements and colleagues developed an instructional
51
leagues (2013) carefully examined three U.S. elementary unit called “Turtle Paths” to integrate grade 3 students’
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 362 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 363

physical experience (walking and turning) with work In contrast to other domains of mathematics, elemen- 1
to direct a digital object (a turtle) along complex paths tary teachers’ understanding of length measurement has 2
using Logo commands (Clements, Battista, Sarama, not received careful study. We do not know how often ele- 3
Swaminathan, & McMillen, 1997). Their unit was designed mentary teachers see physical objects as units, struggle 4
to support both student learning and researchers’ access with broken ruler tasks, or exhibit the “corner problem” 5
to student thinking. Reasoning about paths in the Logo when measuring jagged paths. We do know that preservice 6
environment (where 100 length units is a relatively short teachers have struggled with nonroutine perimeter tasks 7
distance) led students to decompose and recompose both (Menon, 1998) and with distinguishing perimeter from 8
segments and their numerical measures, but not all area (Reinke, 1997; Woodward & Byrd, 1983)—issues dis- 9
students connected and coordinated these two activi- cussed in the next section. However, compared to studies 10
ties. Yelland (2003) reported high levels of engagement of teachers’ understanding of area measurement, cor- 11
in grade 2 students using “Turtle Paths.” Older students responding research on length measurement has been 12
working in dynamic geometry environments such as very scarce to date. 13
Cabri and Geometer’s Sketchpad have used the built-in 14
length measurement functionality to generate conjec- 15
tures in plane geometry that then become candidates for
Area and Its Measure 16
deductive proof (Olivera & Robutti, 2001). 17
Area is a measurable attribute of two-dimensional regions
As this review indicates, curricula do not yet effec- 18
tively address the learning challenges that research has (simple closed curves): the amount of space enclosed 19
identified students often face or communicate them to inside their boundaries. Like length, area measurement 20
teachers. Tasks shown to be effective in assessing stu- arises frequently in practical activity, is a foundational 21
dents’ understanding (e.g., involving “broken” or blank concept for work in many STEM fields, and is developed 22
rulers) are rare. Experimental approaches have focused over many years of schooling. Also like length, area is a 23
on connecting tools and procedures to students’ bodily spatial, tangible, and experientially accessible quantity. 24
experience or radically reconstructing elementary It can be understood in both continuous (the amount 25
mathematics. enclosed) or discrete terms (the number of area units that 26
tile the region). But area and length measurement differ 27
in important ways, and these differences shape issues 28
Teachers’ Knowledge and Instructional Practices
in learning and teaching. First, comparing areas quali- 29
tatively can be difficult when regions have dissimilar 30
Detailed studies examining teachers’ practice in teach-
ing length measurement do not yet exist, beyond stud- shapes, as they can vary in two dimensions. Second, area 31

ies where they have partnered with university-based units are more diverse than length units. Third, no widely 32

researchers (e.g., Lehrer, Jacobson, et al., 1998; Lehrer available tool (like rulers) exists for measuring area. 33

et al., 2003). So we know little about how teachers use Consequently, area is usually the first quantity that stu- 34

curricular materials, particularly how students’ ideas and dents encounter where measurement centrally involves 35

work are taken up and discussed (M. S. Smith & Stein, numerical computation. 36

2011). Many important questions remain open, includ- Where learning and teaching length measurement 37

ing how much time teachers devote to length measure- typically moves from counting “units” to reading rulers, 38

ment, what they emphasize in their lessons, whether and area measurement moves from counting “units” to com- 39

how they address conceptual content, and specifically pleting and interpreting multiplicative computations 40
(products of lengths). This is significant for two reasons. 41
whether and how they relate conceptual principles to pro-
Rectangular area is often “recruited” as a model for 42
cedures. Though many studies have been located in class-
learning multiplication, beginning with whole numbers 43
rooms, they have not targeted teachers’ thinking and
(van de Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, 2013). Second, 44
practice. Analyses of the practices of teachers who col-
how square units of area emerge spatially from multiply- 45
laborated with researchers have underlined the impor-
ing two lengths remains mysterious for most students 46
tance of tasks that engage students’ physical activity and
(Huang & Witz, 2011; Nunes & Bryant, 1996). As with 47
interest and forms of teacher-led discussion that support
48
reasoning, explanation, and justification (Clarke et al., rulers, area formulas as algebraic tools can remain “black
49
2003; Lehrer, Jacobson, et al., 1998). These instructional boxes” for students; understanding length multiplication
50
elements give students important opportunities to make has been as challenging as grasping how ruler marks indi-
51
sense of the processes and tools for measuring length. cate length measures. As we argued earlier, the need to
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 363 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 364 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 understand multiplicative composition arises with area changed their view when the number of houses increased
2 measurement, but extends to other continuous quanti- (e.g., to 15), arguing that the meadow with scattered
3 ties that students encounter in science and mathematics, houses had less pasture. Other classroom-based research
4 including volume, density, speed, force, work, and torque. has presented rectangles of different shapes with the
5 Where area is foundational for many advanced concepts, same area to students and asked which covers the most
6 it is particularly useful for understanding fractions, space. With supportive teacher questioning, grade 2 stu-
7 where partitioning quantities into equal parts and iterat- dents have explored decomposing and recomposing as
8 ing and aggregating those parts is essentially measure- tools to compare the rectangles’ areas, eventually mea-
9 ment (Confrey, Maloney, Nguyen, & Rupp, 2014; Steffe, suring their sides and quantifying area in terms of the
10 2010; P. W. Thompson & Saldanha, 2003). number square inches enclosed (Lehrer, Jacobson et al.,
11 Around the world, student performance on area tasks 1998; Lehrer et al., 2003). The students’ work reflected
12 has been weaker than for length, especially for multistep the shared assumption that area is conserved under par-
13 or novel tasks (Blume et al., 2007; Hino, 2002). Among titioning and recomposition. However, students’ ability
14 the 23 participating countries in the Trends in Inter­ to compare and conserve the area of regions of different
15 national Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 shape develops gradually over time, spreading across
16 field test, average grade 4 performance on area measure- different situations and tasks (Barrett et al., in press;
17 ment tasks was only 29.4% correct (Huang & Witz, 2011). Clements, Sarama, & Miller, in press). Even high school
18 On multiple National Assessment of Educational Prog- and college students can reason as if only congruent
19 ress (NAEP) assessments, only about a quarter of U.S. regions have equal area and that polygons’ side lengths
20 grade 12 students correctly computed the area of a recti- are reliable indicators of their area (Kospentaris, Spyrou,
21 linear L-shaped region given sufficient information & Lappas, 2011).
22 about side lengths (Kloosterman, 2010). Many students Covering or tiling with units. That the area of a region
23 struggle to distinguish between area and perimeter in can be determined by covering it with smaller space-
24 two-dimensional shapes and to reason about surface area filling “units” appears intuitive for elementary students,
25 in three dimensions (Blume et al., 2007). even as some attempt to use length measures (successive
26 placements of rulers) to measure area (Lehrer, Jenkins, &
27 Osana, 1998). Not overlapping the boundaries of regions
Development of Students’ Understanding
28 has been again a more compelling constraint than leav-
29 ing gaps between “units.” When regions are irregular
Research on students’ understanding has focused on how
30 (nonpolygonal) and different “units” are available, students
students conceptualize area as a stable quantity and
31 are drawn to those that resemble the shape (e.g., round
develop the ability, both physical and mental, to tile rect-
32 “units” like beans for tiling regions with round edges;
angular space with square units. These parallel issues
33 Lehrer et al., 2003).
with length measure, though tiling in two dimensions
34 Numerous studies have examined the development of
produces arrays of units. The ability to represent rect-
35 students’ ability to construct or impose arrays of square
angular space in organized structures of rows and col-
36 units on rectangular space, what Battista and colleagues
umns of squares (as composite units) appears pivotal for
37 have termed “spatial structuring” (Battista, Clements,
understanding area formulas, beginning with rectangles.
38 Arnoff, Battista, & Borrow, 1998). They presented grade 2
But important questions remain open. Two important
39 students with a series of rectangles whose sides were
ones concern the source and resolution of the confusion
40
of area and perimeter and how students come to under- partitioned equally with tick marks, or whose interiors
41
stand the multiplicative composition of lengths. were partially or completely demarcated into square
42
Conservation of area. Piaget’s developmental research units, in the fall and at the end of the year. For each shape,
43
was as foundational for children’s understanding of area students were asked to predict how many squares were
44
as it was for length (Piaget et al., 1960). Conservation of required to cover the rectangle, to draw those squares on
45
the area quantity was again a major focus. He presented the rectangle, and finally to cover and count with square
46
children with two identical regions (“meadows”) and “units.” The least proficient students systematically
47
successively added “houses” to each, adjacent in a row in placed squares around the boundary but were haphazard
48
one meadow and spread around the meadow in the other. in visualizing and drawing squares in the interior. They
49
After each addition, students were asked if the amount of conceived of area as a one-dimensional string of units
50
open pasture was the same or different. Even young chil- (see also Miller, 2013; Schifter & Szymaszek, 2003). Other
51
dren were successful with one or two houses, but many students placed squares in horizontal rows but only
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 364 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 365

locally, usually along the top or bottom. More advanced Hino (2002) reported that grade 4 students in one class- 1
students saw, placed, and iterated rows as composite room in Japan were more successful using and explain- 2
units systematically. But this ability also developed ing the formula when asked to find the area of rectilinear 3
gradually—first with perceptual support for iteration. regions—regions that could be decomposed into smaller 4
Rows were the most common composite unit (see also rectangles. As late as grade 8, many U.S. students can- 5
Miller, 2013), but students also constructed others (e.g., not write the correct numerical expression for the area 6
columns and two-column units). For students in tran­ of rectangles whose numerical dimensions are given 7
sition, drawing squares provided important feedback and (Blume et al., 2007). And the widely documented problem 8
support. Outhred and Mitchelmore (2000), working with of confusing area and perimeter, especially for rectangles, 9
grade 1 to 4 students, described quite similar levels of indicates a weak grasp of both formulas. 10
development. Understanding area formulas requires the coordina- 11
The ability to spatially structure rectangular space, tion of length and area units (Outhred & Mitchelmore, 12
while fundamental, can be overlooked (see also the cur- 2000). With rectangles, that coordination may begin 13
riculum section below). Not all students who produce with simply noting how the lengths of sides correspond 14
correct measures of rectangular area can visualize the to the size of composite units of area (rows and columns). 15
corresponding arrays of square units (Mitchelmore, 1983; Deeper understandings would involve some appreciation 16
Zacharos, 2006). Similarly, students who can build rectan- of how the multiplication of lengths constitutes area units 17
gular arrays from square “units” may not be able to draw (e.g., “1 centimeter” times “1 centimeter” is 1 “square 18
those arrays, because they generate the spatial and geo- centimeter”). Sweeping a line segment of known length 19
metric information carried by physical squares (Outhred through an orthogonal distance to construct a rectangle 20
et al., 2003). Activities of predicting, drawing, placing has shown promise for helping students understand that 21
“units,” and computing appear to interactively support multiplicative relationship (Kobiela, Lehrer, & Pfaff, 22
the development of students’ spatial structuring abilities 2010), as has work partitioning and recomposing rectan- 23

(Outhred & Mitchelmore, 2000). gular space (Lehrer et al., 2003). 24

Effects of spatial indicators. How two-dimensional Distinguishing perimeter and area. One of the most 25

space is structured—with tick marks on sides of shapes, persistent findings related to learning to measure area 26

equally spaced dots, grids, or numerical information about is students’ struggle to distinguish area from the length 27

of the region’s boundary, a challenge that extends into 28

the length of sides—often influences students’ reasoning
middle school for many students (Chappell & Thompson, 29
about area. Geoboard pegs and tick marks on the sides of
1999; Tan-Sisman & Aksu, 2012; Woodward & Byrd, 1983). 30
rectangles has led students, as late as grade 8, to count
Reporting the perimeter of rectangles as their area may 31
individual marks or locations as measures of area (Kamii
32
& Kysh, 2006). Miller (2013), who intentionally varied be more likely when numerical information about side
33
how space was structured across area tasks, found that lengths is present (Miller, 2013). Vague descriptive lan-
34
grids provided the most support for students’ construc- guage for these quantities (especially perimeter), such as
35
tion of composite units (rows) and dots the least support. “area is the inside and perimeter is the outside,” may also
36
The transition from counting squares to multiplying underlie and support this confusion (Clements & Sarama,
37
lengths. With area measure, enumeration shifts from 2009; Pesek & Kirshner, 2000). Students may continue to
38
counting individual units to the multiplication of lengths. assert that the perimeter of rectilinear regions is relevant
39
The area measures of geometric regions can be found to judging their area even as they sensibly and consistently
40
by multiplying two appropriate lengths, sometimes with apply the standard formula (Hino, 2002). Overall, research
41
mediating scalars (e.g., p for circles). By grade 3 or 4, has not yet produced a compelling explanation for this
42
students are expected to learn formulas for the areas of challenge or an effective instructional response.
43
rectangles, squares, and triangles, though first and most Learning trajectories. Learning trajectories have also
44
frequently, the area of rectangles (Hino, 2002). However, been proposed for area measurement and been strongly
45
extensive evidence indicates that many students learn shaped by research on students’ structuring of rectangu-
46
and apply these formulas without understanding why lar space. As with length, Battista (2003, 2012) has iden-
47
they work (Lehrer et al., 2003; Tan, 1998), making them tified multiple levels for both nonnumerical (qualitative
48
prone to mistakes (Zacharos, 2006) and forgetting. Some and geometric) and numerical reasoning about area mea-
49
students and adults take the formula for rectangular area sure. Nonnumerical reasoning (“nonmeasurement” in
50
as its definition (“Area is length times width”; Schifter his terms) varies in sophistication, from comparing the
51
& Szymaszek, 2003; Zacharos, 2006). More positively, areas of regions based on visual judgment only, to directly
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 365 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 366 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 comparing regions (e.g., by superposition), to decomposing the expectation that students will spontaneously apply
2 and recomposing regions, and finally to using geometric important principles of length measurement to area
3 transformations to identify congruent parts of regions. (e.g., unit iteration and the inverse principle). That expec-
4 Numerical reasoning moves from counting single units, tation, however, is not warranted by research (Curry
5 iterating and counting single units, and then counting by et al., 2006). As with length, the presentation of area mea-
6 composite units; to visualizing and enumerating tilings surement in U.S. elementary textbooks is heavily proce-
7 using only numerical information about side lengths; and dural (J. P. Smith et al., 2016). Attention to conceptual
8 finally to generalizing that ability to nonsquare units. principles, already limited for length, drops further for
9 Though development typically begins with understanding area. Procedures are presented in a common sequence
10 area as a stable attribute and qualitative comparison, that roughly parallels the trajectories discussed above:
11 progress in nonnumerical and numerical reasoning is only qualitative comparison of relative “size” in kindergarten
12 loosely related. Battista (2003, 2004) has also argued that and grade 1, covering and counting in grades 2 and 3,
13 four mental processes are involved in understanding area multiplying lengths for rectangles in grades 3 and 4,
14 (and volume) measurement—forming and using mental and developing formulas for other shapes beginning in
15 models, spatial structuring (spatial organization within grade 5. Little support is given to developing students’
16 those models), units-locating in arrays, and organizing capacity to structure rectangular space with composite
17 space by composite units. units or coordinate length and area units to understand
18 In contrast, Clements and colleagues have proposed area formulas (J. P. Smith et al., 2016).
19 and refined a single sequence of eight ordered levels Researchers have developed and assessed instructional
20 (Clements & Sarama, 2009; Barrett et al., in press). Stu- approaches that emphasize motion, transformations,
21 dents begin with the recognition of area as an attribute and decomposition and recomposition of parts of regions
22 of regions; move to haphazard attempts to cover regions and produced some promising results. Zacharos (2006)
23 with “units” before mastering systematic and complete reported Greek upper elementary students learned more
24 coverings; then gradually develop and use iterable com- from an instructional approach emphasizing decomposi-
25 posite units, especially for rectangular space; coordinate tion and recomposition of regions with known areas and
26 length measures and area measure in rectangles; and covering with area “units” of different shapes than from a
27 finally adapt the rectangle formula to other geometric computational approach focusing on measuring lengths
28 shapes. The coordination of length and area units in rect- and using area formulas. Huang and Witz (2011) found
29 angles plays a pivotal role in both trajectories. that Taiwanese grade 4 students benefited more from an
30 CCSSM develops area measurement in a single grade instructional unit that integrated the geometry of decom-
31 (grade 3) with little prior preparation. It defines area in position and recomposition with numerical computation
32 terms of covering units, limits area units to squares, and than corresponding units that focused on only one or
33 relates counting single units to multiplying side lengths the other. Kordaki and Potari (2002) reported that older
34 in rectangles. However, it is silent on many aspects of students’ experiences in a computer microworld that sup-
35 understanding explored in research studies and makes ported decomposition and rigid motion deepened their
36 no explicit connection to length measurement. Confrey knowledge of area. In subsequent work, constructing
37 and colleagues’ learning trajectory has addressed some triangles of equal area using tools in Cabri supported stu-
38 of these gaps (https://www.turnonccmath.net). Their dents in making clearer distinctions between area and
39 “bridging” standards focus on qualitative comparison and perimeter (Kordaki & Balomenou, 2006).
40 ordering and partitioning shapes into units other than Researchers have also developed and tested different
41 squares in grade 1; on the inverse principle in grade 3; and tasks, activities, and tools to replace or enrich the stan-
42 on developing fraction multiplication with area models in dard curricular treatment. Lehrer and colleagues found
43 grade 5. that asking grade 2 students to determine which of three
44
rectangles of different shape but the same area had the
45
Curricular Approaches larger area was productive (Lehrer, Jacobson, et al.,
46
1998; Lehrer et al., 2003). Students’ partitioning of the
47
In the United States, elementary curricula present and rectangles led to covering all three with the same “unit”
48
develop area measure less extensively than length. Fewer (because rectangles’ dimensions were carefully chosen),
49
U.S. curriculum standards address area than length, both supporting comparison and laying the groundwork for
50
prior to (Kasten & Newton, 2001) and in the CCSSM. The organized arrays. Partially structured rectangles—those
51
rationale for this difference is unknown but may reflect with sides partitioned in length units or with some square
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 366 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 367

units placed in the interior—provide different kinds and prospective teachers from four countries did understand 1
levels of support for spatial structuring and have prom- area primarily in procedural terms and expected their 2
ise as classroom tasks (Battista, 2012). Researchers students would understand area measure by learning 3
have also developed dynamic representations of area those procedures. Nonetheless, they also revealed knowl- 4
measurement processes like unit iteration and multipli- edge of important conceptual principles—without appre- 5
cative composition that are difficult to present in static ciating their significant role in learning. In contrast, 6
media (STEM project; https://www.msu.edu/~stemproj Murphy (2012) found that her mathematically weakest 7
/simulations.html) and have begun to explore their effi- participant’s plans were sensitive to known student 8
cacy in classrooms (Kobiela et al., 2010). struggles, involved inquiry, and held more promise for 9
promoting students’ learning than those of her math- 10

Teachers’ Knowledge and Instructional Practices ematically stronger peers. In a word, knowledge of area 11
measure stands in complex relation to anticipated teach- 12

As is true for length, research has not documented in ing practice. 13

14
any detail practicing teachers’ knowledge of area mea-
15
surement or their instructional practices, outside of col- Volume and Its Measure
16
laborations with university-based researchers. Existing
17
evidence suggests that teachers’ conceptions of area and Volume is a measurable attribute of three-dimensional
18
its measure may be limited to the procedures of cover- objects and closed regions—the amount of space enclosed
19
ing and counting individual area units and the standard by the boundary of each. As with length and area, volume
20
computational formulas (Outhred et al., 2003), leaving arises frequently in everyday activity and communica-
21
them ill prepared to teach about area units and their tion (e.g., descriptions of the size of objects) and many
22
properties, partitioning and spatial structuring, and lines of professional work. Like length and area, volume
23
multiplicative composition. But we lack observational is spatial, tangible, and experientially accessible. So in
24
studies of how teachers enact lessons on area measure. many countries, it is introduced early in schooling, often
25
Some experimental evidence indicates that instruction before area, and usually via the everyday experience of
26
focusing only on procedural fluency with area has not pouring liquids between containers of different sizes and
27
served students well. Grade 5 students whose instruc- shapes. Given this rich experiential base, it is somewhat
28
tion developed meaning for area and perimeter formulas surprising students find it difficult to compute and rea-
29
learned more (and did so more quickly) than peers who son analytically about volume across a range of settings
30
were taught the procedures first and then their mean- (Kehle, Wearne, Martin, Strutchens, & Warfield, 2004;
31
ing (Pesek & Krishner, 2000). Zacharos (2006) reported Vergnaud, 1983; 1988).
32
similar results. The specific language that teachers use in Experientially, volume appears as a continuous quan-
33
exploration and discussion of area measurement can affect tity (the total amount of liquid or space enclosed) before
34
students’ attention and learning. “Base” and “height” in it becomes discrete via the choice and use of a volume
35
rectangles can refer to line segments or their length unit (e.g., smaller cubes that may fill a box). We use “vol-
36
measures (Herbel-Eisenmann & Otten, 2011), with dif- ume” to refer to objects such as containers, closed but
37
ferential effects on students’ coordination of spatial and hollow objects like balls, and solid objects like our bod-
38
numerical information. Once measures arise from com- ies, in addition to three-dimensional geometric shapes.
39
putation, the focus of discussion can quickly become Measuring the volume of everyday and geometric objects
40
numerical and arithmetic, with few if any spatial referents presents several new challenges relative to length and
41
(A. G. Thompson et al., 1994). area. First, aligning and comparing the volume of differ-
42
Research has examined prospective elementary teach- ent objects is more difficult as they vary in shape and size
43
ers’ knowledge of area measurement and found it is often on multiple dimensions. Volume units also vary in both
44
limited and procedurally focused (Baturo & Nason, 1996; shape and size and hence are more diverse than length or
45
Berenson et al., 1997; Murphy, 2012). Many prospective area units. Second, though cubic units dominate, volume
46
teachers do not clearly distinguish area and perimeter is often measured in noncubic units (e.g., reservoir capac-
47
as separate quantities (Baturo & Nason, 1996; Reinke, ity in acre-feet). Third, as with area, no widely available
48
1997; Simon & Blume, 1994; Woodward & Byrd, 1983). physical tool analogous to rulers exists for measuring
49
However, when their teaching plans have also been exam- the volume of all types of objects. Graduated cylinders
50
ined, complex relations between content knowledge and (including measuring cups) are used widely in schools
51
pedagogy have emerged. Some of Berenson et al.’s (1997) and homes to measure liquid volume; their numerical
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 367 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 368 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 scales translate the height of liquid (a length) into vol- tually units must be spatially “grounded” in the multi-
2 ume. However, students may use these tools effectively plication of length, width, and height. Not surprisingly,
3 without understanding that volume is the product of the given research on area, the relationship between the
4 cylinder’s cross-sectional area and height. Fourth, stu- product of lengths (and of area and length) and cubic
5 dents not only must face the difficulty of distinguishing volume measures remains obscure for many students
6 volume from surface area of shapes and objects (paral- (Battista, 2012; Lehrer, 2003; Pittalis & Christou, 2010).
7 leling the area/perimeter challenge) they also must dis- Understanding how a unit cube emerges as the product
8 tinguish volume from weight and density as attributes of of three unit lengths seems to impose even more spatial
9 physical objects (Liu, 2012). Finally, students must come and cognitive challenges than seeing how a unit square
10 to understand that different volume formulas exist for emerges as the product of two unit lengths. But others have
11 the same shapes. For right-rectangular prisms (“boxes”), argued that volume is an excellent context for learning
12 volume is both the product of the area of the base and the about the operation of multiplication (e.g., Davydov, 1991).
13 height and the product of its length, width, and height. Conservation of volume. As with other quantities,
14 The equivalence of these two formulas is not obvious to Piaget’s research focused on how children gradually con-
15 many students and teachers, though they express the served volume as an invariant quantity across a range
16 same multiplicative composition. of physical materials—liquid, solid but malleable sub-
17 Though volume emerges frequently in practical activ- stance, and rigid blocks (Piaget, 1965; Piaget et al., 1960).
18 ity, its meaning can be elusive in many contexts. The In the most well-known context, children first confirmed
19 space taken up by two closed objects (say, two balls of the amount of liquid in two equal-height columns in iden-
20 different sizes) presents a simple case; the visually larger tical containers was the same. But after the liquid was
21 ball has greater volume. But for containers that we fill, is poured from one container into another with a different
22 the volume the quantity of liquid placed in these objects shape, many judged the column that rose to the greater
23 or the space displaced by the container and its contents? height contained more liquid, independent of its cross-
24 How are measures of liquid volume related to measures sectional area (Copeland, 1979; Piaget, 1965). Similarly,
25 of volume found by placing cubes or other physical when one of two initially identical “sausage” rolls of plas-
26 “units”? Research to date has only begun to address the ticine was transformed into a longer and thinner shape
27 full range of situations and meanings for volume, includ- (without removing any material), young children denied
28 ing the space occupied by solid units (cubes), the capac- the identity of the two, typically arguing that the longer
29 ity of open objects to contain liquid, shapes that may be roll contained more (Piaget et al., 1960).
30 constructed from blocks, and comparisons of spaces For rigid material, children were asked to build a
31 occupied (Van Dine et al., in press). Due in part to these house with a smaller base but the same “amount of room”
32 complexities, U.S. national performance on volume tasks as a house with a square base and a known height. Con-
33 has been weaker than for length on routine tasks and servation required increasing the height to compensate
34 similar to area on multistep and novel tasks (Kenney & for smaller base area. When children built on the smaller
35 Silver, 1997; Struchens et al., 2003). base, the youngest could not bring themselves to increase
36
the height, as different heights indicated different vol-
37
Development of Students’ Understanding umes. Children who progressed toward conservation
38
realized the height had to increase but could not decide by
39
In school, the study of volume and its measure usually how much. In a related situation, the 3 cm by 3 cm by 4 cm
40
begins with the qualitative comparison of the size of “house” was built from metal cubes in a bowl of water.
41
objects; develops units of liquid volume by measuring Children were asked again to build other houses with the
42
out larger volumes with smaller containers; moves to same amount of room and then asked about the volume of
43
seeing, building, and counting stacks of cubic “units”; the two houses and the water they displaced. Some who
44
and then to counting by composite “units” (e.g., layers had conserved house volume in the first version denied
45
of cubes); and finally to computing via formulas. Many the equivalence when the houses displaced water. Most
46
volume measurement situations are practical; task con- judged that spreading out the cubes in the water occupied
47
texts range widely from mathematics to science, but more space than the prism-shaped house—paralleling
48
interpreting those situations mathematically requires Piaget’s results for area. In another displacement task,
49
abstraction. Students must conceptualize volume units children who had conserved substance when the sausage
50
in a three-dimensional spatial reference system (Hart, roll was transformed in shape judged that the longer,
51
Johnson, Brown, Dickson, & Clarkson, 1989), and even- thinner roll would occupy more space in or displace more
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 368 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 369

water. Overall, the material context influenced children’s three dimensions and used rulers to find lengths along 1
reasoning. Conserving the volume of rigid material was prism edges. The children who could visualize compen- 2
more demanding than liquid or malleable material, and sation or changes to drawings to coordinate multiple 3
reasoning about displaced volume was more difficult dimensions exhibited the most sophisticated reasoning. 4
than was reasoning about nonimmersed objects. Differentiating volume and surface area. When asked 5
Piaget appealed to décalage, the resistance offered by to determine the volume of stacks of blocks, children 6
some physical material to conservation, to explain these often report measures of their surface, usually the blocks 7
results. His research, interpreted in Piagetian terms or visible in each face, ignoring interior blocks (Battista & 8
not, illustrates the complexity of understanding volume. Clements, 1996; Piaget et al., 1960). Corner and edge 9
It involves three different components of objects and blocks are often counted multiple times, raising questions 10
physical situations: the material objects in space, the about what unit students see and enumerate (Clements 11
space taken up by those objects, and the complementary & Sarama, 2009). When asked to draw a cube on paper, 12
space surrounding them. elementary students may draw squares or nets of faces 13
Building on this foundation, some researchers have (Kara et al., 2012; Lehrer, Jenkins, & Osana, 1998). When 14
argued for conceptualizing the development of volume grades 3 and 5 students were asked to build the rectan- 15
measure in the primary grades in terms of four activi- gular prisms shown in isometric drawings (with visible 16
ties: (1) filling, (2) packing, (3) building, and (4) compar- faces on the front, top, and one side), they struggled with 17
ing (Sarama et al., 2011, Van Dine et al., in press). When the row shared by the front and top faces (Battista & 18
these researchers compared students’ work on tasks that Clements, 1996). These contribute two sets of units to 19
involved filling containers with pourable material with surface area but only one set to volume. In their struggle 20
those involving packing containers with discrete “units,” with that row, students overstated the prism’s volume in 21

they found students were generally successful with fill- their constructions. Dorko and Speer (2013) report that 22

ing by grade 2. But success with packing—determining similar challenges can remain for college students. These 23

the number of volume “units” used once a box has been findings indicate both the challenge of distinguishing 24

filled—was not common until grade 4 (Curry et al., 2006; surface area and volume (paralleling the area/perimeter 25

Van Dine et al., in press). Other studies have reported 26

challenge in two dimensions) and of representing volume
27
students do not iterate units of filled volume to compare units as organized arrays. Not surprisingly, how three-
28
the amounts of material in differently shaped contain- dimensional space and shapes are represented—with or
29
ers until grade 4 (Reece & Kamii, 2001). Though it does without grid lines, equally spaced dots, grids, or numeri-
30
not address displaced volume, the four-fold perspec- cal information—influences students’ reasoning (Kara,
31
tive of filling, packing, building, and comparing aligns 2013; Lehrer, 2003). Grade 5 students were much more
32
with Piaget’s findings in highlighting that children’s successful reasoning about the volume of collections of
33
understanding of volume can be quite local and context- cubes when grid lines were present and more likely to
34
specific. If so, then mapping conceptual development of report volume in terms of surface area when they were
35
volume measure will be more demanding than for length not (Vasilyeva et al., 2013).
36
and area. Units, single and composite. With both solid and liquid
37
Comparing the volume of prisms. Many school tasks material, children either intuit or quickly come to appre-
38
ask students to reason about the volume of one particu- ciate the role of units in determining volume. When asked
39
lar geometric shape, the right rectangle prism (or box). which of two cylinders holds more liquid, kindergarten
40
Researchers have examined the development of students’ students typically focus on the height of liquid without
41
ability to compare the volume of prisms and enumerate attending to cylinders’ width. However, by grade 1, the
42
or compute prism volume, with and without spatial indi- same children who have had explored liquid volume can
43
cators like grid lines. Kara (2013) examined grade 4 and 6 predict which container has greater capacity, check by
44
students’ ability to compare the volume of pairs of prisms pouring and counting successive increments, and state
45
that differed (a) only in height, (b) in both height and that larger units of liquid volume produce smaller volume
46
width, and (c) on all three dimensions. Many students measures of the same container (Van Dine et al., in press).
47
struggled with the task, often using direct visual com- By grade 3, students understand that the amount of
48
parison, counting the cubes indicated on faces, or adding space enclosed in a shape can be determined by filling the
49
the lengths of edges. More successful students reasoned space with smaller “units.” But these intuitions are also
50
by compensation (“this one has a smaller width but it is consistent with a range of misconceptions and partial
51
taller”). A middle-performing group focused on two or structurings of space that lead to incorrect measures of
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 369 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 370 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 volume (e.g., only counting the visible cubes in stacks of attempting to ground them in methods understood by
2 blocks (Battista, 1999, 2004; Curry et al., 2006). students (e.g., stacking layers and enumerating the
3 For both practical and mathematical reasons, the shift stack). Lehrer has reported that even grade 2 and 3 stu-
4 from reasoning with single units to composite units is an dents can, with appropriate support, make sense of the
5 important development. Research indicates that students volume of a cylinder as the product of the area of the base
6 with some instructional support can move beyond think- and the height by coming to think about the base area as a
7 ing about volume in terms of outer surfaces and begin to very thin layer of noncubic units (Lehrer, 2003).
8 think in terms of organized groups of units (e.g., a “wall” Nonstandard tasks involving the volume of prisms pose
9 or the “floor” layer of cubes) (Barrett et al., 2011). Battista new challenges for students, especially for those who have
10 & Clements (1996) found that grade 3 students benefited simply memorized formulas. For example, students can be
11 from repeated experiences in predicting and checking asked to fill boxes of known dimensions with “packages” of
12 the size of “buildings” made from cubes; these provided two or more cubic units or boxes composed of several rect-
13 opportunities for reflecting on the layering process. angular prisms with single cubic units. Battista (2007)
14 Grade 5 students were more often able to coordinate and found that few grade 7 and 8 students were successful
15 explain the interactions of the side and the front or top solving these tasks. Two critical strategies were required
16 surfaces of a cube working from its two-dimensional net to solve such tasks: forming an appropriate spatial struc-
17 drawing. Those who saw the building process in terms of ture of the situation and coordinating that structure with
18 successive layering tended to recognize that individual appropriate multiplication operations.
19 cubes must be counted only once. Learning trajectories. Battista’s (2004, 2012) and
20 As with area measure, the construction and use of Clements and colleagues’ (Clements & Sarama, 2009;
21 composite volume units has been cast in the broader Van Dine, et al., in press) learning trajectories for volume
22 ability to spatially structure three-dimensional space. As measurement reflect strong parallels with those they
23 students have developed the ability to construct arrays have proposed for area measure. With the latter group,
24 of square units (by way of iterating rows or columns validation research has led to significant revisions in
25 through the space; Battista et al., 1998), with appropriate their initial model (Van Dine et al., in press). Battista has
26 argued that students’ nonmeasurement reasoning about
experience and support they generally come to “see” and
27 volume proceeds from gross visual judgments, to direct
organize prismoidal spaces as arrays of cubic units (by
28 comparison (e.g., by superposition), to decomposing and
way of iterable layers or faces that fill the space; Battista,
29 recomposing shapes, and finally using geometric trans-
2004; Battista & Clements, 1996). Nevertheless, for the
30 formations to assess congruence. Determining exact
reasons discussed above, students’ ability to structure
31
three-dimensional space as arrays appears to lag behind volume measures (measurement reasoning) begins with
32
their ability in two dimensions (Curry et al., 2006). This counting single units and proceeds to iterating single units,
33
spatial competence, especially the ability to see and use to forming composite units, to visualizing the filling or
34
composite units, has been proposed as key to under- building of prisms from information about side lengths,
35
standing volume formulas. and finally to developing the ability to reason with noncu-
36
The transition from composite units to multiplication. bic units. Battista (2004) has also argued that the same
37
At some point, whether provoked by teachers or their mental processes—forming and using mental models,
38
own curiosity, students begin to relate counts of single spatial structuring, units-locating in arrays, and organiz-
39
and composite volume units to lengths of the sides and ing space by composite units—underlie reasoning about
40
the areas of faces of prisms. Understanding volume for- both volume and area measurement.
41
mulas for prisms (and other shapes) typically involves In the first level of Clements and colleagues’ trajec-
42
coordinating the number of units in the base area or ini- tory, students recognize volume as an attribute of shapes
43
tial layer with the height that specifies the number of lay- and objects (Clements & Sarama, 2009). In the second,
44
ers needed to fill the space (Battista & Clements, 1996). If they structure and organize cubes to pack boxes to find
45
students structure the space in layers, eventually layer- their volume, build objects from cubes, or fill containers
46
counting can be translated into the numerical operation with units of pourable material to determine volume. But
47
of multiplying the area of the base layer by the height. their efforts often produce only approximate measures,
48
But this transition may take time for many students, and compare all dimensions at once, or confound such com-
49
curricular demands to use formulas often precede stu- parisons. At the third level, students develop single unit
50
dents’ understanding. Instruction typically highlights structures of the measured space before composing
51
the efficiency of formulas versus counting units without rows or columns of cubes as composite units. Next, they
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 370 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 371

iterate those rows or columns, structuring layers as two- are identified, but layers and other composite units are 1
dimensional arrays that can be stacked and counted. At not mentioned. The term “capacity” does not appear. The 2
this level, students can both compose and decompose importance of learning to structure three-dimensional 3
layers and portions of layers to find measures of com- space as reviewed above receives no attention in CCSSM 4
pound boxes or prisms. They finally master structuring or in existing elementary curricula. 5
space in three-dimensional arrays, and that ability in We have noted that many students struggle to relate 6
turn supports the coordination of addition and multipli- their view of space to numerical information in reason- 7
cation to conceptualize and enumerate more complex ing about the volume of prisms (Battista, 2012; Kara 8
three-dimensional spaces. et al., 2012; Sarama & Clements, 2009). But students’ 9
As this summary has indicated, research on students’ challenges in learning about volume and its measure may 10
understanding of volume has primarily focused on cubic have as much to do with curricular experiences and teach- 11
units and right-rectangular prisms—in direct parallel ing as with the inherent difficulty of conceptualizing and 12
to area measure (square units and rectangles). Where measuring volume. Recall that grade 3 students reasoned 13
research on mastering this central element of volume successfully about the volume of cylinders, much earlier 14
measurement has produced important and educationally than curricula present that task, when teachers thought- 15
useful insights, prism volume represents but a corner of fully directed their inquiry and discussion (Lehrer, 2003; 16
the full range of contexts where volume and its measure Lehrer, Strom, & Confrey, 2002). 17
arise. Much more work is needed to learn the full develop- Researchers have argued that novel tasks and activi- 18
ment of students’ understanding. ties can support learning about volume and merit greater 19
study. Davydov (1991) viewed volume measure as an ideal 20
context for teaching children about multiplication by 21
Curricular Approaches
way of conversion between units. A central task involved 22

determining how many small glasses of water could be 23

In the United States and other countries, students have
drawn from a much larger container. Elementary students 24
experience with volume from the first year of schooling
quickly found that measuring with the glasses was tedious 25
(van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & Buys, 2008). Explorations
and difficult (without spilling water). Their teacher intro- 26
of volume and its measure typically begin by compar-
27
ing the size of physical objects or pictures of them and duced an intermediate unit, a larger mug, six of which
28
the relative capacity of containers to hold continuous emptied the container. This led to a discussion of how the
29
material (e.g., water or sand). U.S. curricula have tradi- mug could be used to solve the initial task as posed. Even-
30
tionally introduced the term “capacity” as a measurable tually the teacher showed the students that five glass-
31
property of containers separately from “volume,” defined fuls of water filled the mug, leading to a characterization
32
either in continuous or discrete terms. This distinction of multiplication through the conversion from glasses
33
reflects the complexity of the quantity discussed above to mugs, and the determination that the container held
34
but also makes subsequent integration of the two quan- 30 glasses. Developing multiplication from conversions
35
tities more challenging. By the upper elementary grades, among volume units remains an interesting prospect (see
36
work with volume focuses on counting cube units and also Dougherty, 2008).
37
then to using the volume formulas for rectangular prisms, Researchers have also identified motion as a potentially
38
especially “length times width times height.” Little atten- useful component of students’ experience with volume.
39
tion is given to connecting layers to the multiplicative Lehrer and colleagues (Lehrer et al., 2002; Lehrer et al.,
40
structure of the formula. Throughout this development, 2003) have argued that sweeping a segment or face
41
print materials (e.g., textbooks) rely on two-dimensional through a space or region can help students see spatial
42
diagrams to represent three-dimensional objects and quantities as a continuous collection of parts of infini-
43
shapes, thus making more demands on students’ visual- tesimal width, much like the integration of slices in
44
ization skills. calculus. This sweeping operation aligns with the “pull-
45
In contrast, CCSSM locates work on volume in U.S. ing” tool in Google Sketchup that extends a flat shape
46
classrooms only in grade 5, with little prior preparation— into a prism or cylinder. Panorkou and Pratt (2011) found
47
paralleling its focus on area measure in grade 3. It intro- that elementary students productively engaged with vol-
48
duces standard volume units (unit cubes), defines volume ume using digital perspective shifting (camera angle
49
as the count of those units, and states that volume for- and magnification) and pulling tools. Tools for dynami-
50
mulas produce the same results as counting individual cally constructing and manipulating three-dimensional
51
cubes. Both formulas for the volume of rectangular prisms objects may support richer visual conceptualizations of
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 371 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 372 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 space than do traditional tasks posed and solved in static angle, and a distance from the angle’s vertex. As com-
2 two-dimensional media. monly defined, angles are the union of two rays that share
3 Some research has suggested that transfer and gener- a common endpoint (Battista, 2007). But this geometric
4 alization of conceptual units, unit operations and units- definition obscures the complicated history of the concept
5 coordinating is more likely when instruction focuses (Keiser, 2004), its competing meanings, and the concep-
6 on the abstraction of units and unit collections (Barrett tions that students develop. In contrast to other quanti-
7 et al., 2011; Cullen, Miller, Barrett, Clements, & Sarama, ties we have discussed, understanding angles and their
8 2011; Curry et al., 2006). This conjecture is most appli- measure is complicated by the absence of a single defi-
9 cable to volume because students can typically draw on nition of the target quantity (see also the discussion of
10 prior experiences and understanding with length and angle in Sinclair, Cirillo, & de Villiers, this volume). This
11 area. These researchers designed tasks to prompt stu- complexity creates substantial challenges for teachers to
12 dents to express and coordinate their thinking about teach and students to learn angle and its measure.
13 units across length, area, and volume contexts to justify Other conceptions of angle compete with the standard
14 their reasoning. A related approach has focused on par- geometric definition stated above. Angle can also be
15 titioning objects into equal parts (equipartitioning) to defined as a turn—a rotation or pivoting about a single
16 develop and highlight the concept of ratio. Confrey and point; as two sides and the space enclosed between them;
17 colleagues have explored this approach (termed “split- and as the subtended (“cut-off”) arc of any circle whose
18 ting”) across contexts and quantities, including base-10 center is the angle’s vertex. Where the standard and
19 number (Confrey, Maloney, Nguyen, Mojica, & Myers, enclosed area definitions depend on static images of geo-
20 2009; Confrey & Smith, 1995). Teachers developed lessons metric figures, the turn definition is inherently dynamic.
21 and assessments through questioning students about The object defined is a rotational motion, not an object in
22 the process of breaking regions or numbers into equal the plane. Research on measurement has shown that each
23 sized parts. conception has its own physical basis, introduces par-
24 ticular challenges, and supports partial understandings.
25 Teachers’ Knowledge and Instructional Practices Angle measurement relates the static geometric figure
26 to rotational motion. Angles differ in the amount one ray
27 Research has not yet focused on teachers’ understanding has been rotated to coincide with the other; an angle’s
28 of volume (e.g., compared to perimeter and area) or their measure is its amount of rotational sweep (Osborne, 1976;
29 instructional practices in teaching the topic. One study Lehrer, 2003, Battista, 2007). By convention, one stan-
30 found that prospective teachers lacked both confidence dard unit of angle measure is a degree, 1/360 of a com-
31 and knowledge of surface area and volume measurement, plete rotation. Using the subtended arc definition, angles
32 especially when tasks could not be solved with formulas are measured in radians, as the ratio of the length of
33 (Jones, Mooney, & Harries, 2002). Another similarly “cut-off” arc to the circle’s circumference. So the mea-
34 reported that prospective elementary teachers’ under- sure of a “straight” angle that specifies a half-turn can be
35 standing was weak and centered on knowing formulas. reported either as 180 degrees or as p radians.
36 Some participants actively resisted the instructor’s sug- Mathematically, angles are essential for classifying
37 gestion that teaching volume required any other kind of geometric figures (e.g., triangles and quadrilaterals),
38 knowledge (Zevenbergen, 2005). understanding rotations as transformations, and learn-
39
ing and distinguishing congruence and similarity. They
40
Angle and Its Measure provide graphical meaning for the concept of slope, and
41
the relations between angles and side lengths in trian-
42
Along with line segments, polygons and circles, and gles are the core of trigonometry. In the practical world,
43
polyhedra and spheres, angles are essential tools for angles are critical elements in arts, crafts, and construc-
44
structuring space mathematically and carrying out prac- tion, as well as in everyday activities of orienting and
45
tical activities. They are a central component of “geomet- navigating between spatial locations, positioning our
46
ric measurement,” along with length, area, and volume bodies relative to other objects, and tracking the motion
47
(Battista, 2012; NGA & CCSSO, 2010) and a tool for of objects.
48
“earth measure” (Lehrer, 2003). Angles structure space Protractors are used widely in schools to measure
49
numerically, with spatial extent conceived in rotational angles. Their structure and use parallels rulers in many
50
terms. For example, in polar coordinate systems, points respects; we align one ray with the zero mark and read
51
in the plane are uniquely located by an origin point, an off numerical values where the other ray crosses the
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 372 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 373

scale. But like rulers, the structure and purpose of pro- situations (Clements & Sarama, 2007; Newcombe & 1
tractors remain opaque to many students (Dohrmann Huttenlocher, 2000). When they are engaged in mean- 2
& Kuzle, 2014; Mitchelmore & White, 2000; Munier, ingful exploration with their bodies and visual sense, ele- 3
Devichi, & Merle, 2008). Alternatively, computer software mentary students can also relate angle to lines of sight, 4
packages (e.g., Cabri, Geogebra, Geometer’s Sketchpad, distinguish angle from distance, and relate experiences 5
Google Sketchup) automatically report angle measures with lines of sight to the opening and closing of a physical 6
associated with constructed figures. angle model (Devichi & Munier, 2013; Munier et al., 2008). 7
Research on students’ ability to structure two- 8

Development of Students’ Understanding dimensional space has shown that seeing a rectangular 9
array is no guarantee students can draw it (Battista et al., 10

Research has shown that prior to instruction defining 1998; Outhred & Mitchelmore, 2000). Similar results 11

angle as a geometric figure, children tend to understand have been reported for angles. Piaget and colleagues pre- 12
sented children with a drawing of supplementary angles 13
angle either as bodily turning or rotation, but these are
and asked children to reproduce the drawing (Piaget 14
experientially different. Turning is the change in one’s
et al., 1960). The children could look at the model behind 15
heading in traversing a path. Rotation involves no move-
them and measure it with various tools, but not while they 16
ment of the agent, only a change in line of sight from one
were drawing. The youngest students simply used visual 17
point of focus to another. Integrating these two perspec-
estimation to construct their copies. Older children saw 18
tives is difficult. Children’s ability to use turns to under-
the need to measure but tended to measure the lengths 19
stand angle appears to depend on the availability of figural
of the segments. Only later did they try to copy the 20
cues that indicate the “arms” of an angle (Mitchelmore
inclination of the angled segment or measure distances 21
& White, 2000). They may not recognize mounting a hill
between endpoints that determined the “openness” of 22
after travel on a flat road as an upward turn or pivoting
the angles. 23
right or left as turns (Mitchelmore & White, 1998). In
Fundamental challenges for learners. Whether they 24
contrast to angle as turn, angle as rotation involves visu-
rely on turn or rotation, students face some basic chal- 25
alizing completed motions about a point of rotation or
lenges in understanding angle and its measure. First, 26
a ratio between a given rotation and one full rotation.
the quantity itself is not a tangible aspect of space. The 27
Studies of children’s experience with Logo program-
standard degree unit is not a perceptual feature of a pair 28
ming indicate the need to coordinate situations involv-
of rays, nor for any physical model of angles (Dohrmann 29
ing turning and others involving rotations about a point
& Kuzle, 2014). Second, children must integrate a broad 30
(Clements, Battista, & Sarama, 2001; Clements, Battista,
collection of experiences in different angle situations 31
Sarama, & Swaminathan, 1996; Clements & Burns, 2000;
to grasp the conceptual basis of angle measurement and 32
Lehrer, et al., 1998; Simmons & Cope, 1993). Most stu-
use protractors with understanding (Mitchelmore & 33
dents who have programmed in Logo to construct tar-
34
get paths or shapes progress in their understanding of White, 2000). These experiences include headings along
35
angle measure (Clements & Battista, 1989). However, routes, use of intersecting line models such as scissors,
36
Logo competence can be contextually bound; students and changes in slope along ramps, as well as rotational
37
do not always transfer their understanding from Logo images such as the hands on a clock, or on a spinning dial
38
to work on more standard geometric tasks (Simmons & (Mitchelmore, 1997; Mitchelmore & White, 1998). A third
39
Cope, 1993). This result aligns with the more general challenge concerns coordinating dynamic models of angle
40
pattern that children’s competence in games and every- with more static images, abstracting the elements essen-
41
day tasks does not always appear in their work with the tial and common to both (Clements & Burns, 2000). Finally,
42
notations and descriptions used in school (Carraher & perceptual challenges include the coordination of view-
43
Schliemann, 2002). points from which angles may appear to change as the
44
Way-finding along paths (e.g., navigating with a map) viewpoint shifts (e.g., Gravemeijer, 1998).
45
can provide an alternative experiential base for angle as Research has shown that students abstract many
46
turn. One may change one’s heading by some angle or partial understandings (“misconceptions”) about angle
47
pursue a new heading in relation to an established ref- and its measure, many of which relate to its static mean-
48
erent, usually north, a heading of 0 degrees (Clements & ing. Some students infer from textual presentations that
49
Sarama, 2009). Children as young as 3 understand that all angles are right angles (Clements & Battista, 1989;
50
maps represent space and can begin interpreting maps, Devichi & Munier, 2013); others infer that changes in
51
planning navigation, and learning from maps in simple orientation from horizontal or vertical alter an angle’s
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 373 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 374 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 measure (Lehrer Jenkins, & Osana, 1998). Older students of segments, pairs of sides in a figure, or related vectors
2 have argued that angles measuring 0, 180, and 360 degrees along a broken path. This level appears to depend on a ref-
3 are not angles at all (Keiser, 2004). They often judge erence to a complete rotation (a 360-degree turn) before
4 angles drawn with longer segments to have greater mea- interpreting half, quarter, or eighth rotations, and finally
5 sure than the same angles drawn with shorter segments smaller units.
6 (Clements & Battista, 1989; Devichi & Munier, 2013;
7 Lehrer, et al., 1998; Stavy & Tirosh, 2000; Wilson & Curricular Approaches
8 Rowland, 1993). Some take the distance between cor-
9 responding points on the rays as an index of the angle’s In many countries, curricula present angles as static geo-
10 measure (Lehrer, Jenkins, & Osana, 1998; Lehrer & metric objects, starting with right angles (“square cor-
11 Littlefield, 1993). Indeed, the distance across the angle’s ners”) as initial visual benchmarks (Devichi & Munier,
12 interior is both a visually salient attribute and a sensible 2013). Angles are used to classify polygons (e.g., acute and
13 measure. The ratio of the vertical distance from a point obtuse angles to distinguish triangles). In later grades,
14 on one ray to the other to the distance from the vertex is degrees are introduced as angular units of measure and
15 the tangent of an acute angle (Osborne, 1976). protractors as tools for measuring and drawing angles.
16 In instructional studies, researchers have encour- But because one degree is such a small rotation, unit itera-
17 aged children to characterize angle in terms of the space tion and the inverse principle are not discussed. Instead,
18 between rays or as the spread covered by physical wedges partitioning right angles into equal-size parts provides
19 (Millsaps, 2012; Wilson & Adams, 1992). One group of approximate units. More innovative approaches have
20 grade 6 students constructed their own tools for com- linked angles to students’ bodily experience (Fyhn, 2008;
21 paring angles (paper wedges), estimated the rotational C. P. Smith, King, & Hoyte, 2014), to pie-shaped iterable
22 positions of two rays in an on-screen game, and used units (Wilson & Adams, 1992), or to motion of the Logo
23 Logo to build various polygons (Browning & Garza-Kling, turtle (Noss & Hoyles, 1996; Papert, 1980). Devichi and
24 Munier (2013) found that connecting angle to elementary
2009). Before the instruction, they described angles as
25 students’ lines of sight supported greater conceptual
“corners” and generally responded at the visual level of
26 growth than the standard French curricular focus on
the van Hiele hierarchy. After instruction, they used lan-
27 static objects.
guage focusing on the rays (e.g., “the space in between the
28 rays has more room”) and the lines meeting at a vertex.
29 Teachers’ Knowledge and Instructional Practice
College students with static conceptions of angle have
30 benefited from instruction focusing on measuring angles
31 Research indicates that teachers struggle to integrate
via subtended arcs (Moore, 2013). These findings sup- different meanings of angle and wrestle with the same
32 port claims that children need to abstract multiple facets
33
misconceptions held by their students (Silfverberg &
of angle measure from different physical or perceptual Joutsenlahti, 2014; (Yazgan, Argun, & Emre, 2009). Teach-
34
situations (Battista, 2007; Lehrer, 2003; Mitchelmore & ers have participated in designing productive classroom
35
White, 2000), including the amount of turning on a path, situations to help students conceptualize angle (Jacob-
36
the amount of a bend in a straw, the rotation of a wheel son & Lehrer, 2000; Lehrer & Pritchard, 2002), but their
37
about its center, the slope of a hilly path, and the opening impact on student learning needs to be examined. Teach-
38
of scissors (Mitchelmore, 1997; Mitchelmore & White, ers’ productive physical experience with angle may not
39
1998; 2000). easily translate into effective instruction. When Fyhn
40
Clements and Sarama (2009) have proposed a learn- (2010) asked teachers to use their climbing experience to
41
ing trajectory for angle measurement but not yet sub- teach their students about angle using the spatial relations
42
jected it to empirical evaluation. Children develop initial between the rope and the climbing surface, they struggled
43
competence with right angles through play activities (e.g., to do so effectively. Teachers, like their students, need to
44
building block towers). They then begin to use “angle” to integrate diverse experiences with angle, both static and
45
name turns or angles at a vertex, distinguish angles from dynamic, to support more effective instruction.
46
other aspects of figures, and notice that angles either
47
match or differ based on their sides. Later, children sort Time and Its Measure
48
angles according to a salient benchmark (typically, a
49
right angle). Following this, children begin to abstract The flow of time is a salient aspect of human experi-
50
angle measure to compare angles apart from contex- ence, but children and adults alike can struggle to align
51
tual details of figures. Finally, children learn to measure subjective experience with the objective time reported
52
angles and use those measures as properties of pairs by clocks (e.g., in the duration of events; Bergson, 1965; 1-LINE LONG

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 374 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 375

Fraisse, 1982). In contrast to physical quantities, time is with Piaget’s studies. He explored numerous aspects of 1
intangible (van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & Buys, 2005); it temporal understanding, but his most influential research 2
cannot be physically demarcated or experienced kines- concerned how children come to distinguish elapsed time 3
thetically like length and weight. Different time intervals from other quantities that change over time (Piaget, 4
cannot be directly compared using side-by-side place- 1969). He set two objects moving along parallel paths at 5
ment, superposition, or bodily feedback. To become vis- different uniform speeds from adjacent starting points, 6
ible, time must be measured through the uniform motion either stopping the faster object first and letting the 7
of objects (e.g., the second hand of a clock) or material other catch up a bit (different durations) or stopping 8
(sand or water flowing through an opening). Time is a clear them at the same time (same duration). In both situations, 9
example of how our understanding of quantities has been the distance traveled was different, and young children 10
shaped by the development of measurement tools. Before responded about temporal duration for both in terms 11
mechanical clocks proliferated in Europe in the 14th cen- of distance covered. Longer distances indicated longer 12
tury, time (beyond the passage of days) was not a stable temporal durations. Transitional children, who initially 13
quantity; it was judged in highly subjective, nonanalytic focused on distance in same duration situations, cor- 14
terms (Crosby, 1997). Today, however, temporal mea- rected themselves when they focused on the fact that 15
sures, units, and tools may arise more frequently in chil- corresponding departure and arrival times matched. 16
dren’s everyday experience than for any other quantity. Different researchers using similar methods have gener- 17
Understanding time involves constructing and integrat- ally replicated these results (Acredolo, 1989; Siegler & 18
ing knowledge about different temporal issues (Friedman, Richards, 1979). 19
1982b; Piaget, 1969); a singular “concept of time” fails Researchers in education have used Piaget’s concep- 20
to do justice to this complexity. Children must come to tual framing, tasks, and reliance on individual interviews 21
differentiate time from other quantities that covary with to further explore students’ understanding of time. Long 22
it, such as distance traveled and the heights of people and Kamii (2001) reported that elementary students gen- 23
and plants. They must master issues of temporal order erally understand transitivity among temporal durations 24
and sequence of events, as well as simultaneity. They before they can replicate and count temporal units, indicat- 25
must learn to read clocks, both digital and analog, and ing some qualitative understandings of time precede more 26
report times in acceptable linguistic terms (e.g., “half- numerical aspects. Another study replicated Piaget’s find- 27
past 10”)—constructions that vary widely across lan- ing that young children struggle to distinguish “older” 28
guage and culture. And they must learn to judge and from “larger,” paralleling the conflation of distance and 29
compute durations between events or times, reasoning time. When asked to compare the ages of two trees repre- 30
that often requires adding and subtracting base-60 and sented in a series of annual pictures, many primary grade 31
base-12 numerical values, different from the familiar students responded that the larger tree was older (Kamii 32
base-10 system. & Russell, 2010). 33
The principles that shape the measurement of other Numerous studies have examined students’ reasoning 34
quantities also structure the measurement of time (e.g., on clock-reading tasks. Consistent with results in other 35
identical units, the inverse principle, nested units, and mathematical domains, students have used different strat- 36
unit conversion), but temporal conventions play a larger egies to read time from analog clocks. Depending on the 37
role (Friedman, 1982a). The names of important temporal specific location of the clock hands, elementary students 38
intervals are arbitrary (e.g., days of the week and months either recognize a known location of clock hands or count 39
of the year), analog clocks subdivide hours in particular forward or backward from a benchmark location (hour 40
ways (e.g., in five minute segments), and different lan- or half-hour) by 5- or 1-minute units (Siegler & McGilly, 41
guages express specific times quite differently (Burny, 1989). However, students can struggle to distinguish and 42
Valcke, Desothe, & Van Luit, 2013). Analog clocks and coordinate hour and minute hand locations (e.g., reading 43
digital displays appear more widely in everyday experi- 8:15 as “fifteen forty-one”). They incorrectly mix hour 44
ence than other measurement tools. But in contrast to and minute values with base-10 values when reading for- 45
the hourglass, the passage of time is often invisible in ward from a given clock time (e.g., the time “20 minutes 46
these tools. from now”; Earnest, 2014). Reading forward is particu- 47
48
larly challenging when adding minutes requires passage
49
Development of Students’ Understanding to the next hour (Earnest, 2015). Students face similar
50
challenges in computing temporal durations between
51
As we have seen with other quantities, our knowledge of two clock times. Even grade 5 students struggle to coor-
52
1-LINE LONG children’s understanding of time and its measure began dinate hour and minute units in reasoning about these

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 375 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 376 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 differences when the start or end time is not an even hour Teachers’ Knowledge and Instructional Practice
2 (Kamii & Russell, 2012). For example, the duration of
3 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. was frequently reported as 3 hours Studies of classroom practice in teaching time measure-
4 and 30 minutes. The propensity to subtract minutes inap- ment are even scarcer than the quantities already dis-
5 propriately may reflect students’ judgment that finding cussed. Williams’s (2012) study of clock reading that
6 temporal “differences” should involve subtraction. Draw- involved extensive observation in elementary classrooms
7 ing on embodied cognition theory (Lakoff & Nunez, 2000), has been a notable exception. To date, the research com-
8 Williams (2012) has shown that three image schemas— munity lacks research focusing on teachers’ instructional
9 proximity, container, and source-path-goal—account for knowledge and practice and on their effects on students’
10 grade 2 students’ correct and sensibly mistaken readings learning.
11 of analog clocks.
12 Relative to the complexity of understanding time and Summary: Progress to Date
13 its measure, research on students’ understandings of and Productive Next Steps
14 time remains quite modest. Compared to other quantities,
15 we know comparatively little about students’ temporal In closing, we summarize the research progress reviewed
16 thinking and its development. Correct performance may in this chapter—in a more unified way, not quantity by
17 mask students’ struggles as faulty understandings often quantity. Based on that assessment, we offer our sense of
18 produce correct judgments (Williams, 2012). Neither priorities for future work.
19 integrative work (as embodied in learning trajectories)
20 nor research reviews exist. Children’s understanding of Progress Thus Far
21 time, in school classrooms and outside, is a domain ripe
22 for further investigation. Longer term accounts of learning. The 1980s and 1990s
23
were productive decades for research on the teaching
24
Curricular Approaches and learning of measurement, particularly on students’
25
understandings and use of spatial measures (length, area,
26
School curricula typically focus more on the procedures volume, and angle). Subsequently, the focus has shifted
27
and conventions of time and its measure than on develop- from studies of students’ work at particular ages or
28
ing students’ understanding (e.g., coordinating students’ grades measuring particular quantities to longer dura-
29
temporal experience with objective time). U.S. curricula tion accounts that integrate and synthesize insights from
30
typically begin with conventional issues and qualitative multiple studies. The learning trajectories that have been
31
judgments (e.g., the order of daily events) before read- proposed for length, area, and volume are detailed and
32
ing time from analog and digital clocks, beginning with educationally useful accounts of how students’ under-
33
even hours and half-hours. Reading analog clocks is the standing of these quantities and their measures develops
34
central focus in most countries, but expectations for in the elementary years. For length and volume, empirical
35
reporting clock time differ across cultures. For example, tests have led to significant revisions, such as the doubt
36
clock times are read in Chinese essentially in digital cast on the role of indirect length comparison before the
37
terms (e.g., “5 hours and 23 minutes”) where other lan- introduction of length “units” and rulers. These trajec-
38
guages such as English and Flemish have many irregular tories constitute specific theories of learning that can be
39
expressions for specific clock times (“7 before half 6”). applied, tested, and refined in a range of settings. Suit-
40
Curricula also emphasize the conventional aspects of ably stated, they can be useful in planning and evaluating
41
time, such as the names of days of the week and times of classroom instruction.
42
the day. Computing elapsed time begins with even hour But this advance carries limitations and generates
43
start times before progressing to more difficult durations. new challenges. First, it is not clear how much these tra-
44
Alternative curricular sequences have not been proposed, jectories reflect time-honored ways of understanding
45
but researchers have suggested some productive addi- and supporting learning to measure spatial quantities,
46
tions to the current sequence. Long and Kamii (2010) have how well the proposed levels of understanding account
47
proposed teacher questions to support students’ coordi- for the full diversity of students, and whether quite dif-
48
nation of subjective and objective time (e.g., “Will we have ferent sequences may be equally effective if supported
49
enough time to do X before the bus comes at 3 p.m.?”) and by coherent curricula and teaching. How much are
50
the construction of tools to show equal changes in some researchers seeing the reflection of their own assump-
51
visible quantity in equal intervals of time. tions represented in the tasks and activities that have
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 376 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 377

revealed students’ thinking? Second, since the trajec- present in other domains such as algebra, the role 1
tories have been developed from careful assessments of of physical tools in this relationship may be unique to 2
individual students working outside their regular class- measurement. 3
rooms, we do not yet know how well they will fare with The correct use of measurement tools in standard 4
groups of students working in close interaction in intact and overpracticed ways frequently conceals students’ 5
classrooms (Battista, 2007). This is especially true in weak understandings—an argument mostly frequently 6
classrooms where established norms support students’ voiced for area and volume measure. Since tools, units, 7
explanations and justifications and expect students to and quantities are reflexively related and understood (or 8
question each other (Wood et al., 1993). Third, while not), accepting students’ “correct” use of tools without 9
developing trajectories for specific quantities has many requiring them to (a) explain why their measures make 10
advantages, it is consistent with and even supportive sense or (b) use tools in nonstandard ways can lead teach- 11
of the view that teaching measurement should proceed ers to overestimate student understanding and miss 12
sequentially through a series of different quantities. Most important teaching and learning opportunities. Though 13
trajectories, save the Dutch teaching/learning trajectory such richer forms of practice depend on deeper teacher 14
(van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & Buys, 2008), do not explic- knowledge and skill and require more classroom time than 15
itly support considering the measurement principles shallower treatments, the gains for deep understanding 16
that hold across quantities. That said, there has been (and costs of weak understanding) are significant. Thus 17
some limited attention to exploring a more general and far, curriculum developers have not addressed these dif- 18
unified view of development (Barrett et al., 2011; Battista, ficult challenges, and most teachers are ill prepared to 19

2007; Curry et al., 2006; Outhred & Mitchelmore, 2004). move beyond a focus on procedural competence. 20

Fourth, the detailed description of levels of understand- 21

ing has been important for researchers but may not be 22

Priorities for Research and Development
appropriate, accessible, and useful for teachers. Most 23

need guidance in seeing how to use trajectories and may 24

More research attention. We have tried to demonstrate
25
need a different level of description of students’ think- that a sufficient body of insight from research studies
26
ing (Wickstrom, 2014; Wickstrom et al., 2012). Fifth, the has justified a chapter devoted to the learning and teach-
27
advances represented in learning trajectories do not ing of measurement in this volume. But we also hope
28
extend to all quantities teachers and students measure we have shown that this domain merits more research
29
in elementary classrooms. More basic research is needed attention. Access to and understanding of too many impor-
30
on other quantities such as time and angle, and the com- tant mathematical and scientific concepts depend on
31
plexity of understanding those quantities may make devel- understanding the measurement of continuous quanti-
32
opment work at least as challenging as it has been for ties. Beyond the open questions that remain for specific
33
volume. quantities, increased attention to the learning and teach-
34
Addressing the opacity of tools. Whether we under- ing of time and angle measurement is especially needed.
35
stand “tools” to refer only to physical objects (e.g., rulers, Attend to common conceptual principles across
36
protractors, and clocks) or, as we have argued, also to quantities. In preparing this chapter, we found it striking
37
computational formulas, research has shown repeatedly how often the same conceptual principles and associated
38
that students often do not understand the measurement learning challenges appear in the measurement of dif-
39
tools they use. They often fail to grasp how those tools ferent quantities, though curricula (standards and text-
40
produce measures that are counts of units of the target books) treat the measurement of each quantity as a new
41
quantity and how those units are represented in or on and separate topic. Despite the clear focus in research on
42
the tool. Primary grade students count ruler marks in equipartitioning, units and their iteration, units and sub-
43
measuring length, especially when they cannot align the units, the inverse principle, and the nontransparency of
44
measured object with the zero mark. They struggle to most measurement tools, curricula (and arguably most
45
interpret the positions of analog clock hands in base-60 classroom teaching) focus students’ attention on partic-
46
and base-12 numerical values. Older students can use ular quantities and the correct use of tools, as if each was
47
protractors to measures angles without understanding a new topic and challenge. As we argued at the outset, this
48
what they are, beyond static geometric figures on the quantity-by-quantity approach focuses attention away
49
page. They also confuse and misuse formulas for peri­ from the shared principles that structure measurement
50
meter, area, and volume. Though the need to understand of all quantities. One exception has been the Davydov/
51
the relationship between formulas and their inputs is Measure Up approach that foregrounds measurement
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 377 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 378 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 processes (qualitative and then quantitative comparison) that content, because it translates into limited learning
2 that apply across quantities (Dougherty, 2008). experiences for students. Such a conjecture would never
3 The lack of focus in measurement curriculum and be seriously entertained for fractions, but it is consis-
4 teaching on the shared conceptual principles has two tent with the placement of measurement content in U.S.
5 implications for future work. First, what is the potency of curricula. Beyond this issue, studies of exemplary class-
6 this approach for teachers and students? Lehrer and col- room practice have highlighted the joint importance of
7 leagues have provided evidence for the productiveness (a) engaging tasks that involve more than producing or
8 of this approach—in developing a “child’s theory of mea- computing a sequence of measures and (b) skillfully led
9 sure” (e.g., Lehrer et al., 2003). Barrett and colleagues classroom discussion that relates actions to measurement
10 have reported that students who measure different spa- goals (Lehrer, 2003; Simon & Blume, 1994). Productive
11 tial quantities within the same school year can develop mathematical discussions are more likely when class-
12 richer understandings of unit (Barrett et al., 2011). These room conditions enable them, so students need sustained
13 promising results call for further study in a wider range support and practice in presenting their thinking and
14 of settings. Second, elementary mathematics curricula listening seriously to their peers. But when such condi-
15 do not typically support attention to this issue. So we tions are present, what issues do teachers focus on in
16 also need curricular materials that draw teachers’ and discussions of measurement work, and why do they see
17 students’ attention to the shared conceptual principles these as central? These are critical questions for future
18 and build on what students have learned with one quan- research.
19 tity in their work to measure others. Revisiting the same Examine collective sense making. Though the pattern
20 challenges (what to do with continuous “stuff”) and pro- is not unique to this domain, research on students’ under-
21 cesses (how to do it) repeatedly across quantities holds standing of measurement has been dominated by data
22 promise for more effective teaching and more robust and analysis of individual students’ responses to carefully
23 learning. chosen tasks. This approach has been very productive in
24 Increase attention to teacher knowledge and instruc- tracking the nature of students’ ideas and thinking, espe-
25 tional practices. What we do not know about teachers’ cially their partial understandings (misconceptions).
26 knowledge of and instructional practices in measure- Generally, though, little attention has been given to col-
27 ment, including their interpretation and use of curricula, lective (classroom level) sense making, despite Battista’s
28 far outweighs what we do know. With respect to teachers’ (2007) call to do so. The theoretical focus on individual
29 knowledge, what we do know raises concerns. Studies understanding is consistent with the cognitive perspec-
30 of elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge of perim- tive that has shaped most research discussed in this
31 eter and area, and particularly of the formulas for com- chapter, including Piaget’s formative work (Piaget, 1969;
32 puting these quantities, suggest that many struggle with Piaget et al., 1960). Research has not generally focused
33 on classroom measurement practices and their evolution
the same challenges that students do. Weak content
34 over time. Taking a situated or collectivist perspective on
knowledge may extend to other quantities as well, where
35 learning need not limit attention to individual understand-
studies have yet to be completed. When teachers enter
36 ing. The joint, reflexive study of individual understandings
the profession with significant limitations in their own
37 and collective classroom practices is theoretically sen-
understandings of measurement, what effect does class-
38 sible, if analytically demanding (e.g., Cobb, Yackel, &
room teaching have on those understandings? Do expe-
39 Wood, 1993). It involves managing two levels of analysis,
rienced teachers strengthen their understandings via
40 the individual and group, and two sets of theoretical con-
teaching or professional learning experiences? If so, how
41 structs (e.g., individual strategies and normative, taken-
and where? Parallel questions remain for what Ball and
42
colleagues have called “knowledge of content and stu- as-shared strategies). In such analyses, one particular
43
dents” (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). For example, it is issue that merits attention is how flawed ideas and meth-
44
just as important for teachers to know why students may ods (misconceptions) are discussed and evaluated. Peers
45
count marks when measuring space as it is for them to may well pose questions, see contradictions, and propose
46
avoid those mistakes themselves. alternatives more quickly than individual students work-
47
In discussing instructional practice, one basic question ing in interview settings would generate for themselves.
48
concerns the amount of classroom time given to teach- As usually the most authoritative voice in the classroom,
49
ing measurement. One potential factor leading to poor the participation of teachers in shaping classroom prac-
50
national performance in measurement (in the United tices and supporting and questioning students’ ideas is
51
States at least) is limited instructional time devoted to central to this vision.
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 378 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 379

Harness technological capacity to support learning. Barrett, J. E., Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Cullen, C., McCool, J., 1
We have extensive evidence that substantial experience Witkowski-Rumsey, C., & Klandeman, D. (2012). Evaluating 2
and improving a learning trajectory for linear measurement 3
in dynamic geometry software environments can pro-
in elementary grades 2 and 3: A longitudinal analysis.
ductively support students’ learning about space and 4
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14, 28–54.
geometry (Battista, 2007). With respect to spatial mea- 5
Barrett, J. E., Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Cullen, C. J., Rumsey,
surement, these environments support the composition C., Miller, A. L., & Klanderman, D. (2011). Children’s unit 6
and movement of units of length, area, and volume that concepts in measurement: A teaching experiment spanning 7
grades 2 through 5. ZDM, 43, 637–650. 8
are difficult to represent in static media (e.g., textbook
Battista, M. T. (1999). Fifth graders’ enumeration of cubes 9
pages and whiteboards). But these environments have in 3D arrays: Conceptual progress in an inquiry-based
10
not become integral components in teachers’ instruction, classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
11
particularly in the elementary grades. To date, elemen- 30, 417–448.
Battista, M. T. (2003). Understanding students’ thinking 12
tary curricula have done little to build these technologies
about area and volume measurement. In D. H. Clements & 13
into their presentations of measurement. Their limited
G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching measurement: 2003 14
use can no longer be blamed on “hardware” limitations, Yearbook (pp. 122–142). Reston, VA: National Council of 15
as tablets and laptop computers have proliferated in Teachers of Mathematics.
16
elementary classrooms. Instead, the greatest limitations Battista, M. T. (2004). Applying cognition-based assessment to
elementary school students’ development of understanding 17
may be (a) the availability of dynamic software suitable
of area and volume measurement. Mathematical Thinking 18
for young students and (b) teachers’ sense of how such
and Learning, 6, 185–204. 19
tools can be used as productive components of their mea- Battista, M. T. (2006). Understanding the development 20
surement teaching. Significant productive use of dynamic of students’ thinking about length. Teaching Children 21
technology in support of teaching and learning measure- Mathematics, 13, 140–147.
22
ment may not happen without more explicit use and Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and
spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester, (Ed.), Second handbook of 23
modeling in preservice teacher education programs.
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). 24
Charlotte, NC: Information Age. 25
References Battista, M. T. (2010). Representations of learning for teaching: 26
Learning progressions, learning trajectories, and levels of 27
Acredolo, C. (1989). Assessing children’s understanding of time, sophistication. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares,
28
speed, and distance interrelations. In I. Levin & D. Zakay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Conference of the North
American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education 29
(Eds.), Time and human cognition: A life-span perspective
(pp. 219–257). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier (Vol. 6, pp. 60–71). Columbus: The Ohio State University. 30
Science. Battista, M. T. (2012). Cognition-based assessment & teaching of 31
Bakker, A., Wijers, M., Junker, V. & Akkerman, S. (2011). The geometric measurement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 32
use, nature and purposes of measurement in intermediate Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (1996). Students’ understanding
33
level occupations. ZDM, 43, 737–746. of three-dimensional rectangular arrays of cubes. Journal
34
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowl- for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 258–292.
edge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Battista, M. T., Clements, D. H., Arnoff, J., Battista, K., & 35
Education, 59, 389–407. Borrow, C. V. A. (1998). Students’ spatial structuring of 36
Barrett, J. E., & Battista, M. K. (2014). Two approaches to 2D arrays of squares. Journal for Research in Mathematics 37
describing the development of students’ reasoning about Education, 29, 503–532. 38
length. In A. P. Maloney, J. Confrey, & K. H. Nguyen (Eds.), Baturo, A., & Nason, R. (1996). Student teachers’ subject
39
Learning over time: Learning trajectories in mathematics matter knowledge within the domain of area measurement.
40
education (pp. 97–124). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 235–268.
Barrett, J. E., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Miller, A. L., Cullen, Berenson, S., van der Valk, T., Oldham, E., Runesson, U., 41
C. J., Van Dine, D. W., . . . Klanderman, D. (in press). Integration Moreira, C. Q., & Broekman, H. (1997). An international 42
of results: A new learning trajectory for area measurement. study to investigate prospective teachers’ content knowledge 43
In J. Barrett, D. Clements, & J. Sarama (Eds.), Children’s of the area concept. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44
measurement: A longitudinal study of children’s knowledge 20, 137–150.
45
and learning of length, area, and volume. Journal for Research Bergson, H. (1965). Duration and simultaneity, with reference
in Mathematics Education monograph series. Reston, VA: to Einstein’s theory (L. Jacobsen, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: 46
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Bobbs-Merrill. 47
Barrett, J. E., Jones, G, Thornton, C., & Dickson, S. (2003). Blume, G. W., Galindo, E., & Walcott, C. (2007). Performance 48
Understanding children’s developing strategies and con- in measurement and geometry from the perspective 49
cepts for length. In D. H. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.), Learn- of the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. 50
ing and teaching measurement: 2003 Yearbook (pp. 17–30). In P. Kloosterman & F. K. Lester (Eds.), Results and inter­
51
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. pretations of the 2003 Mathematics Assessment of the
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 379 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 380 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 95–138). Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., & Swaminathan, S.
2 Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1996). Development of turn and turn measurement con-
3 Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Wilss, L. A., & Mutch, S. L. (1996). cepts in a computer-based instructional unit. Educational
An analysis of young children’s strategies and use of devices Studies in Mathematics, 30, 313–337.
4
for length measurement. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., Swaminathan, S.,
5
15, 329–347. & McMillen, S. (1997). Students’ development of length
6 Bragg, P., & Outhred, L. (2001, April). Procedural and conceptual concepts in a Logo-based unit on geometric paths. Journal
7 knowledge: The case of measurement. Paper presented to the for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 70–95.
8 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Clements, D. H., & Burns, B. (2000). Students’ development
9 Association, Seattle, WA. of strategies for turn and angle measure. Educational Studies
Bragg, P., & Outhred, L. (2004). A measure of rulers: in Mathematics, 41, 31–45.
10
The importance of units in a measure. Proceedings of the Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Early childhood math-
11 ematics learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of
28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology
12 research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 461–555).
of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 159–166). Bergen,
13 Norway: Program Committee. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
14 Browning, C., & Garza-Kling, G. (2009). Conceptions of angle: Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Teaching and learning
15 Implictions for middle school mathematics and beyond. In early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York,
T. Craine (Ed.), Understanding geometry for changing world NY: Routledge.
16
(pp. 127–140). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Miller, A. L. (in press). Area.
17 In J. Barrett, D. Clements, & J. Sarama (Eds.), Children’s
Mathematics.
18 measurement: A longitudinal study of children’s knowledge
Burny, E., Valcke, M., Desothe, A., & Van Luit, J. E. (2013).
19 Curriculum sequencing and the acquisition of clock-reading and learning of length, area, and volume. Journal for Research
20 skills among Chinese and Flemish children. International in Mathematics Education monograph series. Reston, VA:
21 Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 761–785. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. D. (2002). The transfer dilemma. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1993). Theoretical orientation.
22
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 1–24. In T. Wood, P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & D. Dillon (Eds.), Rethinking
23 elementary school mathematics: Insights and issues. Journal
Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: Measurement and
24 for Research in Mathematics Education monograph series
scientific progress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25 (Vol. 6, pp. 21–32). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
Chang, K., Males, L. M., Mosier, A., & Gonulates, F. (2011).
26 of Mathematics.
Exploring U.S. textbooks’ treatments of the estimation of
27
Confrey, J., Maloney, A., & Corley, A. K. (2014). Learning
linear measurements. ZDM, 43, 697–708.
trajectories: A framework for connecting standards with
28 Chappell, M. F., & Thompson, D. R. (1999). Perimeter or area?
curriculum, ZDM, 46, 719–733.
29 Which measure is it? Mathematics Teaching in the Middle
Confrey, J., Maloney, A., Nguyen, K., Mojica, G., & Myers, M.
School, 5, 20–23.
30 (2009). Equipartitioning/splitting as a foundation of rational
Clarke, D., Cheeseman, J., McDonough, A., Clark, B. (2003).
31 number reasoning using learning trajectories. In M. Tzekaki,
Assessing and developing measurement with young children.
32 M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the
In D. H. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology
33 measurement: 2003 Yearbook (pp. 68–80). Reston, VA: of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 345–353). Thessaloniki,
34 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Greece: PME.
35 Clements, D. H. (1999). Teaching length measurement: Research Confrey, J., Maloney, A. P., Nguyen, K. H., & Rupp, A. A. (2014).
36 challenges. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 5–11. Equipartitioning, a foundation for rational number reasoning.
Clements, D. H., Barrett, J. E., Sarama, J., Cullen, C., Van Dine, In A. P. Maloney, J. Conrey, & K. H. Nguyen (Eds.), Learning
37
D. W., Eames, C., . . . Vukovich, M. (in press). Length: over time: Learning trajectories in mathematics education
38
A summary report. In J. Barrett, D. Clements, & J. Sarama (pp. 61–96). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
39 (Eds.), Children’s measurement: A longitudinal study Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their
40 of children’s knowledge and learning of length, area, and role in the development of exponential functions. Journal
41 volume. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 66–86.
42 monograph series. Reston, VA: National Council of Copeland, R. W. (1979). How children learn mathematics.
43 Teachers of Mathematics. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. K. (1989). Learning of geometric Crosby, A. W. (1997). The measure of reality: Quantification and
44
concepts in a Logo environment. Journal for Research in Western society, 1250–1600. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
45
Mathematics Education, 20, 450–467. Cambridge University Press.
46 Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial Cullen, C. J., & Barrett, J. E. (2010). Strategy use indicative
47 reasoning. In D. A. Grouws, (Ed.), Handbook of research on of an understanding of units of length. In M. F. Pinto, T. F.
48 mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). New York, Kawaski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Conference of the
49 NY: NCTM/Macmillan. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Edu­
50
Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo cation (Vol. 2, pp. 281–288). Belo Horizonte, Brazil: PME.
and geometry. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers Cullen, C. J., Miller, A. L., Barrett, J. E., Clements, D. H., &
51
of Mathematics. Sarama, J. (2011). Unit eliciting task structures: Verbal
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 380 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 381

prompts for comparative measures. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Pro- Fraisse, P. (1982). The adaptation of the child to time. 1
ceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for In W. J. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology 2
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 249–256). of time (pp. 113–140). New York, NY: Academic Press. 3
Ankara, Turkey: PME. Friedman, W. J. (1982a). Conventional time concepts and 4
Curry, M., Mitchelmore, M., & Outhred, L. (2006). Development children’s structuring of time. In W. J. Friedman (Ed.),
of children’s understanding of length, area, and volume 5
The developmental psychology of time (pp. 171–208).
measurement principles. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, New York, NY: Academic Press. 6
M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the Friedman, W. J. (1982b). Introduction. In W. J. Friedman (Ed.), 7
30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology The developmental psychology of time (pp. 1–11). New York, 8
of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 377–384). Prague, NY: Academic Press. 9
Czech Republic: PME. Fyhn, A. B. (2008). A climbing class’ reinvention of angles. 10
Davydov, V. V. (1975). The psychological characteristics of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 19–35.
the “prenumerical” period of mathematics instruction. In 11
Fyhn, A. B. (2010). Climbing and angles: A study of how two
L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Children’s capacity for learning mathemat- 12
teachers internalize and implement the intentions of a
ics. Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching teaching experiment. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 13
mathematics vol. 7 (pp. 109–205). Chicago, IL: University of 7(2 & 3), 275–294. 14
Chicago. Gooya, Z., Khosroshahi, L. G., & Teppo, A. (2011). Iranian 15
Davydov, V. V. (1991). Psychological abilities of primary school students’ measurement estimation performance involving 16
children in learning mathematics. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), linear and area attributes of real-world objects. ZDM,
Soviet studies in mathematics education, vol. 6. Chicago, IL: 17
43, 709–722.
University of Chicago. 18
Gravemeijer, K. (1998). From a different perspective: Building
Devichi C., & Munier, V. (2013). About the concept of angle in on students’ informal knowledge. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan 19
elementary school: Misconceptions and teaching sequences, (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing under- 20
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32, 1–19. standing of geometry and space (pp. 45–66). Mahwah, NJ: 21
Dilke, O. A. W. (1987). Reading the past: Mathematics and measure-
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 22
ment. London, United Kingdom: British Museum Publications.
Grouws, D. A., Smith, M. S., & Sztajn, P. (2004). The prepara- 23
Dohrmann, C., & Kuzle, A. (2014). Unpacking children’s angle
tion and teaching practices of United States mathematics
“grundvorstellungen”: The case of distance “grundvortsellung” 24
teachers: Grades 4 and 8. In P. Kloosterman & F. K. Lester
of 1° angle. In P. Liljedhal, C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, & D. Allen 25
(Eds.), Results and interpretations of the 1990 through 2000
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the International 26
Mathematics Assessments of the National Assessment of
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the 27
Educational Progress (pp. 221–267). Reston, VA: National
36th Conference of the North American Chapter of the Psychol-
Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 28
ogy of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 409–416). Vancouver,
Hart, K. M. (1981). Children’s understanding of mathematics: 29
Canada: PME.
11–16. London, United Kingdom: John Murray.
Dorko, A. J., & Speer, N. M. (2013). Calculus students’ under- 30
Hart, K., Johnson, D. C., Brown, M., Dickson, L., & Clarkson, R.
standing of volume. In S. Brown, G. Karakok, K. H. Roh, & 31
M. Oehrtman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Confer- (1989). Children’s mathematical frameworks 8–13. England:
NFER-Nelson Publishing. 32
ence on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
Hartley, A. A. (1977). Mental measurement in the magnitude 33
(Vol. 1, pp. 190–204). Denver, CO. Retrieved from http://
sigmaa.maa.org/rume/RUME16Volume1.pdf estimation of length. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 34
Dougherty, B. (2008). Measure Up: A quantitative view of Human Perception and Performance, 3, 622–628. 35
early algebra. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Otten, S. (2011). Mapping math- 36
(Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 389–412). New York, ematics in classroom discourse. Journal for Research in 37
NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Mathematics Education, 42, 451–485.
38
Earnest, D. (2014, January). Time in its standard units: Con- Hiebert, J. (1981). Cognitive development and learning linear
measurement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39
sidering the interplay of cognition and instruction. Poster
12, 197–211. 40
presented to the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Association
of Mathematics Teacher Educators. Irvine, CA. Hiebert, J. (1984). Why do some children have trouble with 41
Earnest, D. (2015). When “half an hour” is not the same as learning measurement concepts? Arithmetic Teacher, 31, 42
“thirty minutes”: Elementary students solving elapsed time 19–24. 43
problems. In T. Bartell, K. Bieda, R. Putnam, K. Bradfield, & Hino, K. (2002). Acquiring new use of multiplication through
44
H. Dominguez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting classroom teaching: An exploratory study. Journal of
45
of the North American Chapter of the International Group for Mathematical Behavior, 20, 477–502.
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 285–291). Huang, H. E., & Witz, K. G. (2011). Developing children’s 46
East Lansing: Michigan State University. conceptual understanding of area measurement: 47
Ellis, S., Siegler, R. S., & Van Voorhis, F. E. (2003, April). Devel- A curriculum and teaching experiment. Learning and 48
opmental changes in children’s understandings of measurement Instruction, 21, 1–13. 49
procedures and principles. Paper presented at the annual Jacobson, C., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Teacher appropriation and 50
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, student learning of geometry through design. Journal for
51
Tampa, FL. Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 71–88.
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 381 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 382 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 Jones, K., Mooney, C., & Harries, T. (2002). Trainee primary Kent, P., Bakker, A., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2011). Measurement
2 teachers’ knowledge of geometry for teaching. Proceedings in the workplace: The case of process improvement in
3 of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, manufacturing industry. ZDM, 43, 747–758.
22, 95–100. Kloosterman, P. (2010). Mathematical skills of 17-year-olds
4
Joram, E., Gabriele, A. J., Bertheau, M., Gelman, R., & in the United States: 1978 to 2004. Journal for Research in
5
Subrahmanyam, K., (2005). Children’s use of the reference Mathematics Education, 41, 20–51.
6 point strategy for measurement estimation. Journal for Kobiela, M., Lehrer, R., & Pfaff, E. (2010, April). Students’
7 Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 4–23. developing conceptions of area via partitioning and sweeping.
8 Jourdain, P. E. B. (1956). The nature of mathematics. In J. R. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
9 Newman (Ed.) The world of mathematics (pp. 4–72). New York, Education Research Association, Denver, CO.
NY: Simon and Schuster. Kordaki, M., & Balomenou, A. (2006). Challenging students
10
Kamii, C., & Clark, F. (1997). Measurement of length: The need to view the concept of area in triangles in a broad context:
11 for a better approach to teaching. School Science and Exploiting the features of Cabri-II. International Journal of
12 Mathematics, 97, 116–121. Computers for Mathematics Learning, 11, 99–135.
13 Kamii, C., & Kysh, J. (2006). The difficulty of “length x width”: Kordaki, M., & Potari, D. (2002). The effect of area measurement
14 Is a square a unit of measurement. Journal of Mathematical tools on student strategies: The role of a computer micro-
15 Behavior, 25, 105–115. world. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics
Kamii, C., & Russell, K. A. (2010). The older of two trees: Learning, 7, 65–100.
16
Young children’s development of operational time, Journal Kospentaris, G., Spyrou, P., & Lappas, D. (2011). Exploring
17 for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 6–13. students’ strategies in area conservation geometry tasks.
18 Kamii, C., & Russell, K. A. (2012). Elapsed time: Why is it Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77, 105–127.
19 so difficult to teach? Journal for Research in Mathematics Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from:
20 Education, 43, 296–315. How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being.
21 Kara, M. (2013). Students’ reasoning about invariance of volume New York, NY: Basic Books.
as a quantity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois Langrall, C. W., Mooney, E. S., Nisbet, S., & Jones, G. A. (2008).
22
State University: Normal. Elementary students’ access to powerful mathematical
23 Kara, M., Miller, A. L., Cullen, C. J., Barrett, J. E., Sarama, J., & ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international
24 Clements, D. H. (2012). A retrospective analysis of students’ research in mathematics education, 2nd ed. (pp. 109–135).
25 thinking about volume measurement across grades 2–5. In New York, NY: Routledge.
26 L. R. Van Zoest, J. J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings Lee, K., & Smith, J. P. (2011). What’s different across an ocean?
27
of the 34th Conference of the North American Chapter of How Singapore and U.S. elementary mathematics curricula
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1016–1023). introduce and develop length measurement. ZDM, 43,
28
Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University. 681–696.
29 Kasten, S. E., & Newton, J. (2011). An analysis of K–8 measure- Lehrer, R. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement.
30 ment grade level expectations. In J. P. Smith (Ed.), Variabil- In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research
31 ity is the rule: A companion analysis of K–8 state mathematics companion to Principles and Standards for School Math-
32 standards (pp. 13–40). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. ematics (pp. 179–192). Reston, VA: National Council of
Kaur, B. (2014). Enactment of school mathematics curriculum Teachers of Mathematics.
33
in Singapore: Whither research! ZDM, 46, 829–836. Lehrer, R., Jacobson, C., Thoyre, G., Kemeny, V., Strom, D.,
34
Kaur, H., & Sinclair, N. (2012). Young children’s understanding Horvath, J., & Koehler, M. (1998). Developing understanding
35 of angle in a dynamic geometry environment. In L. R. Van of geometry and space in the primary grades. In R. Lehrer &
36 Zoest, J. J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for devel-
37 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Psychology oping understanding of geometry and space (pp. 169–200).
38 of Mathematics Education (pp. 1081–1088). Kalamazoo: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Western Michigan University. Lehrer, R., Jaslow, L., & Curtis, C. (2003). Developing an
39
Kehle, P., Wearne, D., & Martin, G. W., Strutchens, M. E., & understanding of measurement in the elementary grades.
40
Warfield, J. (2004). What do 12th-grade students know In D. H. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teach-
41 about mathematics? In P. Kloosterman & F. K. Lester Jr. ing measurement: 2003 Yearbook (pp. 100–121). Reston, VA:
42 (Eds.), Results and interpretations of the 1990 through 2000 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
43 Mathematics Assessments of the National Assessment of Lehrer, R., Jenkins, M., & Osana, H. (1998). Longitudinal
44 Educational Progress (pp. 145–174). Reston, VA: National study of children’s reasoning about space and geometry:
Council of Teachers of Mathematics. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environ-
45
Keiser, J. M. (2004). Struggles with developing the concept ments for developing understanding of geometry and space
46 of angle: Comparing sixth-grade students’ discourse to the (pp. 137–167). Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.
47 history of the angle concept. Mathematical Thinking and Lehrer, R., Kim, M, & Jones, R. S. (2011). Developing conceptions
48 Learning, 6, 285–306. of statistics by designing measures of distribution. ZDM,
49 Kenney, P. A., & Silver, E. A. (1997). Results from the Sixth Math- 43, 723–736.
50 ematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Lehrer, R., & Littlefield, J. (1993). Relationships among cogni-
Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of tive components in Logo learning and transfer. Journal of
51
Mathematics. Educational Psychology, 85, 317–330.
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 382 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 383

Lehrer, R., & Pritchard, C. (2002). Symbolizing space into of arc. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15, 1
being. In K. P. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, H. J. van Oers, 187–206. 2
& L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolization, modeling and tool National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 3
use in mathematics education (pp. 59–86). Dordrecht, & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO).
4
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www 5
Lehrer R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and
argument in the elementary grades. In T. A. Romberg, .coreStandards.org 6
T. P. Carpenter, and F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding Newcombe, N. S. & Huttenlocher, J. (2000). Making space: 7
mathematics and science matters (pp. 29–53). Mahwah, The development of spatial representation and reasoning. 8
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9
Lehrer, R., & Slovin, H. (2014). Developing essential under­ Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings
(Vol. 17). Boston: Kluwer. 10
standing of geometry and measurement in Grades 3–5. Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1996). Children doing mathematics. 11
Lehrer, R., Strom, D., & Confrey, J. (2002). Grounding meta- Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell. 12
phors and inscriptional resonance: Children’s emerging Nunes, T., Light, P., & Mason, J. (1993). Tools for thought: 13
understanding of mathematical similarity. Cognition and The measurement of length and area. Learning and Instruction, 14
Instruction, 20, 359–398. 3, 39–54.
15
Levine, S. C., Kwon, M., Huttenlocher, J., Ratliff, K., & Deitz, K. Olivera, F., & Robutti, O. (2001). Measures in Cabri as a bridge
between perception and theory. In M. van den Heuvel- 16
(2009). Children’s understanding of ruler measurement and
units of measure: A training study. Proceedings of the Cognitive Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of 17
Science Society, 2391–2395. the Internatioanl Group for the Psychology of Mathematics 18
Liu, C. (2012). Children merging quantification into their qualitative Education (Vol. 4, pp. 9–16). Utrecht, The Netherlands: 19
intuitions about density (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Freudenthal Institute.
20
Tufts University, Boston, MA. Osborne, A. R. (1976). Mathematical distinctions in the teach-
ing of measure. In D. Nelson (Ed.), Measurement in school 21
Long, K. & Kamii, C. (2001). The measurement of time: Children’s
mathematics (pp. 11–34). Reston, VA: National Council of 22
construction of transitivity, unit iteration, and conservation
Teachers of Mathematics. 23
of speed. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 125–132.
Outhred, L. N., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2000). Young children’s 24
MacDonald, A., & Lowrie, T. (2011). Developing measurement
intuitive understanding of rectangular area measurement.
concepts within context: Children’s representations of 25
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 144–167.
length. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23, 27–42. 26
Outhred, L., & Mitchelmore, M. (2004). Students’ structuring
Menon, R. (1998). Preservice teachers’ understanding of perim-
of rectangular arrays. In M. Hoines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), 27
eter and area. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 361–368.
Proceedings of the 28th Meeting of the International Group for 28
Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008).
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 465–472). 29
Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K–8 science
Bergen, Norway: PME.
classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 30
Outhred, L., Mitchelmore, M., McPhail, D., & Gould, P. (2003).
Miller, A. L. (2013). Investigating conceptual, procedural, and Count me into measurement: A program for early elementary 31
intuitive aspects of area measurement with non-square area school. In D. H. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and 32
units (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois State teaching measurement: 2003 Yearbook (pp. 81–99). Reston, 33
University: Normal. VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 34
Millsaps, G. M. (2012). How wedge you teach the unit-angle Panorkou, N., & Pratt, D. (2011). Using Google sketchup to
concept? Teaching Children Mathematics, 18, 362–369. 35
research children’s experience of dimension. In B. Ubuz
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1983). Children’s learning of geometry: (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Inter- 36
Report of a co-operative research report. Caribbean Journal national Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 37
of Education, 10, 179–228. (Vol. 3, pp. 337–344). Ankara, Turkey: PME. 38
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1997). Children’s informal knowledge of Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful 39
physical angle situations. Learning and Instruction, 7, 1–19. ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books. 40
Mitchelmore, M. C., & White, P. (1998). Development of angle Pesek, D. D., & Kirshner, D. (2000). Interference of instrumental
concepts: A framework for research. Mathematics Education 41
instruction in subsequent relational learning. Journal for
Research Journal, 10, 4–27. Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 524–540. 42
Mitchelmore, M. C., & White, P. (2000). Development of angle Pettito, A. L. (1990). Development of numberline and measure- 43
concepts by progressive abstraction and generalisation. ment concepts. Cognition & Instruction, 7, 55–78. 44
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 209–238. Piaget, J. (1965). The child’s conception of number. New York, NY: 45
Moore, K. C. (2013). Making sense by measuring arcs: A teach- W. W. Norton.
ing experiment in angle measure. Educational Studies in 46
Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of time. London, United
Mathematics, 83, 225–245. Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 47
Munier, V., Devichi, C., & Merle, H. (2008). A physical situation Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (1960). The child’s 48
as a way to teach angle. Teaching Children Mathematics, 14, conception of geometry. New York, NY: Basic Books. 49
402–407. Pittalis, M., & Christou, C. (2010). Types of reasoning in 3D 50
Murphy, C. (2012). The role of subject matter in primary geometry thinking and their relation with spatial ability.
51
prospective teachers’ approaches to teaching the topic Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75, 191–212.
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 383 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 384 ◆ Research in Mathematical Process and Content

1 Reece, C. S., & Kamii, C. (2001). The measurement of volume: Smith, M. S., Arbaugh, F., & Fi, C. (2007). Teachers, the school
2 Why do young children measure inaccurately? School Science environment, and students: Influences on students’
3 and Mathematics, 101, 356–361. opportunities to learn mathematics in grades 4 and 8.
Reineke, K. S. (1997). Area and perimeter: Prospective teachers’ In P. Kloosterman & F. K. Lester Jr. (Eds.), Results and inter-
4
confusion. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 75–77. pretations of the 2003 Mathematics Assessment of the National
5
Reynolds, A., & Wheatley, G. H. (1996). Elementary students’ Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 191–226). Reston,
6 constructions and coordination of units in an area setting. VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
7 Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 564–581. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating
8 Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Barrett, J., Van Dine, D. W., & productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National
9 McDonel, J. S. (2011). Evaluation of a learning trajectory Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
for length in the early years. ZDM, 43, 667–680. Sowder, J. (1992). Estimation and number sense. In D. A.
10
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Van Dine, D. W., McDonel, J. S., Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Teaching and Learning
11 Napora, L., & Barrett, J. E. (2011, April). A hypothetical Mathematics (pp. 371–389). New York, NY: Macmillan.
12 learning trajectory for volume in the early years. Paper pre- Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-) understand
13 sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. New York, NY:
14 Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Teachers College Press.
15 Schifter, D., & Szymaszek, J. (2003). Structuring a rectangle: Steen, L. A. (1990). Pattern. In L. A. Steen (Ed.), On the shoulders
Teachers write to learn about their students’ thinking. of giants (pp. 1–10). Washington, DC: National Academy
16
In D. H. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching Press.
17 measurement: 2003 Yearbook (pp. 143–156). Reston, VA: Steffe, L. P. (2010). The partitioning and fraction schemes.
18 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. In L. P. Steffe & J. Olive (Eds.), Children’s fractional knowledge
19 Siegler, R. S., & McGilly, K. (1989). Strategy choices in children’s (pp. 315–340). New York, NY: Springer.
20 time-telling. In I. Levin & D. Zakay (Eds.), Time and human Stephan, M., Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2003).
21 cognition: A life-span perspective (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam, Supporting students’ development of measuring conceptions:
The Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Analyzing students’ learning in social context. Journal for
22
Siegler, R. S., & Richards, D. D. (1979). Development of time, Research in Mathematics Education monograph series (Vol. 12).
23 speed, and distance concepts. Developmental Psychology, Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
24 15, 288–298. Stephan, M. & Clements, D. H. (2003). Linear and area mea-
25 Silfverberg, H., & Joutsenlahti, J. (2014). Prospective teachers’ surement in prekindergarten to grade 2. In D. H. Clements
26 conceptions about a plane angle and the context dependency & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching measurement:
27
of the conceptions. In P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, & 2003 Yearbook (pp. 3–16). Reston, VA: National Council
D. Allen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the of Teachers of Mathematics.
28
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Edu­ Strutchens, M. E., Martin, W. G., & Kenney, P. A. (2003). What
29 cation and the 36th Conference of the North American Chapter of students know about measurement: Perspectives from
30 the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 185–192). the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In D. H.
31 Vancouver, Canada: PME. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching measure-
32 Simmons, M., & Cope, P. (1993). Angle and rotation: Effects ment: 2003 Yearbook (pp. 195–207). Reston, VA: National
of different types of feedback on the quality of response. Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
33
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 163–176. Tan, N. J. (1998). A study on the students’ misconceptions of
34
Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1994). Building and understanding area in elementary school. Journal of National Taipei Teachers
35 multiplicative relationships: A study of prospective elemen- College, XI, 573–602.
36 tary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Tan-Sisman, G., & Aksu, M. (2012). The length measurement
37 25, 472–494. in the Turkish mathematics curriculum: Its potential to
38 Sinclair, N., Pimm, D., & Skelin, M. (2012). Developing essential contribute to students’ learning. International Journal of
understanding of geometry and measurement in grades 6–8. Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 363–385.
39
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Thompson, A. G., Philipp, R. A., Thompson, P. W., & Boyd, B.
40 Smith, C. P., King, B., & Hoyte, J. (2014). Learning angles (1994). Calculational and conceptual orientations in teaching
41 through movement: Critical actions for developing under- mathematics. In D. B. Aichele (Ed.), 1994 Yearbook of the
42 standing in an embodied activity. Journal of Mathematical National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 79–92).
43 Behavior, 36, 95–108. Reston, VA. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
44 Smith, J. P. (1999). Tracking the mathematics of automobile Thompson, P. W. (1994). The development of the concept of
production: Are schools failing to prepare students for speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel &
45
work? American Educational Research Journal, 36, 835–878. J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning
46 Smith, J. P., Males, L. M., Dietiker, L. C., Lee, K., & Mosier, A. in the learning of mathematics (pp. 179–234). Albany, NY:
47 (2013). Curricular treatments of length measurement in the SUNY Press.
48 United States: Do they address known learning challenges? Thompson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (2003). Fractions and
49 Cognition & Instruction, 31, 388–433. multiplicative reasoning. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, &
50 Smith, J. P., Males, L., & Gonulates, F. (2016). Conceptual D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and
limitations in curricular treatments of area measurement: Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 95–113). Reston, VA:
51
One nation’s challenges. Manuscript submitted for publication. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd 384 11/14/16 5:34 PM

 Learning and Teaching Measurement: Coordinating Quantity and Number ◆ 385

Thompson, T. D., & Preston, R. V. (2004). Measurement in the Wickstrom, M., Baek, J., Barrett, J. E., Cullen, C. J., & Tobias, 1
middle grades: Insights from NAEP and TIMSS. Mathematics J. M. (2012). Teachers’ noticing of children understanding 2
Teaching in the Middle School, 9, 514–519. of linear measurement. In L. R. Van Zoest, J. J. Lo, & J. L. 3
van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Buys, K. (2008). Young Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Conference of the North
4
children learn measurement and geometry. Rotterdam, The American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education
Netherlands: Sense. (pp. 488–494). Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University. 5
van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Wijers, M. (2005). Math- Williams, R. F. (2012). Image schemas in clock-reading: Latent 6
ematics standards and curricula in the Netherlands. errors and emerging expertise. Journal of the Learning 7
ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, Sciences, 21, 216–246. 8
37, 287–307. Wilson, P. S., & Adams, V. M. (1992). A dynamic way to teach 9
van de Walle, J., Karp, K., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2013). angle and angle measure. Arithmetic Teacher, 39(5), 6–13.
10
Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching develop- Wilson, P. S., & Rowland, R. (1993). Teaching measurement.
mentally (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. In P. Jenner (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: Early 11
Van Dine, D. W., Clements, D. H., Barrett, J. E., Sarama, J., childhood mathematics (pp. 171–191). New York, NY: Macmillan. 12
Cullen, C. J., & Kara, M. (in press). Integration of results: Wood, T., Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Dillon, D. (1993). Rethinking 13
A new learning trajectory for volume measurement. In elementary school mathematics: Insights and issues. 14
J. Barrett, D. Clements, & J. Sarama (Eds.), Children’s Journal for Research in Mathematics Education monograph
15
measurement: A longitudinal study of children’s knowl- series (Vol. 6). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
16
edge and learning of length, area, and volume. Journal for of Mathematics.
Research in Mathematics Education monograph series. Woodward, E. & Byrd, F. (1983). Area: Included topic, neglected 17
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. concept. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 343–347. 18
Vasilyeva, M., Ganley, C. M., Casey, B. M., Dulaney, A., Yazgan, G., Argun, Z., & Emre, E. (2009). Teacher’s sceneries 19
Tillinger, M., & Anderson, K. (2013). How children determine related to the “angle concept”: The Turkey case. Procedia 20
the size of 3D structures: Investigating factors influencing Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 285–290.
21
strategy choice. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 29–61. Yelland, N. (2003). Making connections with powerful ideas in
Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & the measurement of length. In D. H. Clements & G. Bright 22
M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and (Eds.), Learning and teaching measurement: 2003 Yearbook 23
processes (pp. 127–174). New York, NY: Academic Press. (pp. 31–45). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of 24
Vergnaud, G. (1988). Multiplicative structures. In J. Hiebert & Mathematics. 25
M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle Zacharos, K. (2006). Prevailing educational practices for area 26
grades (pp. 141–161). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers measurement and students’ failure in measuring areas.
27
of Mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 224–239.
Wickstrom, M. (2014). An examination of teachers’ perceptions Zevenbergen, R. (2005). Primary preservice teachers’ under- 28
and implementation of learning trajectory based professional standings of volume: The impact of course and practicum 29
development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois experiences. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17, 30
State University, Normal. 3–23. 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

1ST PAGES

14398-14_Ch14.indd
View publication stats 385 11/14/16 5:34 PM