Vol 30 Issue 1

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
1999, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2
Relationships Between Research and

the NCTM Standards: An Introduction
Deborah Schifter
Chair of the NCTM Research Advisory Committee
Once again, the fundamentals of mathematics education are the subject of a

national discussion—indeed, of sometimes heated debate—much of it crystallized
by the appearance, in 1989, of the NCTM Standards. In the news media and on the
internet, at PTA meetings and school board hearings, one now routinely encounters
expressions of enthusiasm or concern about the reforms suggested in that document.
Willy-nilly, these discussions inevitably implicate claims about what research
has or has not shown, should or should not probe, but these claims are not nec-
essarily consistent with either what has been done or even what is possible. Yet,
among all the contesting voices, scarcely heard are those of the men and women
who actually conduct mathematics education research.
The reasons for this are no doubt varied, but one, in particular, we, as practi-
tioners, can do something about: Mathematics education researchers are unused
to addressing audiences outside the field. Tightly focused on exchanges with
peers, we share assumptions, language, references, goals, and concerns that
make our discussions opaque to outsiders. These understandings are frequently
so taken for granted by us that we may not always recognize how they compli-
cate efforts to communicate with nonspecialists.
As a step toward redressing this situation, the NCTM Research Advisory
Committee asked James Hiebert to produce, for JRME, an abridged version of
his chapter, “Relationships Between Research and the NCTM Standards,” pre-
pared for a volume to be published by NCTM. Although admittedly crafted to
reach a larger public, Hiebert’s arguments and insights are nonetheless of inter-
est to his colleagues. But there are two other, overriding reasons for placing this
paper in a venue designed to serve the research community:
1. The article is a model for researchers who wish to reach an interested,
non–research-oriented public. Especially instructive is the use Hiebert makes of
examples and analogies intended to help others understand the role that research
can play in shaping educational policy.
2. The article is a resource that can form the basis of discussion with policy
makers, journalists, school administrators, teachers, and concerned parents.
A more complete development of Hiebert’s ideas will be found in an anthology
of articles to be published later this year as part of a project directed by Jeremy
Kilpatrick. The intended audience for this volume is not confined to the research
community; its authors will set out the theory and research findings relevant to the
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, to be published in the year 2000.
Copyright © 1999 The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. www.nctm.org. All rights reserved.
This material may not be copied or distributed electronically or in any other format without written permission from NCTM.
1999, Vol. 30, No. 1, 3–19
Relationships Between Research

and the NCTM Standards
James Hiebert, University of Delaware
The current debates about the future of mathematics education often lead to confusion about
the role that research should play in settling disputes. On the one hand, researchers are called
upon to resolve issues that really are about values and priorities, and, on the other hand,
research is ignored when empirical evidence is essential. When research is appropriately
solicited, expectations often overestimate, or underestimate, what research can provide. In
this article, by distinguishing between values and research problems and by calibrating appro-
priate expectations for research, I address the role that research can and should play in shap-
ing standards. Research contributions to the current debates are illustrated with brief sum-
maries of some findings that are relevant to the standards set by the NCTM.
Key Words: All levels; Policy issues; Reform in mathematics education; Research issues;
Review of research; Teaching practice
What is the relationship between what is known from research in mathematics

education and what is expressed in the NCTM Standards?1 Can we say, for
example, that research supports the Standards? These questions have become
increasingly important as debates about reform reach fever pitch. They are fair
questions, even though they do not have simple answers. The answers are not
simple because (a) standards, in any field, are rarely based solely on research, so
the connection between research and standards is never straightforward; and (b)
research in mathematics education does not shine equally brightly on all aspects
of the NCTM Standards, so we cannot provide blanket statements.
1The phrase “NCTM Standards,” or just “Standards” (capitalized), will be used for the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics recommendations for K–12 curriculum, teaching, and assess-
ment contained in the initial three-volume set (Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School
Mathematics [1989], Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics [1991], and Assessment
Standards for School Mathematics [1995]) and in the revised volume Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics (draft, 1998), all published in Reston, VA, by the NCTM.
Preparation of the more complete version of this article, to be published in an edited

book that will provide a research companion to the NCTM Standards 2000 Initiative’s
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, was supported by the Project on the
Foundations for School Mathematics funded, in part, by the National Science Foundation
(Grant ESI 9727890). Some of the ideas contained in the article can be traced to discus-
sions during a working conference, held in Atlanta in March 1998, organized by Jeremy
Kilpatrick and supported by the Project. Thanks to Deborah Schifter, Chair of the Research
Advisory Committee (RAC) of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, mem-
bers of the RAC, and Judy Sowder, for their comments on an earlier draft of the article.
4 Research and Standards
My goal in this article is to clarify what we can expect from research and then
to review, briefly, what we can say, from research, about the Standards. The con-
clusion will be that, where relevant research exists, the Standards are consistent
with the evidence. Said another way, the Standards do not violate the relevant
findings from research on teaching and learning mathematics. But knowing the
short answer is not enough. In matters as complex as connecting educational
standards with research, it is as important to understand the process through
which such a conclusion can be reached as the conclusion itself.
WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT FROM RESEARCH?
How nice it would be if one could look at the research evidence and decide
whether the Standards are right or wrong. This would make decisions simple and
bring an end to the debates about the direction of mathematics education in the
United States. Is this impossible? After all, can’t those in other professions make
such clear connections? Actually, they can’t. Standards and research rarely have
a clear relationship. To understand the reason, we need to consider some of the
limitations of research.
Some Things We Should Not Expect From Research

Standards are not determined by research. Standards in mathematics educa-
tion, like those in other fields, are statements about priorities and goals. In educa-
tion, they are value judgments about what our students should know and be able
to do. They are chosen through a complex process that is fed by societal expecta-
tions, past practice, research information, and visions of the professionals in the
field. The process is similar to the one that operates in selecting standards in other
professional fields. Research can influence the nature of the standards that are
adopted, but, in the end, research is not the sole basis for selection of the stan-
dards. Standards, ultimately, are statements about what is most valued.2
Our society is now in the midst of a crucial debate about goals and values. It
is important that the debate continue until a consensus is reached about our goals
for students. Research can inform the debate, but the reverse is equally true—the
selection of standards signals what research is most relevant. If the paper-and-
pencil computation of square roots is omitted from the standards, for example,
then research that shows one method of teaching written computation of square
roots is more effective than another probably will be ignored. If ability to invent
procedures to solve new problems is emphasized in the standards, then the
research on students’ creative problem solving is of great interest.
One of the current dilemmas revolves around written computation skills. The
debate has not yet developed a clear consensus about their importance. This lack
2
See NCTM’s “Statement of Beliefs” (posted on their website, www.nctm.org) for a description
of basic values that underlie the Standards.
James Hiebert 5
of consensus is understandable given the rapid changes in mathematical compe-

tencies that are important in the workplace and the increasing availability of
computational technologies. But the current uncertainty has implications for
interpreting research. For those who believe that high efficiency with written
computation still is essential, the research showing Teaching Method A produces
greater efficiency than Method B is significant; for those who believe that mod-
erate efficiency with written computation is sufficient, such research is, at most,
of moderate interest. Debates about what the research says will not settle the
issue; only debates about values and priorities will be decisive. Until the value
issue is settled, it will be difficult to find common ground for examining the
research.
What is “best” cannot be proven by research. There is increasing pressure to
prove, scientifically, what are the best curricular and pedagogical decisions in
mathematics. Should we teach in this way or that way? Should we use this text-
book series or that textbook series? Scientific research is looked to for the solu-
tion because, after all, science has taken us to Mars with the Pathfinder and has
healed painful backs with incredibly precise arthroscopic surgeries.
Looking to scientific research is a good thing; the more reliable information
we have, the better will be our decisions. But, in every field, science has its lim-
its. Consider the requirements for a healthy lifestyle. Standards are proposed by
health professionals for living a healthy life—diet, exercise, and so on. But
medical research does not prove that these standards are the best ones. Is meat
good for you or not? Is it better to use butter or margarine? Should we have
exactly seven servings of fruits and vegetables every day, or would six be
enough? These simple sounding questions do not have simple answers. There
are too many factors that influence the outcomes: how much exercise we get,
how much we weigh, our genetic make-ups and past histories, our metabolic
rates, and so on. It would be impossible to control all these factors to prove that
a certain diet is best.
We have a similar situation in education. Most outcomes are influenced by
more factors than we can identify, let alone control. Does this mean that
research is a waste of time? Not at all. Just because researchers cannot prove
whether a particular decision is the best one does not mean that research is irrel-
evant. In complex environments, such as our bodies and school classrooms,
there is a special relationship between research and decision-making. Decisions
often are based on probability estimates, and research data help us estimate the
likelihood of success. The clearer the results, the more confident we are that we
are making good decisions. We make decisions with levels of confidence, not
with certainty.
Here is a simple example. Is it better for students to use calculators or not to
use calculators in elementary school? This is a simple enough question and one
that is receiving heated debate. Shouldn’t we be able to prove whether children
should use calculators, one way or another? Suppose we try. First, we need to
decide what we mean by better and how to measure this construct. Does better
mean that students, at the end, understand mathematics more deeply, solve chal-
lenging problems more effectively, execute written computation procedures
more quickly, like mathematics more? Deciding what better means is not a triv-
ial task. It requires being clear about values and priorities. Suppose, for the sake
of argument, that we mean “execute written computation procedures more accu-
rately and quickly.” Many people would guess that, if this is the valued outcome,
the no-calculator classroom would be the best.
How could we test this hypothesis? How would we set up a fair comparison
between the calculator and the no-calculator treatments? A reasonable approach
would be to develop, with our desired learning goal in mind, the best instruc-
tional program we could think of with the calculator and the best program with-
out the calculator. Using this approach would mean that students in the two pro-
grams probably would be completing different tasks and engaging in different
activities, because different activities are possible with and without the calcula-
tor. But now we have a problem because we will not know what caused the dif-
ferences in students’ learning. Was it the calculator, the other differences
between the instructional programs, or the interactions? Maybe we could solve
this problem by keeping the instructional programs identical; just plop the cal-
culators into one set of classrooms and not the others. But into which instruc-
tional program should the calculators be plopped—the one designed to maximize
the benefits of the calculator or the one designed to function without calculators?
Neither choice is good, because the omitted program would not get a fair test.
Maybe we should split the differences. But then we have an instructional pro-
gram that no one would intentionally design.
Does this research design problem mean that all the studies on using calcu-
lators, and there have been many, are uninterpretable? No. But it does mean
that no single study will prove, once and for all, whether we should use cal-
culators. The best way to draw conclusions regarding issues like this is to
review the many studies that have been done under a variety of conditions and
look for patterns in the results. Perhaps studies in the early grades show one
kind of pattern and studies in the later grades another pattern. Or, perhaps
studies using the calculators in one way show one pattern of results and stud-
ies using the calculators in another way show another pattern. As it happens,
this kind of review of calculator use has been done and a partial and tentative
answer is available (Hembree & Dessart, 1986). The results indicate that
using calculators, along with common pencil-and-paper activities, does not
harm students’ skill development and supports increased problem-solving
skills and better attitudes toward mathematics. This finding does not mean, by
the way, that this is what will be found in every classroom, but it does indi-
cate two things: (a) A decision to use calculators wisely during mathematics
instruction can be made with some confidence; and (b) when calculators are
blamed for damaging students’ mathematical competence, it would be useful
to check the full instructional program—the problem is likely to be a poor use
James Hiebert 7
of calculators, or a feature of instruction unrelated to calculators, and not the

calculators themselves.3
If researchers cannot prove that one course of action is the best one, it follows
that researchers cannot prescribe a curriculum and a pedagogical approach for all
students and for all time. Decisions about curriculum and pedagogy are always
tentative, made with some level of confidence, a level that changes over time
with new information and changing conditions. Research can, and should, play a
critical role in helping educators make informed decisions and set the levels of
confidence, but we cannot look to research for clear prescriptions.
Research cannot imagine new ideas. Improving the learning opportunities for
students depends, in part, on coming up with new ideas—new ways of teaching,
new curriculum materials, new ways of organizing schools. Generating new
ideas depends on the creative acts of the human mind. Research, by itself, is no
substitute. Of course, the research process can place people in position to see
things in a new way and imagine new possibilities, but it is the individual’s inter-
pretation, not the research evidence alone, that generates the new ideas.
Suppose we wanted to develop a better method for teaching fractions. We could
begin by reviewing the research evidence from previous experiments on teaching
fractions. We might be able to tell which methods have worked best, but to imag-
ine an even more effective approach we would need to use other things we know
about students’ learning, about classroom processes, about mathematics, and so
on. New ideas might be triggered by reading previous research and conducting
studies ourselves, but forming the new ideas requires human creativity.
It is important to remember that the research data tell us something only about
the teaching methods or curriculum materials that have been tested. Often, class-
room experiments compare a new method with a traditional or “control” method.
When the results favor the new method, investigators are tempted to claim that
the new method should be adopted. But the power of the results is only as great
as the control method against which the new method was compared. It may be
true that, of the two, the new method is more effective, but there may be a third
method that is even more effective.
A good example of this situation can be found in past descriptions of how expert
teachers differ from novices (Good, Grouws, & Beckerman, 1978; Leinhardt,
1986). Experts were found to teach quickly paced lessons, cover more problems,
and ask more recall than explanation questions. Does this result mean that we
should train all teachers to teach in this way? If the two alternatives included in these
studies were the only options, maybe so. But, suppose the goals change from a focus
3 Many of the claims that calculators undermine students’ mathematics learning seem to be prompt-
ed by anecdotes and stories of calculators used poorly. Some of these claims, such as those made by
David Gelernter in his New York Post column (1998), have attracted a good deal of public attention.
If these critiques promote a debate about the goals of mathematics education, they could be useful.
But, the argument that methods or materials should be eliminated if they can be used poorly is not
persuasive, even when supported by anecdotes; very little would remain in the classroom.
Systematically collected data, from large numbers of trials, are much more informative.
on efficient execution of written computation procedures to a balance between a

broader set of skills and conceptual understanding, and suppose that there are other
approaches, developed more recently, that help students achieve these goals even
better? Then we need to consider seriously these alternative approaches.
Some Things We Can Expect From Research

Before summarizing what can be learned from research about the effects of dif-
ferent instructional approaches, we must continue calibrating our expectations.
After all, research is not filled just with limitations; it holds enormous potential.
Research can influence the nature of standards. Although research cannot be the
basis for making the final decision about standards, mathematics education is filled
with examples of ways that research can influence the nature of standards. In the
early 1900s, mathematics was viewed as a valuable subject because learning math-
ematics was believed to exercise the mind, and the mind, like a muscle, needed exer-
cise to become strong. E. L. Thorndike (1922; Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901)
warned educators that the idea of mind as muscle was a poor analogy. Students’
minds did not appear to become stronger from studying mathematics (they did not
become smarter in other areas); they simply learned mathematics. Standards today
rarely prescribe mathematical activity in order to exercise the mind. Thorndike’s
research encouraged a move away from these kinds of standards.
Research on learning also can have the opposite effect—it can document new
possibilities and draw attention toward new standards. Research on young chil-
dren’s ability to solve simple arithmetic story problems before instruction pro-
vides one example (Carpenter, Moser, & Romberg, 1982). Standards increasing-
ly emphasize young students’ inventions of arithmetic procedures because, in
part, we know they are capable of such inventions.
Research in the subject itself also can shape the kinds of standards that are
selected. For example, research and development within mathematics has opened
up vast new areas of study, such as coding theory and combinatorics. Related
topics in discrete mathematics are now found in the elementary and secondary
curricula and are identified in the NCTM Standards.
Research influences the nature of standards only when the implications of
research are valued. Mathematical inventions by students are not included in the
Standards simply because students are capable of inventing; they are included
because an additional value judgment has been made—that invention is an
important mathematical process. Topics in discrete mathematics are included not
just because they are there but because a judgment has been made about their
importance in the field of mathematics.
Research can document the current situation. Research can provide informa-
tion about how we are doing at the moment—how we are teaching, what cur-
riculum materials we are using, and how students are learning. Although this is
an obvious role for research, it often is underutilized. Take the case of California
(Stigler, 1998). In 1995, faced with falling mathematics achievement scores, the
James Hiebert 9
state superintendent of public instruction appointed a task force to study the sit-
uation and propose solutions. Why, if California’s curriculum frameworks had
received so much acclaim, were students’ achievement scores so low?
Discussion at the task force meetings soon turned to the frameworks. Were they
to blame? Some members thought so; some members defended them.
Lost in those early debates in California was the fact that no information was
available on the extent to which the frameworks were influencing mathematics
instruction in the state’s classrooms. Without knowing what was happening in
classrooms, how could the effectiveness of the frameworks be assessed? This story
is not meant to single out California; few, if any, states regularly collect informa-
tion on what is happening inside classrooms. The absence of data collection is
unfortunate because without information about the current situation, we make
unwitting mistakes and produce the pendulum swings often evident in education.
Research can document the effectiveness of new ideas. In addition to using
research to apply the brakes, research also can be used to step on the accelerator.
Research can document what students can learn under what kinds of conditions.
Research can show that students can reach certain goals and that some kinds of
instruction are especially effective in helping them get there. For example, given
appropriate instruction, students at particular ages can learn more about proba-
bility (Jones, Thornton, Langrall, Johnson, & Tarr, 1997) or engage in more
deductive reasoning (Fawcett, 1938; King, 1973; Yerushalmy, Chazan, &
Gordon, 1987) than they do now. Research of this kind can help to verify that
improvements in particular areas are feasible, that specific visions of the profes-
sionals in the field are reasonable.
By the same token, research also can show that new ideas are untenable. Visions
of what is possible for students might be endorsed enthusiastically by experts but
prove to be misinformed and unrealistic. What is crucial is that carefully collected
empirical data be used to distinguish between the new ideas that can be imple-
mented effectively and those that can’t. Without such information, we can engage
in debates, like those of the California task force, that have no resolution.
An increasingly common debate is illustrated by this excerpt from the April
26, 1998, edition of the Riverside Press-Enterprise newspaper:
High failure rates and concerns that students are not learning the math skills they
need has prompted a third of Inland area high schools trying a new college-prep pro-
gram to drop it. Riverside’s Poly High School discontinued College Preparatory
Mathematics [CPM] in June after only 27 percent of the Algebra I students earned a
C or better. One semester after scrapping the program, the passing rate went up to 42
percent. (Sharma, 1998)
As the story continues, it becomes clear that there is no consensus among the
local stakeholders about whether or not CPM is a failure nor about why it is hav-
ing the reported effect. Many opinions are expressed, such as that NCTM-
inspired programs like this are doomed to fail, but there are no clear conclusions.
Of course, there can be no clear conclusions because no information was col-
lected systematically about what was going on in classrooms. We do not know

how the program was being implemented, so there is no way to evaluate its effec-
tiveness.4 Unfortunately, many of the claims and counter-claims about the
effects of new programs are based on these kinds of stories, without the benefit
of real information.
Research can suggest explanations for successes and failures. Researchers can
probe beneath the surface and collect information to help us understand the situ-
ation and prevent us from making mistakes and engaging in fruitless debates.
Consider a recent report by investigators of the QUASAR project, a large-scale
effort to improve the mathematics education programs of inner-city middle
schools. In some QUASAR schools, students’ achievement was not rising as
expected. It would have been easy to conclude that the reform programs were not
effective for some students. But the investigators took a second look, comparing
schools in which students’ achievement was increasing with schools in which it
was not (Parke & Smith, 1998). What they found were major differences in the
staffing situations in the two kinds of schools. In the less successful schools, the
rate of teacher and principal turnover was very high. This turnover resulted in a
relatively weak implementation plan and fewer and more superficial changes in
classroom instruction. So, it would be a mistake to conclude that the school’s
program itself was ineffective; instead, one can conclude only that a weak imple-
mentation was ineffective and that this can occur when staff do not have the time
to learn new practices.
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM RESEARCH?
The guidelines for what we can expect from research help to interpret the
research findings that are relevant for the NCTM Standards. The following obser-
vations summarize briefly what we know from applying our research machin-
ery—taking advantage of what it can do and accounting for its limitations.5
4 Beyond the absence of information about classroom practice, there are other missing elements
in this story, elements that are needed to interpret the “facts.” For example, what does it mean for
the passing grades a teacher assigns to move from 27% to 42%? Are students learning more? Maybe
they are, or maybe they are being tested on easier material.
5 Summarizing briefly a large body of research is not an easy task. One is faced with an immedi-
ate problem: Which studies should be consulted? One option would be to include only reports of tra-
ditional scientific experiments. A team of researchers made this decision in their March 1998 report
to the California State Board of Education: “Review of High Quality Experimental Mathematics
Research,” was prepared by R. C. Dixon, D. W. Carnine, D.-S. Lee, J. Wallin, The National Center
to Improve the Tools of Educators, and D. Chard. The basic issue is how one measures high-quali-
ty research. A number of helpful discussions of this thorny question are already available. See, for
example, the presentations in Part V (“Evaluation of Research in Mathematics Education”) in
Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A Search for Identity, edited by A. Sierpinska and
J. Kilpatrick (1998), including chapters by F. K. Lester and D. V. Lambdin (“The Ship of Theseus
and Other Metaphors for Thinking About What We Value in Mathematics Education Research”)
and by G. Hanna (“Evaluating Research Papers in Mathematics Education”); see also Kilpatrick, J.
(1993). Beyond face value: Assessing research in mathematics education. In G. Nissen & M.
James Hiebert 11
The Current State of Mathematics Teaching and Learning

What is the current state of classroom teaching? It may surprise some people
to learn that we have a quite consistent, predictable way of teaching mathemat-
ics in the United States and that we have used the same basic methods for near-
ly a century (Fey, 1979; Hoetker & Ahlbrand, 1969; Stake & Easley, 1978;
Stigler & Hiebert, 1997; Stodolsky, 1988; Weiss, 1978). Here is an often cited
account from a researcher’s observations of mathematics lessons:
First, answers were given for the previous day’s assignment. A brief explanation,
sometimes none at all, was given of the new material, and problems were assigned
for the next day. The remainder of the class was devoted to students working inde-
pendently on the homework while the teacher moved about the room answering
questions. The most noticeable thing about math classes was the repetition of this
routine. (Welch, 1978, p. 6)
Readers may recognize their own school mathematics experience in this descrip-
tion; many people do.
The same method of teaching persists, even in the face of pressures to change.
After a decade of mathematics reform in the 1960s, the Conference Board of the
Mathematical Sciences (1975) found that “Teachers are essentially teaching the
same way they were taught in school” (p. 77). And, in the midst of current
reforms, the average classroom shows little change (Dixon et al., 1998; Stigler &
Hiebert, 1997).
Most characteristic of traditional mathematics teaching is the emphasis on teach-
ing procedures, especially computation procedures. Little attention is given to
helping students develop conceptual ideas, or even to connecting the procedures
they are learning with the concepts that show why they work. In the lessons includ-
ed in the video study of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), for 78% of the topics covered during the eighth-grade U.S. lessons, pro-
cedures and ideas were only demonstrated or stated, not explained or developed.
And 96% of the time that students were doing seatwork they were practicing pro-
cedures they had been shown how to do (Stigler & Hiebert, 1997).
Coupled with this information on teaching practices, the TIMSS data also
show that the traditional U.S. curriculum is relatively repetitive, unfocused, and
undemanding (Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1996; Silver, 1998). Compared
with the curricula in other countries, the U.S. curriculum provides few opportu-
nities for students to solve challenging problems and to engage in mathematical
reasoning, communicating, conjecturing, justifying, and proving. Much of the
Blomhøj (Eds.), Criteria for scientific quality and relevance in the didactics of mathematics (pp. 15-
34). Roskilde, Denmark: Danish Research Council for the Humanities. Three criteria that were kept
in mind for this summary of research were (a) possesses educational significance and scientific merit,
(b) is directed toward understanding teaching and learning in classrooms, and (c) converges toward
a conclusion using a variety of methodologies. In addition, most of the studies were conducted in the
United States. Many studies that fit the criteria have been conducted in other countries, but there is
always the question of whether something that works well in one culture can be imported into anoth-
er culture.
curriculum deals with calculating and defining, and much of this activity is car-
ried out in a rather simplistic way.
What are students learning from traditional instruction? On the basis of the
most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)6, we know
that almost all students learn to add, subtract, multiply, and divide whole num-
bers, and the majority learn to do very simple arithmetic with fractions, decimals,
and percents. For example, in eighth grade, 91% of students added three-digit
numbers with regrouping, 80% completed a long-division problem, 83% round-
ed a decimal number to the nearest whole number, and 58% found the percent-
age of a number (Kouba & Wearne, in press; Wearne & Kouba, in press).
We also know, however, that students’ knowledge and skills are very fragile
and apparently are learned without much depth or conceptual understanding.
This problem becomes evident when we study performance on related items that
require students to extend these skills, reason about them, or explain why they
work. For example, only 35% of eighth graders identified how many pieces were
left if 65 pieces of candy were divided equally among 15 bags with each bag hav-
ing as many as possible (Kouba & Wearne, in press). Multistep problems pose
an even greater challenge. For example, 8% of eighth graders solved a multistep
problem on planning a trip that required adding miles, finding distance from
miles per gallon, and calculating a fractional part of the trip (Wearne & Kouba,
in press).
Conclusions. The data confirm one of the most reliable findings from research
on teaching and learning: Students learn what they have an opportunity to learn.
In most classrooms, students have more opportunities to learn simple calculation
procedures, terms, and definitions than to learn more complex procedures and
why they work or to engage in mathematical processes other than calculation and
memorization. Achievement data indicate that is what they are learning: simple
calculation procedures, terms, and definitions. They are not learning what they
have few opportunities to learn—how to adjust procedures to solve new prob-
lems or how to engage in other mathematical processes.
These achievement data indicate that the traditional teaching approaches are
deficient and can be improved. It is curious that the current debate about the
future of mathematics education in this country often is treated as a comparison
between the traditional “proven” approaches and the new “experimental”
approaches (Schoenfeld, 1994). Arguments against change sometimes claim that
it is poor policy, and even unethical, to implement unproven new programs. Lee
Hochberg, a reporter for Oregon Public Broadcasting, recently had this to say
during a story on reform-minded mathematics teaching for the PBS NewsHour
with Jim Lehrer: “Although there never was any scientific research conducted on
6 NAEP is the best source of information on the achievement of U.S. students because the items
are matched specifically to the U.S. curriculum, and the sampling design ensures a large and repre-
sentative sample of students.
James Hiebert 13
the effectiveness of this style of teaching, the NCTM hoped that it would better
prepare American students for the modern adult workplace” (May 11, 1998).
Expressing a similar sentiment, a parent in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, removed
her son from a reform mathematics program because “I like going with what I
know is proven. I just don’t want to take the chance” (Bondi, 1998).
The commendable part of these arguments is that they claim to promote
research-based decision making. That part certainly is appropriate and, in fact, is
the reason for this article. But, presuming that traditional approaches have
proven to be successful is ignoring the largest database we have. The evidence
indicates that the traditional curriculum and instructional methods in the United
States are not serving our students well. The long-running experiment we have
been conducting with traditional methods shows serious deficiencies, and we
should attend carefully to the research findings that are accumulating regarding
alternative programs.
How Effective Are the New Programs?

What are the new teaching methods? Summarizing the alternative methods of
teaching mathematics that are being developed around the country is nearly
impossible because there are so many programs. Even if we examine only those
that have been inspired by the Standards and those that are trying to translate the
recommendations into practice, it is difficult to lump them into one description.
It is possible, however, to focus on one area of the curriculum in which consid-
erable work has been done in designing and testing alternative instructional pro-
grams—primary-grade arithmetic (Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, &
Loef, 1989; Cobb et al., 1991; Fennema et al., 1996; Fuson & Briars, 1990;
Hiebert & Wearne, 1992, 1993, 1996; Hiebert et al., 1997; Kamii, 1985, 1989;
Villaseñor & Kepner, 1993; Wood & Sellers, 1996). Because many of the inves-
tigators are engaged in independent research programs, there are differences in
the alternative instructional programs that are implemented in classrooms. But,
there also is a convergence toward some significant similarities, and it is this
convergence that is of particular interest.
The features that characterize many of the alternative programs in primary-
grade arithmetic include the following:
• Build directly on students’ entry knowledge and skills. Many students enter
school being able to count and solve simple arithmetic problems. Alternative
programs take advantage of this ability by gradually increasing the range of
problem types and the sizes of the numbers.
• Provide opportunities for both invention and practice. Classroom activity
often revolves around solving problems that require some creative work by
the students and some practice of already learned skills. For example, second
graders may have been subtracting numbers like 345 – 127 and then are asked
to work out their own methods for subtracting 403 – 265 (a problem with a 0
in the subtrahend).
• Focus on the analysis of (multiple) methods. Classroom discussion usually

centers on the methods for solving problems, methods that have been present-
ed by the students or the teacher. Methods are compared for similarities and
differences, advantages and disadvantages.
• Ask students to provide explanations. Students are expected to present solutions
to problems, to describe the methods they use, and to explain why they work.
There are research reports of alternative instructional programs in other areas
that share these features. These include, for example, the comprehensive prob-
lem-solving program for middle school students commonly referred to as the
“Jasper Project” (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt [CTGV],
1997) as well as smaller scale research programs on students’ learning of com-
mon fractions (Behr, Wachsmuth, Post, & Lesh, 1984; Mack, 1990), decimal
fractions (Wearne & Hiebert, 1988, 1989), percents (Moss & Case, in press), and
calculus (Heid, 1988; Palmiter, 1991).
What are students learning from alternative programs? Because the goals of
the alternative programs are somewhat different from those of traditional pro-
grams, comparing students’ achievement in the two kinds of programs must be
done carefully. The following conclusions pertain mostly to elementary school
students’ learning of arithmetic, for which the teaching methods in the alterna-
tive programs show considerable similarity.
• Instructional programs that emphasize conceptual development, with the goal
of developing students’ understanding, can facilitate significant mathematics
learning without sacrificing skill proficiency.
It should come as no surprise that instruction can be designed to promote deep-
er conceptual understanding. If students have more opportunity to construct
mathematical understandings, they will construct them more often and more
deeply. The question is, at what cost? Will they fail to master other knowledge
or skills that we value? The results show that well-designed and implemented
instructional programs can facilitate both conceptual understanding and proce-
dural skill (Carpenter et al., 1989; Cobb et al., 1991; CTGV, 1997; Hiebert &
Wearne, 1993, 1996; Hiebert et al., 1997; Kamii, 1985, 1989; Knapp, Shields, &
Turnbull, 1992; Mack, 1990; Moss & Case, in press; Wearne & Hiebert, 1988;
Wood & Sellers, 1996).
• Students learn new concepts and skills while they are solving problems.
The traditional approach to solving problems in U.S. classrooms is to teach a
procedure and then assign students problems on which they are to practice the
procedure. Problems are viewed as applications of already learned procedures.
The alternative instructional programs take a different view. The theory on which
these programs are based says that students can acquire skills while they devel-
op them to solve problems. In fact, the development of the skill, itself, can be
treated as a problem for students to solve. Evidence for students’ conceptual and
procedural learning in these programs is presented in the reports cited above; a
James Hiebert 15
summary of these findings is presented in Hiebert et al., 1996.

• If students over-practice procedures before they understand them, they have
more difficulty making sense of them later.
A long-running debate has been whether students should practice procedures
first and then try to understand them or should understand the procedures before
practicing them. The best evidence suggests that if students have memorized pro-
cedures and practiced them a lot, it is difficult for them to go back and under-
stand them later (Brownell & Chazal, 1935; Mack, 1990; Resnick & Omanson,
1987; Wearne & Hiebert, 1988).
Explaining the Lack of Implementation

If it is true that instructional programs can be designed to facilitate more ambi-
tious learning goals for students, why don’t we see them more often? Why do we
read stories of failed programs, like the story carried in the Riverside Press-
Enterprise (Sharma, 1998)? One possibility is that the alternative programs,
which show great promise in research settings, are not implemented effectively
when adopted by schools and districts. One reason for this situation is simple but
under-appreciated: It is difficult to change the way we teach. The new, more
ambitious instructional programs require teachers to make substantial changes.
This change doesn’t happen automatically; it requires learning. And learning for
teachers, just as for students, requires an opportunity to learn. But most teachers
have relatively few opportunities to learn new methods of teaching (Cohen &
Hill, 1998; Lord, 1994; O’Day & Smith, 1993; Weiss, 1994).
Research on teacher learning shows that fruitful opportunities to learn new
teaching methods share several core features: (a) ongoing (measured in years)
collaboration of teachers for purposes of planning with (b) the explicit goal of
improving students’ achievement of clear learning goals, (c) anchored by atten-
tion to students’ thinking, the curriculum, and pedagogy, with (d) access to alter-
native ideas and methods and opportunities to observe these in action and to
reflect on the reasons for their effectiveness (CTGV, 1997; Cohen & Hill, 1998;
Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthey, 1996; Fennema et al., 1996; Franke, Carpenter,
Fennema, Ansell, & Behrend, in press; Little, 1982, 1993; Schifter & Fosnot,
1993; Stein, Silver, & Smith, in press; Stigler & Hiebert, 1997; Swafford, Jones,
& Thornton, 1997). Because most classroom teachers in the United States do not
yet have learning opportunities of this kind, it is not surprising that promising
alternative methods are not widely implemented.
CONCLUSIONS
The Standards proposed by NCTM are, in many ways, more ambitious than
those of traditional programs. On the basis of beliefs about what students should
know and be able to do, the Standards include conceptual understanding and the
use of key mathematical processes as well as skill proficiency. The best evidence
we have indicates that most traditional programs do not provide students with
many opportunities to achieve these additional goals and, not surprisingly, most
students do not achieve them. Alternative programs can be designed to provide
these opportunities, and, when the programs have been implemented with fideli-
ty for reasonable lengths of time, students have learned more and learned more
deeply than in traditional programs. Although the primary evidence comes from
elementary school, especially the primary grades, there is no inconsistent evi-
dence. That is, there are no programs at any level that share the core instruction-
al features, have been implemented as intended for reasonable lengths of time,
and show that students perform more poorly than their traditionally taught peers.
But this is not the end of the story. Alternative programs, consistent with the
NCTM Standards, often require considerable learning by the teacher. Without
new opportunities to learn, teachers must either stick with their traditional
approaches or add on a feature or two of the new programs (e.g., small-group
activity) while retaining their same goals and lesson designs. On the basis of the
available evidence, it is reasonable to presume that it is these practices that often
are critiqued as not producing higher achievement.
What we have learned from research now brings us back to an issue of values.
We now know that we can design curriculum and pedagogy to help students
meet the ambitious learning goals outlined by the NCTM Standards. The ques-
tion is whether we value these goals enough to invest in opportunities for teach-
ers to learn to teach in the ways they require.
REFERENCES
Behr, M. J., Wachsmuth, I., Post, T. R., & Lesh, R. (1984). Order and equivalence of rational num-
bers: A clinical teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15,
323–341.
Bondi, N. (1998, May 26). Parents wary of new program for teaching math. Detroit News.
Brownell, W. A., & Chazal, C. B. (1935). The effects of premature drill in third-grade arithmetic.
Journal of Educational Research, 29, 17–28.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.-P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge
of children’s mathematical thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American
Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531.
Carpenter, T. P., Moser, J. M., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.). (1982). Addition and subtraction: A cogni-
tive perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., & Perlwitz, M. (1991).
Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 22, 3–29.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathe-
matics reform in California. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (1975). Overview and analysis of school mathe-
matics, grades K–12. Washington, DC: Author.
Dixon, R. C., Carnine, D. W., Lee, D.-S., Wallin, J., The National Center to Improve the Tools of
Educators, & Chard, D. (1998). Review of high quality experimental mathematics research:
Report to the California State Board of Education. Eugene, OR: National Center to Improve the
Tools of Educators.
James Hiebert 17
Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching,
learning, and school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof; a description and evaluation of certain procedures used
in a senior high school to develop an understanding of the nature of proof. 1938 Yearbook of the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. New York: Columbia University, Teachers
College.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A lon-
gitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.
Fey, J. (1979). Mathematics teaching today: Perspectives from three national surveys. Mathematics
Teacher, 72, 490–504.
Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (in press). Understanding
teachers’ self-sustaining, generative change in the context of professional development.
International Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education.
Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach for first-
and second-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in
Gelernter, D. (1998). Put down that calculator, stupid! New York Post [On-line]. Available Internet:
http://www.nypostonline.com/commentary/2735.htm
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Beckerman, T. (1978). Curriculum pacing: Some empirical data in
mathematics. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10, 75–81.
Hanna, G. (1998). Evaluating research papers in mathematics education. In A. Sierpinska & J.
Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity: An ICMI
study (Book 2, pp. 399–407). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Heid, M. K. (1988). Resequencing skills and concepts in applied calculus using the computer as a
tool. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 3–25.
Hembree, R., & Dessart, D. J. (1986). Effects of hand-held calculators in precollege mathematics
education: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 83–99.
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1992). Links between teaching and learning place value with understand-
ing in first grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 98–122.
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in
second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1996). Instruction, understanding, and skill in multidigit addition and sub-
traction. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 251–283.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne,
D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of math-
ematics. Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 12–21.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human,
P. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. (1969). The persistence of the recitation. American Educational
Research Journal, 6, 145–167.
Jones, G. A., Thornton, C. A., Langrall, C. W., Johnson, T. M., & Tarr, J. E. (1997, April). Assessing
and using students’ probabilistic thinking to inform instruction. Paper presented at the Research
Presession to the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
Minneapolis, MN.
Kamii, C. (with Joseph, L. L.). (1989). Young children continue to reinvent arithmetic—2nd grade:
Implications of Piaget’s theory. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kamii, C. K. (with DeClark, G.). (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of
Piaget’s theory. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kilpatrick, J. (1993). Beyond face value: Assessing research in mathematics education. In G. Nissen
& M. Blomhøj (Eds.), Criteria for scientific quality and relevance in the didactics of mathemat-
ics (pp. 15–34). Roskilde, Denmark: Danish Research Council for the Humanities.
King, I. L. (1973). A formative development of an elementary school unit on proof. Journal for
Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (1992). Academic challenge for the children of pover-
ty. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning.
Kouba, V. L., & Wearne, D. (in press). Number sense, properties, and operations. In E. A. Silver &
P. A. Kenney (Eds.), Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the National Assessment
of Educational Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Leinhardt, G. (1986). Expertise in math teaching. Educational Leadership, 43 (7), 28–33.
Lester, F. K., Jr., & Lambdin, D. V. (1998). The ship of Theseus and other metaphors for thinking
about what we value in mathematics education research. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.),
Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity: An ICMI study (Book 2, pp.
415–425). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school suc-
cess. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325–340.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129–151.
Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and the role of profes-
sional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on national standards
in America (pp. 175–204). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Mack, N. K. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 16–32.
Moss, J., & Case, R. (in press). Developing children’s understanding of rational numbers: A new
model and an experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathe-
matics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathemat-
ics. Reston, VA: Author.
O’Day, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.),
Designing coherent policy (pp. 250–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmiter, J. R. (1991). Effects of computer algebra systems on concept and skill acquisition in cal-
culus. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 151–156.
Parke, C. S., & Smith, M. (1998, April). Examining student learning outcomes in the QUASAR pro-
ject and comparing features at two sites that may account for their differential outcomes. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,
CA.
Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. F. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.),
Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 41–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers
meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1996). A splintered vision: An investigation of
U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula? Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 13, 55–80.
Sharma, A. (1998, April 26). Math not working for some. Riverside Press-Enterprise.
Silver, E. A. (1998). Improving mathematics in middle school: Lessons from TIMSS and related
research. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
Stake, R., & Easley, J. (Eds.). (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois.
Stein, M. K., Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. S. (in press). Mathematics reform and teacher development:
A community of practice perspective. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices: A
symposium on mathematics and science learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
James Hiebert 19
Stigler, J. W. (1998). Video surveys: New data for the improvement of classroom instruction. In S.
G. Paris & H. M. Wellman (Eds.), Global prospects for education: Development, culture, and
schooling (pp. 129–168). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruc-
tion: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 14–21.
Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1997). Increased knowledge in geometry and
instructional practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 467–483.
Thorndike, E. L. (1922). The psychology of arithmetic. New York: Macmillan.
Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function
upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247–261, 384–395, 553–564.
Villaseñor, A., Jr., & Kepner, H. S., Jr. (1993). Arithmetic from a problem-solving perspective: An
urban implementation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 62–69.
Wearne, D., & Hiebert, J. (1988). A cognitive approach to meaningful mathematics instruction:
Testing a local theory using decimal numbers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
19, 371–384.
Wearne, D., & Hiebert, J. (1989). Cognitive changes during conceptually based instruction on deci-
mal fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 507–513.
Wearne, D., & Kouba, V. L. (in press). Rational numbers. In E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenney (Eds.),
Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Weiss, I. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science, mathematics, and social studies edu-
cation. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Weiss, I. (1994). A profile of science and mathematics education in the United States: 1993. Chapel
Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Welch, W. (1978). Science education in Urbanville: A case study. In R. Stake and J. Easley (Eds.),
Case studies in science education (pp. 5–1 — 5–33). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
Wood, T., & Sellers, P. (1996). Assessment of a problem-centered mathematics program: Third
grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 337–353.
Yerushalmy, M., Chazan, D., & Gordon, M. (1987). Guided inquiry and technology: A year long
study of children and teachers using the Geometric Supposer (Technical Report No. 88–6).
Cambridge, MA: Educational Technology Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 294 711)
Author
James Hiebert, H. Rodney Sharp Professor of Education, University of Delaware, School of
Education, Newark, DE 19716; [email protected]
1999, Vol. 30, No. 1, 20–46
Gender Differences in First-Grade

Mathematics Strategy Use:
Parent and Teacher Contributions
Martha Carr, Donna L. Jessup, and Diana Fuller

University of Georgia
In this study we examined how parents and teachers influence the development of gender dif-
ferences in mathematics strategy use in the 1st grade. Children were interviewed about their strat-
egy use, their metacognitive knowledge about specific strategies, and their perceptions of
parents’ and teachers’ attitudes toward various strategies. Parents and teachers completed
questionnaires about the types of strategy and metacognitive instruction they provided. Previous
results (Carr & Jessup, 1997) were replicated with boys correctly using retrieval during the 1st
grade more than girls and girls correctly using overt strategies more than boys. Boys were influ-
enced by the belief that adults like strategies indicating ability and by teacher instruction on retrieval
strategies. Girls’ strategy use was not related to perceived adult beliefs or actions.
Keywords: Addition, subtraction; Children’s strategies; Gender issues; Metacognition; Parents’

role; Social factors; Teaching (role, style, methods)
Girls choose to take advanced mathematics courses less frequently than boys
do, and girls are less successful than boys on mathematics achievement tests
(American Association of University Women, 1992). These differences occur
despite apparent equality in mathematics skills as measured by classroom grades
(Friedman, 1989) and even despite superior performance by girls in some areas
of mathematics, for example, calculation (Marshall, 1984). One explanation for
girls’ failure to pursue advanced mathematics courses is that early-developing
differences in cognitive styles lead to differences in later mathematics achieve-
ment (Fennema & Peterson, 1985). There is evidence for differences in girls’ and
boys’ styles of doing mathematics. Carr and Jessup (1997) found that to solve
computational tasks in first grade girls more frequently use manipulatives to
count-on or count-all, whereas boys retrieve basic mathematics facts from mem-
ory more often than girls. Fennema and her colleagues (Fennema, Carpenter,
Jacobs, Franke, & Levi, 1998) also found gender differences in strategy use: In
early elementary school, girls tended to use counting procedures modeled with
The writing of this article was supported by Grant DBS-9122032 from the National
Science Foundation. The authors would like to thank the teachers of Oglethorpe Elementary
School, Lilburn Elementary School, Lawrenceville Elementary School, Montecello Elementary
School, and Morgan County Primary School for their help and patience.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Martha Carr, Educational
Psychology Department, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
Martha Carr, Donna L. Jessup, and Diana Fuller 21
manipulatives and boys tended to use invented derived facts. Metacognitive

knowledge about mathematics strategies has been shown to support the use of
modeling with manipulatives for girls, but not boys, at the beginning of the first
grade (Carr & Jessup, 1997).
Another explanation offered for gender differences in advanced mathematics
course-taking is that girls have poorer motivation in mathematics. Girls are con-
sistently found to be less confident than boys in their mathematics skills (e.g.,
Boekaerts, Seegers, & Vermeer, 1995), are less likely to believe that they will be
successful on mathematics tasks (e.g., Ewers & Wood, 1993), and are more like-
ly to hold a learned-helpless self-concept with respect to mathematics (e.g.,
Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993). These differences in motivation
are believed to result in girls’ being more comfortable and accomplished in
everyday classroom situations but performing poorly in novel situations such as
taking achievement tests (Kimball, 1989). Thus, girls’ lack of confidence and
low expectations for success may lead to differences in their strategic approach-
es to mathematics. Researchers to date, however, have failed to determine how
emerging differences in motivation are related to emerging differences in math-
ematics performance.
Those offering a third explanation assume that mathematics skills and beliefs
about mathematics develop in response to environmental and social demands
(e.g., Carraher, Carraher, & Schliemann, 1985). According to this explanation,
girls and boys are influenced to develop different skills, knowledge, and motiva-
tion as a result of their interactions with peers, parents, and teachers. For exam-
ple, boys’ increased access to neighborhood activities and resources results in a
larger range in mathematics achievement scores for boys and may explain boys’
superior performance on achievement tests (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson,
1994). Similarly, the different messages girls and boys receive about themselves
as mathematicians influence their attitudes and approaches to mathematics (e.g.,
Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982). In the present study we examined gender dif-
ferences in mathematics with the assumption that parents’ and teachers’ beliefs
and reported actions are related to gender differences in children’s strategy use
and metacognitive knowledge about strategies.
The Role of Parents

Parents’ beliefs about their children influence the children’s learning of skills
and knowledge (Jacobs & Weisz, 1994). For example, parents support problem
solving by transforming problems into more manageable tasks and by scaffold-
ing children’s attempts at problem solving (Parent, Moss, & Gosselin, 1993;
Sigel, 1982). Parents also provide direct instruction on strategies (Carr, Kurtz,
Schneider, Turner, & Borkowski, 1989). If parents believe that their daughters
are less able in mathematics and will have more difficulty with mathematics than
their sons (Parsons et al., 1982), they may encourage their daughters’ use of
counting procedures using manipulatives. Boys, if they are perceived to be more
22 Parent and Teacher Influences
capable, may be given more latitude in their strategy use or encouraged to use
more advanced strategies that are more risky in that they increase the chances of
failure. Parents’ attitudes and beliefs, therefore, may be transmitted through
instruction or comments to children.
Differences in children’s mathematical behaviors, in turn, influence parents’
expectations. As an example, parents’ expectations for boys increased after the
boys showed improved performance on the California Achievement Test
(Alexander & Entwisle, 1988). There is some evidence that it is the response of
adults to a child’s performance, instead of to the gender of the child, that is
responsible for differences in mathematics achievement (Pedersen, Elmore, &
Bleyer, 1986). Thus, children’s developing mathematics skills are dependent not
only on their prior performance but also on adults’ reactions to their prior per-
formance (Entwisle & Hayduk, 1988). As a part of this study we wanted to
examine how parents, in their instruction of their children, respond to their chil-
dren’s early mathematics activities.
The Role of Teachers

We know that teachers tailor strategy recommendations to the grade level of
the child. For example, teachers more commonly recommend the use of manip-
ulatives to children in the earlier grades and the use of derived facts in later
grades (Moely et al., 1989). Although teachers encourage the use of strategies
involving manipulatives, they often attempt to shape children’s strategy use by
suppressing other forms of modeling, such as counting on fingers, with sugges-
tions to use more “mature” strategies, such as mental calculation (Moely et al.,
1986). If teachers believe that boys and girls have different abilities and if this
belief influences their instruction on strategy use1, they may be directly promot-
ing gender differences in the use of strategies. For example, teachers are more
likely to attribute boys’ performance in mathematics to ability and to believe that
boys are more likely to enjoy mathematics, are more competitive, and are more
logical and independent than girls (Fennema, Peterson, Carpenter, & Lubinski,
1990). These perceptions may translate into differences in beliefs about appro-
priate strategy use by boys and girls, leading to differences in instruction.
Conversely, teachers’ expectations and instruction may be influenced by indi-
vidual children’s characteristics and activities. Preschool girls, in contrast to
boys, are more likely to be responsive to teachers, to attend more to teachers’
instructions, and to seek out reassurance and guidance from teachers (Fennema
& Peterson, 1986). In addition, girls and boys seek out different forms of infor-
mation from teachers (Fennema & Peterson, 1986). Teachers may interpret chil-
dren’s actions to mean that children are less or more capable in mathematics and
respond to these actions accordingly. Early-emerging strategy use, therefore,
1 The term strategy use is used here to refer both to particular strategies used to solve problems and
to the metacognitive regulation of strategy selection.
should influence teachers’ instruction on strategies and on the metacognitive

information children can use to regulate strategies.
The purpose of this study was to examine how the development of gender dif-
ferences in mathematics strategy use in the first grade is occasioned by parents’
and teachers’ reported actions and children’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs. To
examine the relationship between intentional, direct instruction and children’s
strategy use, we assessed parents’ and teachers’ instruction and beliefs through
reported instruction on strategies and on metacognitive aspects of strategy use.
Parents’ and teachers’ beliefs were also assessed via children’s perceptions of
these beliefs. Our goal was to determine whether and how adults’ instruction is
perceived by children and to determine whether children’s perceptions of adults’
beliefs about strategies influenced their strategy use and their metacognitive reg-
ulation of strategy use.
We believed that children’s strategy use and related metacognitive information
about strategy use at the beginning of the school year would influence teachers’
and parents’ instruction by midyear. Parents’ and teachers’ instruction, in turn,
was believed to influence children’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs, children’s
strategy use, and children’s strategy-related metacognitive knowledge. Further,
we believed that children would react to their perceptions of parents’ and teach-
ers’ beliefs toward strategy use.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 92 children, 4 (2 girls, 2 boys) from each of 23 first-grade class-
rooms, were recruited to participate in the project. Their teachers randomly
selected the children to participate in the project (usually by picking names out
of a hat). Letters requesting permission for the children to participate were sent
to the parents of the selected children; the letters also described the expected
parental involvement in the project. Thirteen parents either did not return the per-
mission form or refused to participate, and 13 children were selected as replace-
ments, using the same process. Data for some children are incomplete because 4
children moved before the end of the school year. The average age of the chil-
dren when they started the project was 6 years, 5 months. Children from low,
middle, and upper middle socioeconomic statuses took part in the study; 21% of
the sample were African American, 74% were Caucasian, and 4% were from
other groups (primarily Asian).
The schools were located in northern and central Georgia. Two schools (10
classrooms) were in the suburbs of Atlanta and three schools (13 classrooms)
were in small towns in Georgia. The teachers had been teaching for an average
of 12.5 years in total and an average of 8.92 years at first-grade level. Teachers’
experience ranged between 1 year and 26 years. All teachers were female and
certified to teach first grade. One teacher held a PhD, 10 teachers held MA or
MEd degrees, and 12 teachers held BA or BS degrees.
The instruction in the classrooms varied within and across schools. All teach-
ers used manipulatives in the instruction of mathematics. Three teachers used a
child-centered approach to mathematics instruction. Five teachers used
Mathematics Their Way (Baratta-Lorton, 1988) as the primary form of instruc-
tion, and the remaining 15 teachers used textbook-based instruction combined
with instruction on the use of manipulatives.
Design
The children were interviewed individually outside of the classroom setting
three times (October, January, and April) while they progressed through the first
grade. The interview spacing allowed us to observe changes in children’s strate-
gy use and made data collection manageable. Interviews were videotaped so that
both verbal and nonverbal responses could be automatically recorded, leaving
the investigator free to concentrate on interacting with the child. Only one of the
two investigators worked with the children at any one time. The interviews yield-
ed information about children’s strategy use, metacognitive knowledge about
specific strategies, and perceived parents’ and teachers’ beliefs about strategies.
In January teachers completed a questionnaire about each child. They were asked
about the types of mathematical strategies and metacognitive information about
the regulation of strategies they taught their students. Similarly, a third investi-
gator conducted phone interviews with parents asking about the types of mathe-
matical strategies and related metacognitive information about regulating strate-
gies that parents presented in the home.
Procedure and Materials

Children’s strategy use. Following the procedure used in a previous study
(Carr & Jessup, 1997), we told children that they would be solving 10 addition
and 10 subtraction computation tasks. The children were told to do their best and,
if they wished to do so, to use the available counters provided for their use. The
investigator also told the children that they would be asked questions about how
they computed the answers. A low table was used so that the counting behaviors
would be apparent to the investigator and could be videotaped.
The 10 addition computational tasks (e.g., 3 + 4 = ) were randomly presented
first, followed by the random presentation of the 10 subtraction computational
tasks. The same computational tasks were used in each interview so that indi-
vidual differences could be observed in children’s responses to the same tasks
over repeated sessions. Addition computation tasks were presented first so that
children would experience some success before they moved on to the more dif-
ficult subtraction computation tasks. The computation tasks included 10 single-
digit tasks, 10 tasks with one double-digit number, and 4 tasks with two double-
digit numbers. The tasks were presented on small cards, and the investigator stat-
ed the task when the card was presented. After completing each computation
task, the children were asked how they had solved that task. Children’s respons-
es were checked against observed activities. This technique is a commonly used

procedure and has been shown to be a valid measure of actual strategy use
(Siegler, 1989).
Strategies were categorized as being overt, covert, or retrieval by two raters
who determined the number of computation tasks on which each child correctly
used each strategy. Categorization of strategies into more precise descriptions of
strategy use (e.g., categorizing overt strategies as counting-all or counting-on
through direct modeling) was limited by the small number of times the children
used some strategies and by the focus of the study, which was on the social
observability of strategies. If a child made no attempt to solve a computation
task, the task could not be categorized. Interrater reliability for strategy catego-
rization was α = .95.
Strategies in which children used the counters or counted on fingers were clas-
sified as overt strategies because these strategies were visible to others and,
therefore, were open to comment by parents and teachers. For example, count-
ing-on and counting-all strategies directly modeled with physical objects as
described by Carpenter and Moser (1984) were categorized as overt strategies.
Strategies were classified as covert when no manipulatives were used and
when the child described counting numbers in his or her head. Counting-on
strategies that were not directly modeled using manipulatives or fingers were
placed in this category, together with derived-facts strategies in which children
used basic math facts to calculate answers. Both of these strategies were catego-
rized as covert because they were not observable but required some calculation.
When children used covert strategies but were unable to describe the strategy
used, the strategy was identified either by asking the child to replicate the pro-
cedure on his or her fingers or by asking which number he or she started to count
from (e.g., for the computation task 8 + 3, the child was asked whether he or she
started to count from 1, 8, or 3).
A strategy was categorized as retrieval if the child described pulling the infor-
mation from memory or said that the information just “popped” into his or her
head. Retrieval was distinguished from covert-strategy use by examining the
amount of time it took a child to solve a computation task. A child who reported
retrieval and who was quick in his or her response was judged by the raters to
have used retrieval. If the initial response from the child was vague, the investi-
gator probed by asking the child, “Did you count numbers in your head?” or “Did
the answer just pop into your head and you didn’t have to think about it at all?”
Guessing was not categorized separately because children rarely reported guess-
ing and because their incorrectly retrieved answers were typically close to the
correct number so that they could have pulled a close but incorrect response from
memory.
Children’s metacognition. We assessed children’s metacognitive knowledge
about the regulation of mathematics strategies during the time the children com-
pleted the addition and subtraction computation tasks. When the children initial-
ly used a strategy, they were asked for a rationale for the use of that strategy: “I
noticed that you just used ______ when you figured out that answer. Why did you
get the answer that way?” Next, the children were asked about the different sit-
uations in which they would use the strategy: “When do you use ______ to fig-
ure out math problems? When don’t you use _____ to figure out math problems?”
If a child was not clear in his or her responses, the investigator working with that
child said, “Tell me more about that.” This request helped prompt the child to
give a more complete response. After the children had completed all the compu-
tation tasks, they were asked about the strategies that they had not used. To avoid
the problem of children altering their strategy use in response to the investiga-
tor’s questions, our questioning about unused strategies occurred after the com-
pletion of the entire set in order. As an example, the children were asked, “When
you were doing all the problems, I noticed that you didn’t use ______ . Why not?
Are there any times that you would use that way? When would (or wouldn’t) that
be a good way to use?”
Metacognitive knowledge was assessed during solution of the computation
tasks instead of after completion of an entire set of computations to assure that
the children connected the questions with the appropriate computation tasks. One
point was scored for each metacognitive response for both the “why” and
“when” questions. If the same response was given for “when” and “when not,”
only 1 point was scored. Possible responses included comments about the speed
or ease of use of a strategy, the capacity of a strategy to help in learning or devel-
opment (e.g., “First kids learn with fingers, then they count in their head”), the
usefulness of the strategy for difficult or easy computational tasks (e.g., “Just
knowing is used for easy problems”), the existence of physical or visual cues,
and the reliability or effectiveness of the strategy. Scores for the metacognitive
questions were summed. A score of 0 meant that a child made no metacognitive
comments, and the maximum score of 9 meant that a child made an appropriate
metacognitive response to each of the three metacognitive questions (why, when,
and when not) for each of the three strategy categories. Children were not given
credit for responses that did not appear to the raters to be accurate or correct
assessments of why and when strategies should be used.
The metacognitive scores were summed for several reasons. It was believed
that metacognitive knowledge about one strategy could influence the use not
only of that strategy but also of other strategies. For example, a child might claim
that retrieval is used for easier computational tasks and overt strategies are used
for harder computational tasks. Thus, the knowledge that strategies are used on
different computational tasks on the basis of the difficulty of the computational
task is not metacognitive knowledge unique to one strategy but is knowledge that
affects all strategy use. In addition, scores for individual response categories of
metacognitive knowledge were not examined independently because the limited
number of responses made it impossible to examine the effect of different
response categories on strategy use and because aggregation improved reliabili-
ty (Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983). Interrater reliability for scoring on
metacognitive knowledge was α = .86.
Children’s perceptions of parents’ and teachers’ beliefs. The children were

first asked about their perceptions of their teachers’ beliefs about the appropri-
ateness of different strategies using three cartoon pictures as visual aids in each
of three paired comparisons. Each cartoon picture showed a child using retrieval
(a child with a light bulb above his or her head in a bubble), a covert strategy (a
child counting numbers in a bubble above his or her head), or an overt strategy
(a child holding up his or her fingers and counting, with numbers). Covert count-
ing was compared to overt counting, retrieval was compared to overt counting,
and covert counting was compared to retrieval. The investigator asked the chil-
dren, for example, “Which does your teacher think is better, to count on your fin-
gers (points to one picture) or to figure something out in your head (points to the
other picture)? Why does your teacher think that?” Children’s perceptions of
their teachers’ beliefs about strategies were scored as metacognitive beliefs if the
children referred to information teachers might provide students to regulate strat-
egy use, including information about the ease of the computational task, the util-
ity of the strategy, the reliability of the strategy, or the accuracy of the strategy.
Children’s perceptions of their teachers’ beliefs about abilities, labeled ability
beliefs, were based on the children’s perceptions of teachers’ comments that a
strategy made the child look smart.
Scores on children’s perceptions regarding their teachers’ ability beliefs and
metacognitive beliefs were summed across the three strategy comparisons to cre-
ate separate scores for perceived ability beliefs and perceived metacognitive
beliefs. The sums were intended to provide indicators of the overall strength of
children’s perceptions of their teachers’ ability and metacognitive beliefs. A
score of 0 for ability meant that for none of the three comparisons had the child
remarked that his or her teacher preferred strategies because they indicated abil-
ity. A maximum score of 3 meant that for each of the three comparisons a child’s
teacher was perceived to prefer a strategy because it indicated high ability.
Typically, children perceived that teachers held ability beliefs when the compar-
ison included retrieval. The same scoring technique was used for perceived
metacognitive beliefs. The possible score range for both the perceived ability
beliefs and perceived metacognitive beliefs was 0 to 3.
Next, children’s perceptions of their parents’ beliefs about strategy use were
examined. The procedure was the same as for teachers’ beliefs; the same ques-
tions and pictures were presented again, but this time the children were asked
about their parents. Scored responses included perceptions of parents’ beliefs
about ability (e.g., they say I am smart if I use this) and about metacognitive
processes that might help children regulate the use of strategies (e.g., because it
will help you learn). Perceived parental beliefs were scored and the scores were
summed in the same way as for the perceived teachers’ beliefs. A score of 0 indi-
cated no perceptions of beliefs about ability or metacognitive strategies. A max-
imum score of 3 indicated that the child attributed metacognitive or ability
beliefs to his or her parents for each of the three comparisons. Interrater reliabil-
ities for the perceived parent and teacher beliefs were α = .93 and α = .98,
respectively.
Parent-Strategy Questionnaire. In January parents were interviewed over the
telephone about the type and quantity of the home instruction on mathematical
strategies; we used data from those interviews as indicators of the quantity of
metacognitive information on strategies taught in the home. The questionnaire
was originally developed by Kurtz, Schneider, Borkowski, Carr, and Rellinger
(1990) and for the purposes of this study was modified to focus on mathematics
instruction. A telephone interview rather than a written questionnaire was used
in most cases to assure complete responses to the questions and to provide oppor-
tunities for the interviewer to explain or restate misunderstood questions. If the
parent could not be contacted by telephone or did not own a telephone, the ques-
tionnaire was sent home with the child. Of the 92 parents who returned permis-
sion slips only 3 could not be contacted or did not return the questionnaire.
At the beginning of the interview we explained that the purpose of the ques-
tions was to learn about how mathematics was taught in the home. Parents were
asked about how they dealt with their children’s difficulties with addition and
subtraction computational tasks and whether they taught any mathematics strate-
gies to their child in the home. Because the focus of this study was on the influ-
ence of instruction on children’s use of retrieval, overt, and covert mathematics
strategies and the metacognitive information used to regulate the use of mathe-
matics strategies, parents’ responses were categorized into one of four possible
categories: instruction on overt strategies, instruction on covert strategies,
instruction on retrieval strategies, or the provision of metacognitive information
about strategy use. Interrater reliability for response categorization for the
Parent-Strategy Questionnaire was α = .81. The questionnaire and scoring cate-
gories are presented in Appendix A. Some questions were open-ended and par-
ents were allowed to report more than one instance of instruction per category;
hence there is no maximum number of points awarded. Scores for the four cate-
gories ranged from –1 to 6 for overt-strategy instruction, 0 to 2 for covert-strat-
egy instruction, 0 to 4 for retrieval-strategy instruction, and 0 to 4 for instruction
on metacognitive information about strategy use. (A score of –1 was given for
overt-strategy instruction if using manipulatives was discouraged.)
Teacher-Strategy Questionnaire. This questionnaire was completed in January
by each teacher with help available from the investigator. The teacher question-
naire was structured in the same way as the parent questionnaire, and the same
categories were used for responses. The first nine questions were identical to
those on the parent questionnaire and were scored in the same way. Questions
10, 11, 12, and 13, listed in Appendix B, were about teachers’ instruction relat-
ed to metacognitive information that would allow children to appropriately reg-
ulate the use of the strategies. Interrater reliability for response categorization for
the Teacher-Strategy Questionnaire was α = .86. Some questions were open-
ended and teachers were allowed to report more than one instance of instruction
per category; hence there is no maximum number of points awarded. The actual
ranges of scores for the four categories were 3 to 11 for overt-strategy instruc-
tion, 0 to 4 for covert-strategy instruction, 0 to 6 for retrieval-strategy instruction,
and 0 to 8 for instruction on metacognitive information about strategy use.
RESULTS
The data were examined first for gender differences in overt-strategy use, covert-
strategy use, and retrieval. Means and standard deviations for correct and incorrect
strategy use, for children’s metacognitive knowledge about strategies, and for chil-
dren’s perceptions of parents’ and teachers’ ability beliefs and metacognitive
beliefs about strategies for girls and for boys are presented in Table 1.
The first analysis was a repeated measures ANOVA. Correct overt-strategy
use scores as measured in October, January, and April were the dependent mea-
sures, and gender was the independent measure. The gender by time interaction
was significant, F (2, 172) = 8.02, p < .01, with girls increasing their overt-strat-
egy use over the school year more than boys.
The second analysis was a repeated measures ANOVA in which correct-
retrieval scores as measured in October, January, and April were the dependent
variables and gender was the independent variable. The main effects for gender
and time were significant with boys consistently using retrieval correctly more
than girls and all children increasing their correct use of retrieval across the year,
F (1, 86) = 7.58, p < .01 and F (2, 172) = 70.83, p < .01, respectively.
In the third repeated measures ANOVA we examined correct covert-strategy
use as measured at the three times with gender as the independent measure. No
gender effects were found for covert-strategy use. Across the school year, how-
ever, children improved their abilities to correctly use covert strategies, F (2,
172) = 14.75, p < .01.
As can be seen, the gender differences in strategy use found by Carr and Jessup
(1997) were replicated here in that boys increased their use of retrieval across the
school year more than girls. In contrast, girls increased their use of overt strate-
gies more than boys.
Predictors of Parents’ and Teachers’ Reported Instruction

Do children’s early abilities to select and use strategies predict parents’ and
teachers’ cognitive and metacognitive instruction on strategies later in the school
year? Researchers suggest that adults are influenced by their perceptions of chil-
dren’s skills (e.g., Pedersen et al., 1986). If that is the case, then initial individ-
ual differences in strategy use and knowledge about the regulation of strategies
by boys and girls as measured in October should predict teacher and parent
instruction as reported in January. Means and standard deviations for parents’
and teachers’ instruction on strategies and related metacognitive knowledge as
reported in January are presented in Table 2.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) for Strategy Use, Metacognitive Knowledge, and
Perceived Beliefs
October January April
Correcta Incorrectb Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect
Overt-strategy use
Girls 3.30 2.43 7.68 3.30 7.09 2.05
(3.83) (3.28) (4.96) (3.23) (4.67) (2.18)
Boys 3.41 2.59 4.23 2.00 3.53 1.75
(3.93) (3.19) (4.46) (2.77) (3.35) (2.42)
Retrieval
Girls 2.23 2.09 3.23 0.75 4.96 0.68
(2.24) (3.92) (2.16) (1.70) (3.31) (1.75)
Boys 3.50 3.77 5.02 2.93 7.00 2.30
(3.47) (5.90) (3.88) (4.47) (3.88) (3.59)
Covert-strategy use
Girls 2.18 1.41 3.07 1.05 3.91 1.02
(3.04) (3.20) (3.49) (1.86) (3.38) (1.55)
Boys 2.43 0.68 3.71 1.77 3.89 1.21
(2.89) (1.07) (2.86) (2.20) (2.69) (1.46)
Metacognitive knowledgec
Girls 4.73 7.43 8.36
(4.16) (5.00) (5.71)
Boys 5.50 7.39 7.14
(4.45) (5.07) (5.20)
Perceived parents’ ability beliefsd
Girls 0.14 0.16 0.05
(0.41) (0.53) (0.30)
Boys 0.25 0.25 0.32
(0.58) (0.62) (0.74)
Perceived teachers’ ability beliefs
Girls 0.05 0.11 0.11
(0.30) (0.39) (0.44)
Boys 0.09 0.24 0.21
(0.43) (0.61) (0.68)
Perceived parents’ metacognitive beliefs
Girls 0.57 0.75 1.09
(0.90) (0.94) (1.18)
Boys 0.89 0.68 0.82
(1.08) (1.05) (1.17)
Perceived teachers’ metacognitive beliefs
Girls 0.55 0.91 0.96
(0.85) (1.10) (1.08)
Boys 0.84 0.80 1.00
(1.01) (1.11) (1.10)
aCorrect strategy-use for a given strategy is the number of problems that a child correctly used that
strategy for out of all the problems given. The maximum possible score for each strategy is 20.
bIncorrect strategy-use for a given strategy is the number of problems on which the child unsuc-
cessfully attempted to use that strategy, out of all the problems given.
cThe maximum score of 9 for metacognitive knowledge would show that children gave a metacog-
nitive rationale for the questions (why, when, and when not to use a strategy) for each of the three
strategies (overt, covert, or retrieval).
dThe maximum score for perceived parents’ and teachers’ metacognitive beliefs and ability beliefs
was 3. A score of 3 for perceived teachers’ metacognitive beliefs would show that for each of the
three paired comparisons the children responded with a perceived teachers’ metacognitive belief.
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) for Parents’ and Teachers’ Reported Strategy
and Metacognitive Instruction
Parent Teacher
Overt-strategy instruction
Girls 3.86 6.35
(1.46) (1.69)
Boys 4.12 5.60
(1.03) (1.53)
Instruction on retrieval
Girls 2.09 3.09
(1.21) (1.90)
Boys 1.97 3.23
(1.23) (1.84)
Covert-strategy instruction
Girls 1.23 1.68
(0.81) (1.46)
Boys 1.42 1.95
(0.71) (1.93)
Metacognitive instruction
Girls 0.93 3.60
(0.83) (1.56)
Boys 1.00 3.79
(0.89) (1.58)
Note. Several of the questions for parents and teachers were open-ended questions, allowing for mul-
tiple examples of the instruction on overt, covert, and retrieval strategies and on metacognitive
knowledge. As a result it is impossible to provide a maximum possible score because the score
depends on parents’ and teachers’ responses.
It should be noted that parents and teachers had fewer opportunities to report instruction of covert
strategies in contrast to retrieval strategies, overt strategies, or instruction on metacognition. Thus,
variations in means may be due to this limitation instead of actual differences in adult instruction
on covert strategies.
In the regression analyses shown in Table 3, gender by strategy use interac-

tions were of particular interest because we wanted to see whether parents and
teachers interpreted strategy use differently for girls and boys. For example, par-
ents may respond to boys’ use of retrieval by providing further instruction on
retrieval, but they may not respond in the same way to girls’ use of retrieval. In
this case, the significant gender by use of retrieval interaction would indicate that
gender differences in strategy use emerge from differential responses to girls’
and boys’ use of the same strategy. Interaction terms were dropped from the
equations if they were found to be nonsignificant. For these and all the other
regression analyses done for this study, separate analyses were run for retrieval-,
overt-, and covert-strategy use to avoid problems with dependence among the
predictor variables.
As can be seen in Table 3, only children’s correct use of covert strategies as
measured in October significantly predicted parents’ reports that they instructed
children to use these strategies. Neither gender nor metacognitive knowledge
predicted instruction on strategies in any of the analyses. The gender by strategy
use interactions were also nonsignificant predictors of parent instruction. So,
with the exception of children’s use of covert strategies, there is little relation-
Table 3
Regression Analyses of Strategy Use and Metacognitive Knowledge as Predictors of Adults’
Reported Instruction
Parents Teachers
Instruction type and child variables β p value β p value
Metacognitive instruction (January)
October measures of
Gender 0.05 .64 0.40 .01
Metacognition 0.11 .29 0.11 .30
Correct retrieval 0.08 .48 0.40 .00
Gender by retrieval interaction -0.39 .01
F (4, 84) = 3.16, p = .02
October measures of
Gender 0.03 .77 0.03 .75
Correct overt-strategy use –0.08 .46 –0.08 .45
October measures of
Gender 0.03 .75 0.04 .74
Correct covert-strategy use –0.01 .99 0.25 .03
Instruction on retrieval strategies (January)
Gender 0.00 .99 0.32 .03
Oct. metacognition 0.02 .84 0.19 .06
Oct. correct use of retrieval –0.12 .27 0.32 .01
Oct. gender by retrieval interaction –0.43 .01
F (4, 84) = 3.31, p = .01
Instruction on overt strategies (January)
Gender –0.06 .57 0.16 .15
Oct. metacognition –0.15 .19 0.01 .95
Oct. correct use of overt strategies 0.11 .32 –0.01 .90
Instruction on covert strategies (January)
Gender –0.13 .21 –0.05 .61
Oct. metacognition –0.08 .48 0.11 .36
Oct. correct use of covert strategies 0.31 .01 0.02 .87
F (3, 84) = 3.15, p = .03
Note. All β and p values rounded to closest hundredth.
ship between children’s early metacognitive knowledge or strategy use and par-
ents’ reported instruction.
Children’s early strategy use and gender were better predictors of teachers’
instruction than of parents’ instruction. As can be seen in Table 3, children’s use
of retrieval in October predicted teachers’ reported instruction on the use of
metacognitive knowledge and retrieval strategies. Girls were more likely than
boys to receive metacognitive instruction and instruction on retrieval. The gen-
der by retrieval interaction was also a significant predictor of teacher instruction
that provided metacognitive information about strategies and instruction on
retrieval. To interpret the significant interactions, we calculated coefficients to
provide separate weightings for boys and girls. In regard to the gender by
retrieval interaction predicting the instruction that provided metacognitive infor-
mation about strategies, boys (coeff = .40) were more likely than girls (coeff =
.01) to receive instruction that provided metacognitive information about strate-
gies only if they correctly used retrieval. In regard to the gender by retrieval
interaction predicting instruction on retrieval, for boys the relationship between

correctly used retrieval and teachers’ reports of instruction on retrieval was pos-
itive (coeff = .32). The relationship was negative for girls (coeff = –.11). Boys,
but not girls, who correctly used retrieval were more likely to receive instruction
in the use of retrieval from teachers. Girls received instruction that provided
metacognitive information about strategy use and retrieval strategies regardless
of their abilities to successfully use retrieval strategies.
These data indicate that teachers respond differentially in their instruction to
the correct use of retrieval. Gender differences emerged in how teachers respond-
ed to girls’ and boys’ strategy use in that whereas all girls received more
metacognitive and retrieval instruction, only boys who already retrieved well
received instruction that provided metacognitive information about strategy use
and retrieval strategies. We believe that teachers may have been trying to teach
those girls who were not spontaneously using retrieval to use retrieval via direct
instruction on this strategy and to use metacognitive information about strategies
via direct instruction that provided metacognitive information about strategy use.
Teachers might have been reinforcing the use of retrieval strategies in boys, how-
ever, only if boys were already capable of using them.
It is unclear why teachers responded to children’s use of retrieval but not to
their use of overt strategies. Although overt strategies, particularly the use of
counters, were commonly used in these first-grade classrooms and were the basis
of some of the instructional programs, teachers may view overt strategies as
basic skills instead of as viable options for problem solving. Thus, teachers may
spend little time emphasizing overt strategies beyond simple instructions at the
beginning of the year. Instead, teachers may focus on and reinforce what they
consider to be more “advanced” mathematics, such as retrieval or covert strate-
gies. This practice may be a reflection of teachers’ understanding of the devel-
opment of mathematics skills as moving from overt and concrete to covert and
abstract representations of numbers (Carpenter & Moser, 1984).
Parents appeared to be unaffected by their children’s early emerging strategy
use, perhaps because parents were not aware of early strategy use and, as a result,
did not consider it when making decisions about how to instruct their children on
strategy use and how to provide metacognitive information about strategy use. It
remains to be seen whether parents’ instruction will be influenced by children’s
actions later in the children’s academic careers.
Parents’ and Teachers’ Instruction and Children’s Strategy Use and

Metacognition
How well do parents’ and teachers’ reported instruction on strategy use and the
metacognitive knowledge necessary to use strategies predict children’s com-
mand of metacognitive information about strategy use and their strategy use? If
gender differences in strategy use are influenced by parents and teachers, then
reported instruction should predict gender differences in strategy use. To exam-
ine this hypothesis, parents’ and teachers’ reported instruction as measured in
January was used to predict children’s strategy use and metacognitive informa-
tion about strategy use in January and April.
Parents’ and teachers’ instruction were first regressed on children’s strategy
use and children’s metacognitive knowledge as measured in January and then on
children’s metacognitive information about strategy use and their strategy use as
measured in April. In each case, separate analyses were performed for the parent
and teacher data. For these equations, interaction terms including a gender by
parents’ strategy instruction, a gender by parents’ instruction on metacognitive
knowledge, a gender by teachers’ strategy instruction, and a gender by teachers’
instruction on metacognitive knowledge were tested to examine whether parents’
and teachers’ instruction interacted with gender. Initial analyses were run with
both interaction terms (e.g., parents’ metacognitive instruction by gender and
parents’ strategy instruction by gender) and nonsignificant interaction terms
were dropped from the analyses. In Table 4 we present the significant regression
analyses for the parent and teacher data.
Table 4
Results of Regression Analyses on Adults’ Instruction (Jan.) as Predictor of Children’s Strategy
Use and Metacognitive Knowledge
January April
Correct strategy use and instruction β p value β p value
Parents
Overt strategies
Gender 0.34 .00 0.70 .00
Parents’ metacognitive instruction –0.04 .73 0.20 .15
Parents’ instruction on overt strategies 0.07 .47 –0.07 .47
Gender by parents’ meta. instruction interaction –0.50 .01
F (3, 83) = 3.81, p = .01 F (4, 78) = 6.42, p = .00
Retrieval strategies
Gender –0.29 .01 –0.28 .01
Parents’ metacognitive instruction –0.04 .68 0.08 .45
Parents’ instruction on retrieval –0.13 .20 –0.12 .25
F (3, 84) = 3.25, p = .03 F (3, 80) = 3.15, p = .03
Covert strategies
Gender –0.04 .73 –0.23 .15
Parents’ metacognitive instruction 0.11 .32 –0.16 .27
Parents’ covert-strategy instruction 0.19 .08 0.30 .01
Gender by parents’ metacog. instr. interaction 0.43 .02
F (4, 79) = 3.47, p = .01
Teachers
Overt Strategies
Gender 0.34 .00 1.33 .00
Teachers’ metacognitive instruction –0.17 .10 –0.13 .21
Teachers’ instruction on overt strategies 0.01 .95 0.25 .11
Gender by teachers’ overt instr. interaction –1.07 .01
F (3, 83) = 4.58, p = .01 F (4, 80) = 5.79, p = .00
Gender 0.06 .74 0.14 .49
Teachers’ metacognitive instruction 0.28 .01 0.19 .09
Teachers’ instruction on retrieval 0.29 .05 0.31 .04
Gender by teachers’ retrieval instr. interaction –0.45 .04 -0.52 .02
F (4, 84) = 6.19, p = .00 F (4, 82) = 4.50, p = .00
Parental variables. As can be seen in Table 4, gender was the only significant
predictor of correct overt-strategy use in January. The parents’ metacognitive
instruction by gender interaction term and the gender term were both significant
predictors of correct overt-strategy use in April. In January and April, girls were
more likely to correctly use overt strategies. An examination of the coefficients
calculated to interpret the significant interaction term indicated that the more par-
ents reported providing information about strategy regulation to their daughters,
the less likely their daughters were to correctly use overt strategies in April (coeff =
–.30). Boys, in contrast, were more likely to correctly use overt strategies in
April if their parents had provided instruction on metacognitive information
about strategy use (coeff = .20).
When the effect of parents’ instruction on both strategies and metacognitive
information about strategy use on correct use of retrieval (as measured in January
and April) was examined, only gender was a significant predictor. Boys were
more likely to correctly use retrieval than girls. Parents’ instruction did not pre-
dict children’s correct use of retrieval.
There were no significant predictors of correct covert-strategy use in January.
In April, however, the parents’ instruction on covert strategies term and the gen-
der by parent instruction on metacognitive knowledge about strategies interac-
tion term were significant. Children instructed by their parents to use covert
strategies were more likely to be capable of correctly using these strategies. The
interaction indicated that for girls the relationship between parents’ metacogni-
tive instruction and the correct use of covert strategies was positive in April
(coeff = .27). For boys, the more metacognitive instruction provided by parents,
the less likely boys were to correctly use covert strategies (coeff = –.16).
Teacher variables. As can be seen in Table 4, only gender significantly pre-
dicted the correct use of overt strategies for the January data. In April the correct
use of overt strategies was predicted by gender and the gender by teacher instruc-
tion on overt strategies interaction was significant. In both January and April,
girls were more likely to correctly use overt strategies. However, the interaction
indicated that the more teachers taught girls to use overt strategies, the less like-
ly girls were to correctly use overt strategies in April (coeff = –.82). In contrast,
if teachers reported teaching boys to use overt strategies, the boys were better
able to use these strategies correctly in April (coeff = .25). No significant pre-
dictors of correct covert-strategy use were found.
Teachers’ reported instruction on retrieval and on metacognitive information
about strategy use and the gender by teacher instruction on retrieval strategies
interaction term were all significant predictors of the correct use of retrieval in
January. Teachers who taught their students to use retrieval strategies and who
provided metacognitive information about strategy use were more likely to have
students who correctly used retrieval. The significant interaction indicated that
for boys the relationship between the instruction on retrieval and the correct use
of retrieval was positive (coeff = .29). This relationship was negative for girls
(coeff = –.16). In regard to the effect of teachers on the use of retrieval in April,
teachers’ instruction on retrieval strategies and the gender by teacher instruction
of retrieval strategies interaction term were significant predictors of the correct
use of retrieval. Teachers who instructed their children to use retrieval strategies
were more likely to have children who did so. However, the significant interac-
tion indicated that this relationship is qualified in that the relationship between
teachers’ instruction on retrieval and the correct use of retrieval was positive for
boys (coeff = .31) and negative for girls (coeff = –.21).
Fennema and Peterson (1986) found that girls and boys benefited in different
ways from their interactions with teachers. We also found this difference when
we examined the roles of teachers in children’s strategy use. In this case, boys
showed improvement in their use of retrieval- and overt-strategy use as a func-
tion of teachers’ strategy instruction, particularly in the April data. Girls, in con-
trast, did not appear to benefit as much as boys and, in fact, were hurt in their
strategy use by their interactions with their teachers. There are several possible
explanations for these differences. One is that teachers spend more time working
with boys on their mathematics (Leinhardt, Seewald, & Engel, 1979) and that
boys’ strategy use may have improved as a result of this attention. Fennema and
Peterson (1986) suggested a second possibility: Girls and boys benefit from dif-
ferent types of instructional interactions with their teachers. In this case, the
instructional interactions appear to benefit boys more than girls in first-grade
mathematics. A third explanation is that teachers’ instruction on overt strategies
may follow failure by girls in the use of overt strategies and failure by boys in
the use of retrieval. Redirecting boys to use overt strategies may have promoted
the correct use of these strategies for boys, but girls would have been redirected
to use the same strategies they were already using unsuccessfully.
Parents’ instruction predicted children’s strategy use only after gender differ-
ences were established—there were no significant predictors either of January
strategy use or of the use of metacognitive information about strategy use. By
April, among children whose parents had provided metacognitive instruction,
boys were more likely than girls to be capable of correct overt-strategy use.
Parents’ instruction on covert strategies, particularly for girls, predicted the cor-
rect use of covert strategies.
As with teachers’ instruction, parental instruction on these strategies may have
occurred as a response to perceived deficiencies in children’s strategy use. For
example, boys who were not particularly successful in their use of retrieval may
have been redirected to use overt strategies through metacognitive instruction
with the purpose of improving their mathematics skills. Similarly, by the end of
the school year parents may have felt it necessary to encourage girls to abandon
overt strategies in favor of covert strategies. As was found with the teachers’
data, parents’ instruction on overt strategies to girls was negatively related to the
correct use of these strategies. As was true with teachers, this relation may be a
mismatch in parents’ instructional styles relative to students’ genders, or parents
may have been attempting to reinforce and reteach strategies that some girls had
not successfully mastered. Thus, parents’ contributions to strategy use are pri-
marily in the alteration of established patterns in boys and girls in the second half
of the school year, with boys benefiting in their use of overt strategies and girls
benefiting in their use of covert strategies.
Parents’ and Teachers’ Instruction and Perceived Parents’ and Teachers’

Beliefs
Are parents’ and teachers’ instruction related to strategy use and metacogni-
tive information about strategy use reflected in children’s perceptions of parents’
and teachers’ attitudes toward strategies? Entwisle and Baker (1983) indicated
that children are aware of parents’ expectations. It is, therefore, reasonable to
believe that children’s perceptions of adults’ attitudes would correlate with
reported adult instruction. To examine this possibility, parents’ and teachers’
instruction on metacognitive information about strategy use and parents’ and
teachers’ strategy instruction as measured in January were used as predictors of
perceived parents’ and teachers’ ability and metacognitive beliefs as measured in
January and April. As with the prior analyses, adults’ instruction by gender inter-
action terms were included to determine whether parental instruction predicted
perceived parents’ beliefs as a function of gender. There were no predictors of
perceived parents’ and teachers’ metacognitive beliefs.
The analyses included an examination of the effect of parents’ reported
instruction on children’s perceptions of parents’ ability beliefs. As can be seen in
Table 5, in January overt-strategy instruction was highly related to children’s
perceptions of adults’ ability beliefs. Gender, parents’ reported overt-strategy
instruction, and the gender by overt-strategy instruction interaction term were
significant predictors of perceived parents’ ability beliefs. In April the same pat-
tern occurred with gender, parents’ instruction on overt strategies, and the gen-
der by parent overt-strategy instruction interaction term being significant. In both
January and April, boys were more likely than girls to say that their parents pre-
ferred strategies that make one look smart. At both times, children of parents who
instructed them to use overt strategies were unlikely to perceive that their parents
preferred “smart-looking” strategies, such as retrieval. The significant gender by
overt-strategy instruction interactions indicated that this relationship was quali-
fied in that parents of boys who provided overt-strategy instruction were unlike-
ly to be perceived as preferring strategies that made children look smart (per-
ceived ability beliefs) in January and April (coeff = –.63 and –.73, respectively).
The coefficients for girls for these interactions (.60 in January and .64 in April),
in contrast, indicated an opposite and positive relationship between parents’
overt-strategy instruction and girls’ perceptions that parents liked strategies (typ-
ically retrieval or covert strategies) because they made them look smart.
The regression analyses presented in Table 5 indicate similar results for teach-
ers. In April, boys were more likely than girls to say that their teachers preferred
strategies that made them look smart. Similarly, teachers who instructed children
Table 5
Regression Analyses for Adults’ Instruction as Predictors of Children’s Perceptions of Ability
Beliefs
January April
Ability beliefs and instruction β p value β p value
Perceived parents’ ability beliefs
Retrieval instruction
Gender –0.10 .34 –0.22 .04
Parents’ metacognitive instruction –0.12 .25 –0.08 .48
Parents’ instruction on retrieval –0.06 .58 –0.09 .41
Gender –1.22 .00 –1.51 .00
Parents’ overt-strategy instruction –0.63 .00 –0.73 .00
Gender by parents’ overt-strat. instr. interaction 1.23 .00 1.37 .00
F (4, 82) = 5.40, p = .00 F (4, 78) = 5.74, p = .00
Gender –0.11 .30 –0.24 .02
Parents’ covert-strategy instruction –0.06 .56 –0.15 .18
Perceived teachers’ ability beliefs
Retrieval instruction
Gender –0.14 .19 –0.08 .45
Teachers’ instruction on retrieval –0.16 .19 0.03 .82
Gender –0.14 .19 –1.14 .01
Teachers’ over-strategy instruction 0.04 .73 –0.57 .00
Gender by teachers’ overt-strategy instr. interaction 1.26 .01
F (4, 80) = 3.56, p = .01
Gender –0.14 .17 –0.08 .48
Teachers’ covert-strategy instruction –0.15 .16 0.10 .39
to use overt strategies were less likely to have children who perceived ability
beliefs for teachers. The gender by teacher instruction on overt strategies inter-
action term was also significant. Boys whose teachers provided instruction on
overt strategies were less likely than girls to report that their teachers preferred
strategies because they made them look smart (boys’ coeff = –.57). But for girls
the perception that teachers like strategies because they indicate ability was pos-
itively related to teachers’ instruction on overt strategies (coeff = .69).
Children believe that to be good at mathematics means to be able to solve
problems quickly and effortlessly (Kloosterman, 1996). On the basis of our data
we suggest that these perceived beliefs and the use of strategies such as retrieval
seem to be the default values for boys in the absence of adult reinforcement of
overt strategies. Boys were more likely than girls to believe that adults preferred
strategies that indicated ability. This perception, however, was not related to
parental instruction of retrieval as would be expected. Instead, parents’ and
teachers’ instruction related to overt strategies appeared to suppress boys’ per-
ceptions that adults preferred “smart” strategies. Thus, parents who do not make
an effort to teach overt strategies may be implicitly teaching boys to value speed
and apparent lack of effort in problem solving.
The opposite pattern occurred for girls relative to teachers’ and parents’
instruction. Overt strategies were positively related to reported instruction on
overt strategies. It is not clear why girls who receive more overt-strategy instruc-
tion would simultaneously perceive that teachers and parents like strategies that
indicate high ability. This finding is particularly puzzling in that perceived abil-
ity beliefs were reported primarily when children were asked about retrieval. In
the future researchers need to examine better how girls interpret adults’ strategy
instruction and adults’ comments about strategies. On the basis of these data we
suggest that girls are receiving two different messages, one supporting the use of
overt strategies and one valuing quick, “smart” strategies such as retrieval.
Perceived Parents’ and Teachers’ Beliefs and Children’s Strategy Use and
Metacognitive Knowledge
Finally, what is the relationship between, on the one hand, children’s percep-
tions of parents’ and teachers’ beliefs and, on the other hand, children’s strategy
use and metacognitive information about strategy use? We know that children’s
awareness of parents’ expectations predicts their performance (Entwisle &
Baker, 1983). In this case, children’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs may affect the
development of gender differences in strategy use and related metacognitive
knowledge. We examined this hypothesis by checking whether perceived par-
ents’ and teachers’ metacognitive beliefs predicted the development of metacog-
nitive knowledge about strategies and strategy use. We also determined whether
perceived parents’ and teachers’ ability beliefs predicted strategy use and
metacognitive knowledge about strategies.
In the following sections describing regression analyses, perceived parents’
ability and metacognitive beliefs and gender were used as predictors of retrieval-,
overt-, and covert-strategy use and metacognitive knowledge about strategies.
Similarly, perceived teachers’ ability and metacognitive beliefs and gender were
used as predictors of retrieval-, overt-, and covert-strategy use and metacognitive
knowledge. Interaction terms of gender by perceived parents’ ability beliefs,
gender by perceived parents’ metacognitive beliefs, gender by perceived teach-
ers’ ability beliefs, and gender by perceived teachers’ metacognitive beliefs were
included to examine whether girls and boys were differently influenced in their
strategy use and metacognitive knowledge by their perceptions of parents’ and
teachers’ beliefs. Children’s strategy use and metacognitive knowledge as mea-
sured in January were used as criterion variables for the predictor variables mea-
sured in October. Variables measured in January were regressed on children’s
strategy use and their metacognitive knowledge as measured in April.
Parental variables. As can be seen in Table 6, perceived parents’ ability
beliefs significantly predicted children’s correct use of retrieval strategies in
January and April. The gender by perceived parents’ ability beliefs interaction
term was also a significant predictor of correct retrieval in January. The interac-
tion indicated that boys were much more likely to correctly use retrieval strate-
gies if they perceived their parents to have ability beliefs (coeff = .55). This inter-
action was not found for girls (coeff = .11). Gender was a significant predictor
of the correct use of retrieval in April but not January, with boys being more like-
ly than girls to use retrieval correctly.
Table 6
Regression Analyses of Perceived Adults’ Beliefs as Predictors of Children’s Strategy Use and
Metacognitive Knowledge
January April
Child variables/adult beliefs β p value β p value
Parents
Gender –0.15 .14 –0.26 .01
Parents’ metacognitive beliefs 0.02 .86 0.02 .86
Parents’ ability beliefs 0.55 .00 0.22 .04
Gender by parents’ ability beliefs interaction –0.44 .00
F (4, 88) = 6.51, p = .00 F (3, 84) = 3.97, p = .01
Overt strategies
Gender 0.36 .00 0.39 .00
Parents’ ability beliefs –0.01 .93 –0.05 .59
F (3, 89) = 4.39, p = .01 F (3, 84) = 5.91, p = .00
Covert strategies
Gender –0.05 .61 0.01 .95
Parents’ metacognitive beliefs 0.25 .02 –0.09 .41
Parents’ ability beliefs –0.02 .84 0.01 .94
Metacognitive knowledge
Gender 0.07 .48 0.11 .28
Parents’ ability beliefs 0.09 .36 0.09 .35
F (3, 89) = 5.18, p = .00 F (3, 84) = 6.29, p = .00
Teachers
Gender –0.27 .01 –0.26 .01
Teachers’ metacognitive beliefs 0.00 .97 0.12 .24
Teachers’ ability beliefs 0.17 .36 0.21 .05
F (3, 88) = 3.58, p = .00 F (3, 84) = 3.90, p = .01
Overt Strategies
Gender 0.37 .00 0.59 .00
Gender by teachers’ metacog. belief interaction –0.37 .02
F (3, 88) = 4.66, p = .00 F (4, 83) = 6.19, p = .00
Covert strategies
Gender –0.05 .63 –0.01 .96
Metacognitive knowledge
Gender 0.06 .53 0.09 .35
Teachers’ ability beliefs –0.08 .41 0.02 .83
F (3, 88) = 7.10, p = .00 F (3, 84) = 6.06, p = .00
When the predictors of the correct use of overt strategies were examined, only
gender significantly predicted the correct use of overt strategies in January and
in April. The only predictor of children’s metacognitive knowledge about strate-
gies as measured in January and in April was children’s perception that parents
valued strategies for metacognitive reasons.
Teacher variables. In looking at the predictors of retrieval, we found that gen-
der was a significant predictor of correct retrieval in January and April with boys
using retrieval more than girls. The perception that teachers had beliefs associat-
ing ability with strategy in use significantly predicted children’s correct use of
retrieval in April but not in January. In April, children were more likely to cor-
rectly use retrieval when they believed teachers preferred strategies, typically
retrieval, that made students look smart.
In looking at the predictors of overt-strategy use, gender significantly predict-
ed the correct use of overt strategies as measured in January and April. Girls
were more likely to use overt strategies. In addition, the gender by perceived
teacher metacognitive beliefs interaction term predicted the correct use of overt
strategies. In April the significant interaction indicated that girls (coeff = –.37)
were less likely than boys to correctly use overt strategies if in January they had
perceived their teachers as having metacognitive beliefs related to strategy use.
For boys (coeff = .10) there was a slightly positive relationship between per-
ceived teacher metacognitive beliefs as measured in January and the correct use
of overt strategies as measured in April. Neither perceived ability beliefs nor per-
ceived metacognitive beliefs predicted covert-strategy use.
As with the parent data, perceived teachers’ metacognitive beliefs were pre-
dicted by children’s metacognitive knowledge in January and April. The more
strategy-related metacognitive knowledge children used, the more likely they
were to report perceptions that parents and teachers held metacognitive beliefs.
Our data indicate that children’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs influenced gen-
der differences in strategy use. Children who saw adults as having beliefs about
a relationship between ability and strategy use were more likely to use retrieval,
particularly boys who perceived parents to have such beliefs. These data are in
line with Carr and Jessup’s (1997) data, which showed that boys were more like-
ly to make comments about the need to be competitive in strategy use, especial-
ly in the case of retrieval. Furthermore, these data indicate that boys’ preference
for competitive situations (McClintock & Moskowitz, 1976; Peterson &
Fennema, 1985) may be related to the information they gather from adults.
Girls’ correct use of overt strategies in April was negatively related to per-
ceived teachers’ metacognitive beliefs as measured in January. The negative
relationship that occurs for girls may be explained by teachers’ reinforcing
metacognitive instruction for girls who have been unsuccessful in their use of
overt strategies. The poorer the girls’ performance using overt strategies, the
more likely teachers are to provide information about strategies. Teachers, how-
ever, do not seem to provide such information for the boys, perhaps because boys
were predominantly using retrieval.
DISCUSSION
These data replicated the gender differences found by Carr and Jessup (1997)
with boys correctly using retrieval during the first grade more than girls and girls
correctly using overt strategies, such as counting on fingers and counters, more
than boys. In this study we extend prior research in that we examined the rela-
tionship between the emergence of gender differences in children’s strategy use
and (a) instruction by parents and teachers as measured through self-reports and
(b) children’s perceptions of parents’ and teachers’ attitudes and preferences
with regard to strategy use. The primary contribution of parents was through
children’s perceptions of parents’ preferences. Teachers’ reported instruction, in
contrast, was more strongly related to children’s strategy use than to children’s
perceptions of teachers’ attitudes regarding strategy use.
Much of the instruction given on strategy use seems to be either intentionally
or unintentionally beneficial to boys. For example, both teachers and parents
directed boys to use overt strategies, and by the end of the school year boys were
correctly doing so. Teachers were also likely to direct boys more than girls to use
retrieval strategies in the second half of the school year. Parents had an effect on
boys’ strategy use via boys’ perceptions of their parents’ beliefs about strategies.
On the basis of these data, taken together, we suggest that boys’ strategy use
develops in part as a function of adult intervention. Researchers should further
examine exactly how adults influence boys’ strategy use and why parents and
teachers do not influence girls’ strategy use in the same way.
In several instances girls actually seem to be hurt by their interactions with
teachers and parents. Girls did not benefit much from instruction on retrieval or
overt strategies. Nor did adults’ providing metacognitive information about the
regulation of strategies help girls in their use of overt strategies. Additionally,
girls who were given more overt-strategy instruction were more likely to per-
ceive parents and teachers as believing that strategies were good when they made
the student look smart. We have discussed some possible reasons for these out-
comes in prior paragraphs; however, we believe that it is important to learn more
about how and why adult-child interactions do not seem to benefit girls.
Certainly, parents and teachers have the best intentions in their instructional
interactions with girls. It will be necessary to determine in future research under
what circumstances these instructional interactions go awry for girls.
With the exception of the relationship between teachers’ instruction on
metacognitive regulation of strategies and children’s correct use of overt strate-
gies in April, we did not find much evidence that girls’ overt-strategy use was
influenced by perceived beliefs of parents or teachers or by direct instruction.
Nor does girls’ overt-strategy use appear to be influenced by perceptions of
peers’ attitudes (Carr & Jessup, 1997). It may be that girls possess different men-
tal operations and cognitive structures that lead them to use overt strategies.
Benbow and Stanley (1980) believed that gender differences in achievement test
performance are due to fundamental differences in cognitive skills. There is lit-
tle evidence in the literature on young children’s mathematical cognitive devel-

opment that this belief is true (L. P. Steffe, personal communication, September
1995) because no studies have specifically examined early developing gender
differences in mental operations and cognitive structures.
The results of the study are limited in that we dealt only with parents’ and
teachers’ reported instruction and with children’s perceptions of adults’
metacognitive and ability beliefs. Actual strategy instruction and adult-child
instructional interactions were not assessed. It would be of particular interest to
examine differences in mothers’ and fathers’ interactions with their sons and
daughters. Mothers and fathers approach strategy use and problem solving in dif-
ferent ways (McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 1982). When instructing their children in
mathematics, fathers and mothers are likely to use different techniques. In addi-
tion, parents may be reacting to children in ways of which they are unaware and,
therefore, would not have reported via our interviews and questionnaires.
Observation of parent-child interactions in problem-solving situations would
provide needed information about what parents really say and do in their inter-
actions with their children.
Similarly, it will be necessary to document how teachers and children interact
in their use of strategies in the classroom. The research of Fennema and Peterson
(1986) indicated that girls and boys elicit different types of feedback from teach-
ers. Researchers should examine how teacher-student interactions accompany
the emergence of gender differences in strategy use. Of particular interest would
be the balance of power between peers and teachers as predictors of children’s
strategy use.
REFERENCES
Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988). Achievement in the first 2 years of school: Patterns and
processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 218, 53(2).
American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls: A study of
major findings on girls and education. Washington, DC: American Association of University
Women Educational Foundation.
Baratta-Lorton, M. (1988). Mathematics their way. Milwaukee, WI: Jenson.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact?
Science, 210, 1262–1264.
Boekaerts, M., Seegers, G., & Vermeer, H. (1995). Solving math problems: Where and why does the
solution process go astray? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 241–262.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in
grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179–202.
Carr, M., & Jessup, D. L. (1997). Gender differences in first-grade mathematics strategy use: Social
and metacognitive influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 318–328.
Carr, M., Kurtz, B. E., Schneider, W., Turner, L. A., & Borkowski, J. G. (1989). Strategy acquisition
and transfer among American and German children: Environmental influences on metacognitive
development. Developmental Psychology, 25, 765–771.
Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in
schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 21–29.
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in chil-
dren’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847.
Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (1994). The gender gap in math: Its possible ori-
gins in neighborhood effects. American Sociological Review, 59, 822–838.
Entwisle, D. R., & Baker, D. P. (1983). Gender and young children’s expectations for performance
in arithmetic. Developmental Psychology, 19, 200–209.
Entwisle, D. R., & Hayduk, L. A. (1988). Lasting effects of elementary school. Sociology of
Education, 61, 147–159.
Ewers, C. A., & Wood, N. L. (1993). Sex and ability differences in children’s math self-efficacy and
prediction accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 259–267.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. W. (1998). Gender differ-
ences in mathematical thinking. Educational Researcher, 27 (5), 6–11.
Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. (1985). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of gen-
der-related differences in mathematics. In L. C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marrett (Eds.), Gender influ-
ences in classroom interaction (pp. 17–35). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teacher-student interactions and sex-related differences in
learning mathematics. Teaching & Teacher Education, 2, 19–42.
Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Lubinski, C. A. (1990). Teachers’ attributions and
beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 55–69.
Friedman, L. (1989). Mathematics and the gender gap: A meta-analysis of recent studies on sex dif-
ferences in mathematical tasks. Review of Educational Research, 59, 185–213.
Jacobs, J. E., & Weisz, V. (1994). Gender stereotypes: Implications for gifted education. Roeper
Review, 16, 152–155.
Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin,
105, 198–214.
Kloosterman, P. (1996). Students’ beliefs about knowing and learning mathematics: Implications for
motivation. In M. Carr (Ed.), Motivation in mathematics (pp. 133–158). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Kurtz, B. E., Schneider, W., Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., & Rellinger, L. (1990). Strategy instruction
and attributional beliefs in West Germany and the United States: How teachers foster metacogni-
tive development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 268–283.
Leinhardt, G., Seewald, A. M., & Engel, M. (1979). Learning what’s taught: Sex differences in
instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 432–439.
Marshall, S. P. (1984). Sex differences in children’s mathematics achievement: Solving computa-
tions and story problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 194–204.
McClintock, C. G., & Moskowitz, J. M. (1976). Children’s preferences for individualistic, coopera-
tive, and competitive outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 543–555.
McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V. (1982). The relationship between parents’ beliefs about development
and family constellation, socioeconomic status, and parents’ teaching strategies. In L. M. Laosa &
I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Families as learning environments for children (pp. 261–299). New York:
Plenum.
Moely, B. E., Hart, S. S., Santulli, K., Leal, L., Johnson, T., & Rao, N. (1986). How do teachers teach
memory skill? Educational Psychologist, 21, 55–71.
Moely, B. E., Leal, L., Hart, S. S., Santulli, K. A., Zhou, Z., McLain, E., & Kogut, D. (1989, March).
A developmental perspective on teachers’ cognitions about memory strategies and metacognition
in classroom teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco.
Parent, S., Moss, E., & Gosselin, C. (1993, March). Maternal adjustment to developing child com-
petencies: Is age all that matters? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and
beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321.
Pedersen, K., Elmore, P., & Bleyer, D. (1986). Parent attitudes and student career interests in junior
high school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 49–59.
Peterson, P. L., & Fennema, E. (1985). Effective teaching, student engagement in classroom activi-
ties, and sex-related differences in learning mathematics. American Educational Research

Journal, 22, 309–335.
Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct valid-
ity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18–38.
Siegler, R. S. (1989). Hazards of mental chronometry: An example from children’s subtraction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 497–506.
Sigel, I. E. (1982). The relationship between parental distancing strategies and the child’s cognitive
behavior. In L. M. Laosa & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Families as learning environments for children
(pp. 47–86). New York: Plenum.
APPENDIX A: PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Do you do math work with your child at home? Do you use any of the follow-
ing ways with your child? (a) different ways to count on fingers (scored 1 point
overt); (b) counters or other materials (scored 1 point overt); (c) flash cards
(scored 1 point retrieval); (d) memory tricks or techniques (scored 1 point
retrieval); (e) different ways to count in the head (scored 1 point covert); (f) Is
there anything else you do?
2. Which way do you teach your child to solve addition or subtraction problems
most often? (a) I teach them to remember the answers to problems (memorizing)
(scored 1 point retrieval); (b) I teach them ways to use counters (scored 1 point
overt); (c) I spend about the same amount of time teaching my child to remem-
ber the answers to problems as I do teaching my child different ways to use coun-
ters (scored 1 point each for overt & retrieval); (d) We do no work.
3. If your child is having problems doing math in school, what do you do to help
your child? Each response was categorized as indicating the instruction on
retrieval strategies (1 point per response), overt strategies (1 point per response),
covert strategies (1 point per response), or the instruction on metacognitive
knowledge to regulate strategy use (1 point per response). Parents may provide
multiple responses for each strategy or for instruction on multiple strategies.
4. Do you think that your child needs to count on fingers before he or she is able
to figure out problems in his or her head (Yes or No)? If parents responded yes,
the response was scored 1 point as being in the overt-strategies category.
5. If you try to teach your child a math skill but your child doesn’t seem to under-
stand, what do you do? Each response was categorized as indicating instruction
on retrieval strategies (1 point per response), overt strategies (1 point per
response), covert strategies (1 point per response), or instruction on metacogni-
tive knowledge to regulate strategy use (1 point per response). Parents may pro-
vide multiple responses for each strategy or for instruction on multiple strategies.
6. Children will often count on counters or fingers to help them solve math prob-
lems. Are there times that you encourage counting on counters or fingers?
“Encouraged the use of manipulatives” was scored 1 point in the overt-strategy
category. This question was asked to determine whether parents were aware of
the need for children to use counters or fingers to externally represent numbers.
7. Are there times that you discourage counting on counters or fingers?
“Discouraged the use of manipulatives” was scored as –1 point in the overt-strat-

egy category. We asked this question to find out whether parents actively dis-
couraged or suppressed the use of manipulatives as opposed to encouraging or
ignoring this type of strategy use.
8. Have you taught your child or encouraged your child to count in his or her
head? “Encouraged the use of mental calculation” (1 point was scored for
covert-strategy instruction).
9. Is it important for your child to get the answer from memory? Do you encour-
age your child to just know? (One point was scored for retrieval if the parent
responded yes.)
APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON TEACHER

QUESTIONNAIRE
10. Do you specifically instruct this child to check his or her work (circle one:
Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom, Never)? Please write a few examples of what
you specifically say to this child regarding the importance of checking his or her
work. There were two parts to this question. For the Likert scale, points were
awarded as follows: always = 5, often = 4, sometimes = 3, seldom = 2, and never
= 1. For the examples, 1 point was awarded for each unique example of instruc-
tion related to metacognitive knowledge about checking techniques. The scores
for the first and second parts of the question were summed.
11. If this child is having difficulty with a math problem that requires several
steps, what do you say or do to help him or her? Responses were categorized as
metacognitive if the teacher told children to plan out steps (1 point), think
through problems (1 point), check the work at each stage (1 point), or think about
what is going wrong following a mistake (1 point). One point was awarded for
each different example of metacognitive knowledge and strategy regulation. If
the teacher made all the suggestions listed above, this question would be scored
4 points.
12. What do you do if this child doesn’t seem to think about math problems and
answers without thinking (is impulsive)? Scored the same as Question 11.
13. Imagine that you have explained an arithmetic lesson and this child doesn’t
seem to understand. What do you do? Scored the same as Question 11.
Authors
Martha Carr, Professor, Educational Psychology Department, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
30602; [email protected]
Donna L. Jessup, School Psychologist, Walker-Spivey School, Fayetteville, NC 28306
Diana Fuller, Instructor, Truett-McConnell College, 1201 Bishop Farms Parkway, Watkinsville,
GA 30677
1999, Vol. 30, No. 1, 47–64
The Dilemma of Transparency:

Seeing and Seeing Through
Talk in the Mathematics Classroom
Jill Adler
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa
In this article talk is understood to be a resource for mathematical learning in school. As a resource
it needs to be both seen (be visible) to be used and seen through (be invisible) to provide access
to mathematical learning. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of transparency captures this dual
function of talk as a learning resource in the practice of school mathematics. I argue that the dual
functions, visibility and invisibility, of talk in mathematics classrooms create dilemmas for teach-
ers. An analytic narrative vignette drawn from a secondary mathematics classroom in South Africa
illustrates the dilemma of transparency that mathematics teachers can face, particularly if they
are teaching multilingual classes.
Key Words: Bilingual issues; Communication; Language and mathematics; Social and cultural
issues; Teacher knowledge
One feature of the changing political landscape in South Africa has been the
rapid racial integration of state schools. Since 1990, historically “whites only”
schools have opened to all South African pupils, creating multilingual1, cultural-
ly diverse classrooms. My purpose in this article is to open up discussion of the
need to explore the benefits and constraints of explicit mathematics language
teaching by presenting what can be described as a dilemma of transparency for
teachers in multilingual secondary mathematics classrooms.
In this article I draw from a qualitative study of South African secondary math-
ematics teachers’ knowledge of their practices in their multilingual classrooms
(Adler, 1996b), different aspects of which have been published elsewhere (Adler,
1995, 1996a, 1997, 1998). Some English-speaking teachers in the study taught in
schools that had recently and rapidly desegregated. In initial interviews in the
study, they talked about the value and benefit of what I have called “explicit
mathematics language teaching” (Adler, 1995). In explicit mathematics language
1I use multilingual in the same way as Levine (1993), to mean “classrooms in which pupils bring
a range of main languages to the class.”
This article is drawn from my doctoral thesis (Adler, 1996), supervised by Professor
Shirley Pendlebury (University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Education), in association
with Dr. Kathryn Crawford (University of Sydney, Faculty of Education). The article is also
an elaboration of a paper presented at the 21st Conference of the International Group of the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME21) in Lahti, Finland, July 1997.
48 The Dilemma of Transparency
teaching, language itself, and particularly talk, becomes the object of attention in
the mathematics class and a resource in the teaching and learning processes. Now
that their classes included pupils whose main2 language was not English, these
teachers realized that they needed to be more explicit about instructions for tasks
and more careful in their use of mathematical terms and their expression of ideas.
In interviews, the teachers said that they had found, to their surprise, that being
explicit about mathematical language benefited all pupils in their mathematics
classes, irrespective of their language histories.
While the wider study progressed, one of the teachers, Helen3, specifically
problematized the issue of explicit language teaching. For Helen, successful
mathematics learning was related to pupils’ saying what they think in concise
and precise mathematical language. She had tried to develop mathematical lan-
guage teaching as part of her practice in her multilingual classroom. When she
reflected on her teaching during the study, however, she became aware of
instances in which her explicit language teaching, in her terms, went on “too
long.” There was too much focus on what and how something was said, and the
mathematics under consideration was lost. She began to question what explicit
mathematics language teaching meant in practice and whether and how it actu-
ally helped. Helen’s experiences and reflections provoked questions like “How
does one pay attention to appropriate ways of speaking mathematically without
conflating medium and message?” “How does a mathematics teacher focus
attention on the form of speech in class without losing mathematical meaning
and conceptual focus?”
I argue here that Lave and Wenger’s (1991) idea that access to a practice
requires its resources to be “transparent” (although this idea is not usually
applied to language as a resource or developed in school settings) can be useful
and illuminating when applied to the use of language in schools. I will present
what I call a teaching dilemma of transparency. The horns of this dilemma are,
on the one side, that explicit mathematics language teaching, in which teachers
attend to pupils’ verbal expressions as a public resource for class teaching,
appears to be a primary condition for access to mathematics, particularly for
pupils whose main language is not the language of instruction. On the other side,
however, there is always the possibility in explicit language teaching of focusing
too much on what is said and how it is said.
How teachers manage this dilemma needs to be addressed. Teachers’ decision-
making at critical moments, although always a reflection of both their personal
identities and their teaching contexts, requires the ability to shift focus between
language per se and the mathematical problem under consideration. The chal-
2I use main language in place of what is often referred to as home language, vernacular, or moth-
er tongue. By main language I mean the language of greatest day-to-day use and facility for the
speaker. In today’s complex multilingual society, many people speak more than two languages; it
may be that more than one is a main language and it is not appropriate to signal one as the second
language; moreover, mother tongue is not necessarily synonymous with main language.
3This is a pseudonym.
Jill Adler 49
lenge, of course, is to judge when and how such shifts are best for whom and for
what purpose.
These assertions will be instantiated and illuminated through an analytic nar-
rative vignette (Erickson, 1986) based on an episode in Helen’s multilingual
Grade 11 trigonometry class together with her reflections on the episode. I begin
with some theoretical and methodological comments and then contextualize
Helen’s teaching in the wider study and in education more generally to enable
the reader to situate the episode, the reflections, and the discussion that follow
and form the substance of the article.
SOME THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL COMMENT

The wider study from which this article is drawn is framed by a sociocultural
theory of mind in which consciousness is constituted in and constitutive of activ-
ity in social, cultural, and historical contexts. In particular, Lave and Wenger’s
social practice theory (1991) and Mercer’s sociocultural theory (1995) provide
analytic tools for describing and explaining some teaching dilemmas in multilin-
gual mathematics classrooms.
Lave and Wenger (1991) have described becoming knowledgeable about a
practice like mathematics as the fashioning of identity in a community of prac-
tice. Becoming knowledgeable means becoming a full participant in the practice,
which includes learning to talk in the manner of the practice. They argued that
learning occurs through legitimate peripheral participation in the learning cur-
riculum of the community and entails having access to a wide range of ongoing
activity in the practice—access to old-timers, other members, information,
resources, and opportunities for participation. Such access hinges on the concept
of transparency.
The significance of artifacts in the full complexity of their relations with the practice
can be more or less transparent to learners. Transparency in its simplest form may
imply that the inner workings of an artifact are available for the learner’s inspec-
tion.… Transparency refers to the way in which using artifacts and understanding
their significance interact to become one learning process. (pp. 102–103)
If an apprentice carpenter, for example, is to become a full participant in the

practice of carpentry, it is not sufficient that he or she learns to use a particular
cutting tool—a carpentry resource. He or she also needs to understand how and
where this tool developed in the practice of carpentry as well as how and for what
purpose it is used now. Thus, access to artifacts in the community both through
their use and through understanding their significance is crucial. Artifacts (which
include material tools and technologies) are often treated as givens, as if their
histories and significance are self-evident. Yet artifacts embody inner workings
that are tied up with the history and development of the practice and that are hid-
den. These inner workings need to be made available.
More pertinent to this article is the way Lave and Wenger (1991) elaborated
transparency as involving the dual characteristics of invisibility and visibility:
invisibility in the form of unproblematic interpretation and integration (of the arti-
fact) into activity, and visibility in the form of extended access to information. This
is not a simple dichotomous distinction, since these two crucial characteristics are in
a complex interplay. (p. 102)
Access to a practice relates to the dual visibility and invisibility of its

resources. Lave and Wenger (1991) used the metaphor of a window to clarify
their concept of transparency. A window’s invisibility is what makes it a win-
dow. It is an object through which the outside world becomes visible. However,
set in a wall, the window is simultaneously highly visible. In other words, that
one can see through it is precisely what also makes it highly visible. For Lave
and Wenger, the “mediating technologies” (p. 103) in a practice, like the car-
pentry tool, need to be visible so that they can be noticed and used, and they need
to be simultaneously invisible so that attention is focused on the subject matter,
the object of attention in the practice (e.g., the cupboard being made by the car-
penter).
Managing this duality of visibility and invisibility of resources for mathemat-
ics learning in school can create dilemmas for teachers. Pupil discussion of a
mathematical task illuminates this duality if one understands talk as a resource in
the practice of school mathematics. (See the example provided later in the arti-
cle.) Discussion of a task should enable the mathematical learning and so be
invisible4. It is the window through which the mathematics can be seen. At the
same time, the specificity of mathematical discourse inevitably enters such dis-
cussion and can require explicit attention; that is, it needs to be visible. Learners
need to understand the significance of mathematical talk. These are the dual
characteristics of a transparent resource. It is possible, however, that in the math-
ematics class the discussion itself becomes the focus and object of attention
instead of a means to the mathematics. Then it obscures access to mathematics
by becoming too visible itself. This possibility might well be exaggerated in mul-
tilingual situations to which learners bring a number of different main languages.
In short, practices that are more or less transparent can enable, obstruct, or even
deny participation and, hence, access to the practice.
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of transparency was developed in contexts
of apprenticeship in which there is a situated and continuous movement from
peripheral to full participation in a practice. This movement also implies a situ-
ated and continuous shifting between the visibility and invisibility of resources
in use. Lave and Wenger focused on a learning curriculum, arguing that learning
is not necessarily tied to explicit and planned instruction but is tied instead to par-
ticipation in the practice. However, the school is a very different context from
that of an apprenticeship. Lave and Wenger recognized this difference, but by
their own admission they did not address what, for example, could be different
4Meira’s (1995) analysis of tool use (resources) in mathematics classrooms distinguishes “fields of
invisibility,” which enable smooth entry into a practice, and “fields of visibility,” which extend infor-
mation by making the world visible.
Jill Adler 51
and specific about working with the dual visibility and invisibility of resources
for mathematics learning in school5.
As Mercer (1995) has argued, (mathematical) knowledge produced in the con-
text of schooling is quite specific and is different from knowledge produced in
everyday contexts. Within the context of schooling he distinguished between
educational discourse—the discourse of teaching and learning in the classroom
(e.g., ways of asking and answering questions in class)—and educated dis-
course—new ways of using language (e.g., in algebra “let x be any number”),
“ways with words” (p. 82) that would enable pupils to become active members
of wider communities that use this educated discourse6. Learners can develop
familiarity with and confidence in using new educated and educational discours-
es only by using them. Teachers know that pupils participate in class in varying
ways. In this sense they all, to some extent, engage in educational discourse.
However, they also need opportunities to practice being users of educated dis-
courses. Often there is a mismatch between the educational discourse in play (the
ways in which words are being used in the classroom) and the educated discourse
they are meant to be entering. So, in relation to mathematical discourse, the
teacher’s role is to translate what is being said into mathematical discourse to
help frame discussion, to pose questions, to suggest real-life connections, to
probe arguments, and to ask for evidence. The language practices of the class-
room (educational discourse) must “scaffold students’ entry into mathematical
[educated] discourse” (p. 82):
[Teachers] have to use educational discourse to organise, energise and maintain a
local mini-community of educated discourse. We can think of each teacher as a dis-
course guide and each classroom as a discourse village, a small language outpost
from which roads lead to larger communities of educated discourse.…Teachers are
expected to help their students develop ways of talking, writing and thinking which
will enable them to travel on wider intellectual journeys…, but they have to start
from where learners are, … and help them go back and forth across the bridge from
everyday discourse into educated discourse. (Mercer, 1995, pp. 83–84)
I argued earlier in this article that as a teaching and learning resource, talk
needs to be both visible and invisible so that it can provide access to school
mathematics. Mercer’s (1995) argument suggests a mediational role for teachers
when they assist learners in crossing the bridge between talk as the invisible win-
dow through which mathematics can be seen and, in Helen’s terms, more explic-
it, visible mathematical language teaching.
From this sociocultural perspective, the teaching and learning of mathematics
in multilingual contexts needs to be understood as three-dimensional. It is not
simply about access to the language of learning (in this case English). It is also
about access to the language of mathematics (educated discourse) and access to
5See Moschkovich (1996) for an interesting argument for situated and continuous code-switching
practices in bilingual settings.
6In Mercer’s terms, educated discourse in school mathematics will include the mathematics reg-
ister (Halliday, 1978, as cited in Pimm, 1987).
classroom cultural processes (educational discourse). How do teachers manage

the tensions in use of formal mathematical language and informal language, on
the one hand, and in the language of instruction that is not the main language of
the pupils, on the other hand?
During 1992 and 1993 I undertook a qualitative study to find out how mathe-
matics teachers in multilingual classrooms manage their complex practices. As
with all qualitative methods, the sample in this study was small, purposive, and
theoretical (Cohen & Manion, 1989; Rose, 1982). Six secondary mathematics
teachers from the three different multilingual contexts in South Africa were
selected:
1. Two teachers were from recently desegregated historically White state
schools in which English was the dominant language in and around the
school; the teaching staff was White and English-speaking. There were
increasing numbers of pupils with other main languages; hence, classes in these
schools were multilingual. Helen was one of these teachers.
2. Two teachers were from township-based Black state schools in which neither
teachers nor pupils had English as their main language. In addition, they did
not all share the same main language.
3. Two teachers were from private schools that had predominantly Black pupils
who did not have English as their main language and who brought a range of
main languages to class. Teachers were predominantly White and English-
speaking.
Each of the six teachers was a fully qualified and experienced secondary math-
ematics teacher with a personal and professional interest in the study as well as
a willingness to participate in the study. Furthermore, in spite of the political
turbulence at the time, the teachers were able to facilitate access to their schools
and classrooms. Thus, in addition to being theoretical and purposive, this sam-
ple of six teachers was also an opportunity sample (Cohen & Manion, 1989;
Rose, 1982).
To investigate teachers’ knowledge, I needed two sources of data. First, it was
necessary to have teachers talk about their practices. Second, I needed data on
actual classroom practices. Hence, interviews with teachers were supplemented
with observations of their classroom practice and with teachers’ reflections on
their observed classes. The methods used to collect data were (a) an initial semi-
structured, in-depth, interactive interview; (b) a report-back session, with the six
teachers interviewed to discuss and partially validate my initial analysis and
interpretation of their interviews; (c) up to 3 hours of observation of at least two
lessons on consecutive days (videotaped) in one or two of each teacher’s class-
es; (d) reflective interviews with each teacher on the videos of his or her class-
room(s); and (e) the teachers’ participation in a series of follow-up workshops
(three in all) on issues and aspects of the data that the teachers themselves want-
ed to discuss with one another and to pursue. In preparation for these workshops,
some of the teachers, including Helen, undertook small action-research projects
Jill Adler 53
to further explore issues that had arisen for them during the research process.
All interviews and workshops were audiotaped and transcribed. Analysis of
these transcriptions revealed noticeable presences and silences across different
teachers and their different multilingual contexts (Adler, 1995). Although teach-
ers in different contexts emphasized different issues, a common thread across the
interviews and workshops was the expression of tensions and contradictions in
their practices.
The notion of a “teaching dilemma” became the key to unlocking teachers’
knowledge of teaching and learning mathematics in complex multilingual set-
tings. Teaching dilemmas are discussed in existing literature on teaching (e.g.,
Berlak & Berlak, 1981; Lampert, 1985). For the Berlaks, a language of dilem-
mas captures
contradictions that are simultaneously in consciousness and society. . . . [Dilemmas]
capture not only the dialectic between alternative views, values, beliefs in persons and
in society, but also in the dialectic of subject (the acting I) and object (the society and
culture that are in us and upon us). (pp. 124–125)
Teachers in different multilingual contexts revealed different teaching dilem-

mas when they spoke about their teaching, thus supporting the notion of teach-
ing as a contextualized social practice (Adler, 1995). Tensions concerning code-
switching7 (using more than one language in class) were emphasized by Black
teachers in township schools (Adler, 1998). Tensions related to mediation were
emphasized by teachers who had tried to create more participatory-inquiry
approaches in their classrooms (Adler, 1997). Helen and other teachers whose
classrooms rapidly became multilingual faced the inherent tensions in explicit
and implicit language practices in their multilingual classrooms and what I have
interpreted as the dilemma of needing both to see and to see through mathemat-
ical language in class.
Of course, what teachers reflect on and talk about is only part of what they
know. What happens in practice? In particular, how does Helen’s practice illu-
minate the dilemma of transparency, her explicit mathematics language teaching,
and the need for both visibility and invisibility of talk in her class?
THE CONTEXT
Helen and Her Focus on Explicit Language Teaching

Helen is White and English-speaking8 with 6 years experience as a secondary
mathematics teacher. During the workshops she invited the other participating
teachers to struggle with her over whether or not explicit language teaching actu-
ally helps, over whether and how working on pupils’ abilities to “talk mathe-
7Code-switching is an individual’s (more or less) deliberate alternation between two or more lan-
guages for a range of purposes.
8Interestingly, Helen’s mother is French, and she grew up speaking French and English at home.
Helen also speaks and understands some Zulu.
matics” is a good thing. In the language of this article, she thus raised the issue
of talk as a transparent resource in the mathematics classroom. That the dilem-
ma of transparency was particularly strong for Helen is not surprising consider-
ing her view of mathematics as language and her view of language as a crucial
resource in the practices in her classroom. In short, Helen appeared to share Lave
and Wenger’s (1991) notion that becoming knowledgeable means learning to
talk or, in Mercer’s terms, learning educated (i.e., mathematical) discourse. In
her initial interview she said that her greatest thrill was when pupils could
express themselves, describing their thinking, in mathematical language. She
repeated this view in her reflective interview: “’Cause if they start to describe
something to me in accurate mathematical language, it does seem to reflect some
kind of mastery.”
Through her reflections and her discussions with the other teachers during the
workshops, Helen came to mean by explicit mathematics language teaching
more than the teacher’s making mathematical and classroom discourse explicit.
She included teachers’ encouraging and working on pupils’ verbalizations in the
mathematics classroom with the following:
1. Attention to pronunciation and clarity of instructions. When she discussed one
of her videotaped lessons, Helen said, “One of the issues was linguistic, . . .
the sound issue between sides with an s and sizzzze. A lot were hearing size
when I was saying sides, and we picked up on that issue.” She pointed out that
the pronunciation of particular words by pupils or the teacher or both could
be a problem in a multilingual mathematics classroom. Teachers’ instructions
could be misunderstood. For Helen, clear speech and clear instructions were
important; she thought that they could improve clarity for all pupils, not just
learners whose main language was not English.
2. Pupil verbalization (putting things into words) as a tool for thinking9. Helen
raised for discussion with the other teachers her view that pupils’ saying what
they were thinking would help them know the mathematics under consider-
ation: “Debbie, who did that very nice summary at the end of the last lesson,
has got absolutely no idea at this stage. For me it seemed that if she had done
this great summary the day before, that she should have been able to do that.”
3. Verbalization of mathematical thinking as a display of mathematical knowl-
edge. Helen articulated on numerous occasions the point that if pupils could
clearly say what they were thinking, then they knew the mathematics under
consideration: “Now listen to how clearly Rosie verbalises that, … and she
is a successful student. There must be a relationship.”
4. Pupil verbalization as a tool for teaching. The teachers agreed that pupils’ say-
ing what they were thinking would, at least, help the teacher to know what
9In sociocultural terms, this is the dialectic between language and thought, in which paraphrasing
is associated with personal appropriation of cultural concepts and ideas (i.e., within a community of
practice) (Leontiev & Luria, 1968).
Jill Adler 55
learners were construing and to respond appropriately. One summed up this

view in the workshop discussion: “Hearing what it is pupils think and artic-
ulate can help you [the teacher] see what they understand.”
Clearly, Helen regarded pupils’ verbalization in the mathematics classroom as
a resource. That verbalization is a tool for thinking and a display of mathemati-
cal knowledge has been recognized by Barnes (1976). In fact, all a teacher has
access to are the forms of language students use to display knowledge (Pimm,
1996). That pupil verbalization is a tool both for thinking and for teaching means
that language functions as a psychological tool when students put their mathe-
matical ideas into words and as a cultural tool10 for the sharing and joint con-
struction of knowledge (Mercer, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978) when the teacher uses
pupil verbalization as a tool for teaching. Thus, although for Helen the practice
of explicit language teaching entailed being explicit about mathematical dis-
course, explicit language teaching was bound up with her view of a strong and
complex relationship between language and learning.
The School and Class

Helen taught in an historically White state school for girls. This school dera-
cialized faster than many similar schools, and at the time of this research study,
fewer than 50% of the pupils were White. The school was well equipped. The
class in which observation and videotaping were carried out was a mixed-ability
class of 30 pupils. English, Sesotho, and Zulu, all now official languages in
South Africa, were some of the main languages spoken by pupils in this class.
There were also immigrant pupils, one of whom had arrived in the country
recently from Taiwan and spoke no English. The language of instruction in the
school was English, and all public interaction in Helen’s classes was in English.
Helen’s Approach
Helen’s classes, although largely teacher directed, were also interactive and
task based. Group-based tasks were followed by whole-class, teacher-directed
reaction to reports pupils gave. In Mercer’s (1995) terms, Helen’s approach
entailed an educational discourse that included situations in which pupils talked
with one another during their interaction on tasks, reported verbally on these
tasks and interactions, and engaged with Helen in public verbal interactions. It
was during these public interactions that Helen paid explicit attention to educat-
ed discourse.
Helen’s approach and the resulting classroom culture that included pupil-pupil
discussion and verbalization were not surprising in light of her views of mathe-
10It is important to note here (see Bernstein, 1993) that language as a cultural tool is a tool for learn-
ing. But language itself is a producer of relations of power. This point is also made by Ivic (1989).
Although language is a resource in the classroom, it is does not function in any simple, unproblem-
atic way.
matics as language as well as her concern that mathematics should be contextu-

alized and learning should be meaningful and lasting. Moreover, her approach
reflected a significant shift away from the “drill and practice” model dominant in
South African mathematics classrooms. Helen also held strong views on access
to mathematics for both girls and the racially disadvantaged in South Africa. It
is thus important to note here that Helen engaged with the issues of code-switch-
ing and effective mediation. Her overarching concern, however, and thus the
focus of this article, was whether or not explicit mathematical language teaching
does help students—whether it makes mathematics more accessible.
Helen introduced trigonometry to one of her Grade 10 classes with an outdoor
activity in which students investigated the lengths of shadows caused by the sun
at different times of the day. This activity was followed by activities in which
groups of pupils measured and compared the ratios of the lengths of sides of a
right-angled triangle having one angle of 40 degrees. Later, when groups report-
ed what they had learned, Helen attempted to develop their understanding of con-
stant ratios and related these ratios to the programming of trigonometric ratios
into a calculator.
In the first workshop11 (which occurred after the initial interview in which
Helen expressed her firm commitment to explicit language teaching and after she
had observed and reflected on her video), Helen asked the other teachers to help
her grapple with whether “saying it” actually is indicative of understanding, of
knowing. Helen then followed up her question with her own action research. She
planned a double lesson (1 hour) on trigonometry for the same students who were
by this time in Grade 11. She organized the lesson around group discussion of a
set of tasks, tape-recorded the discussions of two of the student groups, and invit-
ed me to observe and videotape the lesson. She wanted to listen carefully to how
pupils engaged in discussion on mathematical tasks and to reflect more system-
atically on her assumptions about a strong relationship between language and
learning and about the values of explicit mathematics language teaching.
After Helen had viewed the videotape and listened to the tape-recordings of
the student groups, she brought her reflections from this action research to the
second workshop with the other teachers in the research study. The vignette
below provides insight first into how Helen coped in practice with pupils’ mean-
ings and with their mathematical expression and second into reflections on her
practice. Together with some of my own commentary, the vignette illuminates
the dilemma of transparency. The episode and reflections presented in the
vignette are neither typical nor rare (Erickson, 1986). Instead they are instances
that illustrate and create a space for opening dialogue on an important element of
teachers’ knowledge of their practices in multilingual classrooms—an element
quite apparent in newly deracialized schools in South Africa.
11The initial interviews, classroom observations, and reflective interviews were all completed by
November 1992. The three workshops with the teachers took place in February, May, and August the
following year.
Jill Adler 57
A VIGNETTE—A CLASSROOM EPISODE
The episode described below took place in the first trigonometry lesson of
Grade 11 and was part of Helen’s action research in the year following the ini-
tial interviews and videotaping of her teaching trigonometry to her Grade 10
class. In this lesson Helen asked pupils in groups of four to discuss what
trigonometry meant to them and then to report back their meanings to the rest of
the class in a “maximum of 2 minutes per group … using key words and putting
across [the] main ideas.”
Most of the groups related trigonometry to determining “the size and sides of
the angles,” stating that “there are six ratios”; most presentations included chalk-
board diagrams showing two similar right-angled triangles as shown in Figure 1.
θ θ
Figure 1. Similar triangles.
Specifically, two groups’ explanations included the following expressions: “Uh,

we said the ratio of two angles is independent to the size of the angle in the other
two triangles,” and “Therefore, we came to the same thing that the ratio of two
sides is independent to the size of the tri, of the angle in two triangles.”
After all the presentations, Helen moved to the front of the class. She drew the
students’ attention to various aspects of the reports and then focused explicitly
on the students’ expressions quoted above. [Note: . . . indicates a short pause; H
is Helen; S6 (for example) is Student 6, when the name of the student is not
known; the name of the student is used if it was clearly articulated in the lesson;
Ss is a number of students talking at the same time.]
H: Say that to me slowly, the.…
S6: (H writes as pupil talks) The ratios of the two sides … is independent to the size of
the angles … in the two triangles….
H: Is independent to …?
S6: The two tri … is independent, no, the two sides is independent.…
H: The ratios of the two sides is independent to?
S6: The size of the angles in the two triangles (and H finishes writing).
H: Let’s look at that statement carefully. I need some distance. (She moves back from
the board and then reads slowly) “The ratios of the two sides is independent … to
the size of the angle … in the two triangles.” What does that statement mean to, uh,
to anyone?
S6: It means that, uh, whether the angles … when you’ve got two triangles, and the
angles come up to the same degree, you, uh, it doesn’t matter how long or short the
triangle is, your angles, as long as your angles are equal (inaudible).
H: Now listen to what you said. “How long or short the triangles are?”
S6: The length, the length of the triangle.
H: Triangle is a shape.
Ss: (Mumbling) The length of the sides.
H: The length of the sides of the triangle. Okay. You know. Let’s just look at this word
independent. Okay. Now I know when I teach this, I use the word independent and
then you think, “Well that’s a nice fancy word to use. If I just repeat it nicely in the
right sentence, then she’ll be very impressed.” But, when you use the word inde-
pendent, you’ve got to know what it means. What does it mean? Phindile?
Phin: (Some mumbling) It stands on its own.
Helen first questioned the pupils’ expression of “long or short” triangles, and
pupils responded indicating their awareness in this interchange that they were
expected to be more mathematically precise in what they were saying. She led
them to say “the length of the sides” of the triangle and then pulled the word
independent out on its own and attended to its meaning. She then returned to
focus on the sentence in which it was placed:
H: Okay. All right. Is that statement true?
Ss: (Some say no; some say yes.)
H: Must I put a true or a false at the end of it?
Ss: (Some say true; some say false.)
H: Okay. Who says it’s true? (S6 raises her hand.) S6 says it’s true ’cause she said it.
(Students laugh.) Okay, who says it’s false? (Students laugh.) What do you think,
Phindile?
Phin: I don’t know; I don’t understand the sentence.
H: Okay, let’s try and sort out the sentence. “The ratios of two sides”—that’s a true
part of the line, uh, of the sentence. Does that make sense?
Ss: Yes.
H: Okay. “Ratios of two sides”—we know we always talk about opposite to
hypotenuse or adjacent to opposite or something … we are talking about a ratio and
we are talking about two sides.… “Is independent.” Okay. Wait. The most impor-
tant word in the sentence is independent? Right. So one thing is independent of
another. So maybe if I just change this [to] to of, … we can start. So the ratio is
independent from what? Size of the angle in the two triangles? …
Ss: (Some mumbling of “It’s true.”)
H: Who says it’s true? Why?
S7: Because, Ma’am, um, I think it means that, no, uh, if if you, if you have, uh, one
big triangle and you have one small triangle and you have the same angle in both
of them, uh, the the size of the angles is equal, then the ratio of the, of the sides
won’t change.
H: Now listen to what you’re saying. You’re saying you’ve got, … you said to me
(and H links the italicized words below to related words on the board as she speaks)
you’ve got the size of two triangles and then you said that the angle inside them is
the same, okay. So if we want to, is what she said different to what is on the board
at the moment?
Jill Adler 59
Ss: (Some say no, and some say yes.)

H: She said to me, “The ratio of the two sides is independent of the size of the trian-
gle, when you’ve got the same angle in all of them.” So it is not true to say that the
ratios are independent of the size of the angle. The size of the angle is exactly what
makes the fundamental difference. Because if I’ve got two triangles, these two
beautiful triangles over here, 40, 40 (and she writes 40 [degrees] in the corre-
sponding angles of the two similar triangles on the board), and these two over here,
20, 20 (and again writes these angle sizes for another set of similar triangles on the
board [see Figure 2]).… Would I get—if I say spoke about … sine here [40-degree
angle in the first triangle] and sine here [20-degree angle in the third triangle]?
Okay? Will I get the same answer?
Ss: No.
H: No! I’ll get two different answers. So it is not true to say to me it is independent of
the size of the angle—because the angle, if it is 40, makes the difference to 20,
right? It’s the size of the angle that makes the difference.… Does that make sense
to you?
Ss: No.
H: What doesn’t make sense?
S2: Ma’am?
H: Ja (local word meaning yes)?
S2: It makes a difference to what?
H: It makes a difference … to.… (Students laugh.) Where was I starting off? … um,
let me start again. …
40° 40° 20° 20°
Figure 2. Two sets of similar triangles.
Helen then recapped by drawing attention to diagrams on the board, to reiter-

ate how two different right-angled triangles each with a 40-degree angle would
have the same ratios between their corresponding sides as two different right-
angled triangles each with a 20-degree angle. But the two sets of ratios will be
different precisely because the angles in the triangle pairs are different. She then
asked the pupil who first articulated the sentence to state, in her own words, what
she understood.
Both in this lesson and in the other lessons videotaped and observed the pre-
vious year, Helen directed pupils’ reporting back. After each group reported, she
directed whole-class, teacher-pupil interaction on what had been presented,
focusing attention on problems and reformulating and recapping when neces-
sary. It was in this part of the lesson that explicit language teaching was evident.
In Mercer’s (1995) terms, it is here that Helen made explicit and intentional
instructional moves to bridge or scaffold what pupils say and conventional math-
ematical discourse.
In the episode described above, Helen asked what the statement with “indepen-
dent to the size of the angles” meant, inviting rethinking and further elaboration.
She tried to engage pupils in making sense of the statement. When S7 expressed
a clear explanation, she focused on this explanation, reformulated it, and asked the
class to compare the two versions—what had just been said and what was written
on the board. She assisted by recapping and stressing that the “angle makes the
fundamental difference” only to find that the focus of the mathematical discussion
was lost on the pupils. She therefore reformulated and recapped again, and then,
as she reflected, she had “gone on too long.” Helen’s practice had come to include
periodic focusing of her and her pupils’ attention on how to “speak mathematics,”
that is, how to use educated discourse, and she faced a new challenge because
explicit language teaching could also cause confusion. I have called this challenge
the dilemma of transparency, of talk as a resource in the classroom bearing the
dual characteristics of visibility and invisibility.
HELEN’S REFLECTIONS
Helen spoke about explicit language teaching on numerous occasions and in

various ways throughout the study—in her initial interview, in her reflective
interview, and in the workshops with the other teachers. However, it was in the
second workshop, as reflected in the quotes below, that the dilemma of trans-
parency, of managing the visibility and invisibility of language as a resource for
teaching and learning mathematics in multilingual classrooms, became most
clear.
For the opening of the second workshop, Helen played the video from the
point at which the student said, “The ratio of the two sides is independent to the
size of the angles in the two triangles” (when Helen was writing what was being
said, word for word, on the board for the class to think about). She then said to
the other teachers,
Just after the sentence is written on the board and I ask, “What do you understand by
this statement?” the one child puts forward a perfect explanation. She talks about the
angle being the same in both triangles and then she talks about the depth of the tri-
angles, or whatever, and I pick up on that … and then this [other] child now does it
absolutely perfectly. So, [those are] two very good expressions of what is going on.
And yet when you ask the class, “Is this sentence [sentence she has written verbatim
from the first student] correct?” there is this complete silence. So the question for me
is, even in the minds of those two children who put forward such consistent expla-
nations, what’s going on with them … that they cannot … um … pick up incorrect-
ness in the sentence?
Helen went on to revisit the question she had raised in the first workshop: “If
they can say it, do they know it?” She then posed a central question on verbal-
ization that points to the dilemma of transparency:
Jill Adler 61
In retrospect, when I look at that lesson, I went on but much too long (laughter), on
and on and on, and I keep saying the same thing and I repeat myself, on and on.…
But the thing is then if you have a sense that there is a shared meaning amongst the
group, can you go with it? Um … when the sentence is completely wrong? … Can
you let it go? Can a teacher use a sense of shared meaning to move on? I think this
is a central question in terms of the verbalization and discussion.
In concluding her presentation for discussion to the workshop, Helen remarked

how clearly she remembered that episode and the particular moment when, in her
attempt to teach mathematical language explicitly, the mathematical focus of the
lesson was lost. She remembered being “completely thrown” by S2’s interjec-
tion: “Ma’am? … It makes a difference to what?”
DISCUSSION
Helen’s working assumption of a strong relationship between language and

thought was seriously challenged when she observed pupils who could express
their thinking on one day but could not on the next, who could express clear and
correct mathematical thinking but could not discern problematic expressions of
others, and who said things “wrong” but created a sense for Helen that they had
some grasp of the mathematics they were discussing. She also saw how in her
focus on language teaching and in her attention to the pupils’ use of the term
independent, the pupils lost their focus on the mathematical and trigonometric
problem from which that use arose.
This vignette, presenting an episode in Helen’s class, and her reflections on the
episode reveal the tensions in whole-class interaction when attention is focused
on pupils’ mathematical verbalizations and highlight the dilemma this explicit
mathematics language teaching can create for teachers. Through Helen’s actions
and reflections one can see what is known only too well—that some mathemat-
ical ideas are difficult for pupils to verbalize precisely and with meaning.
The specific challenges for Helen lay in scaffolding educated discourse and in
moving between talk used for thinking while pupils work on a task and talk used
as a display of knowledge. I have argued that, in sociocultural terms, teaching
and learning mathematics entail this moving back and forth. Helen provided
opportunity for pupils, among themselves, to elaborate and then share their
meanings of the term trigonometry. Through her elicitation of pupils’ thinking
she discovered her students’ confusion, and she moved to clarify the issue
through a particular scaffolding process. She worked explicitly on pupils’
expressions of their mathematical ideas. She asked questions in her attempt to
bring into focus the incorrect use of the concept and term independent, and she
finally reformulated and recapped, emphasizing in clear (to her) mathematical
language what she saw as most significant in the trigonometry description that
had emerged from the pupils. But this explicit language teaching was a struggle.
Helen’s practice and her knowledge of it help us identify a fundamental peda-
gogic tension in the explicit way she dealt with language issues, particularly talk,
in her multilingual mathematics class. She harnessed talk as a resource in her

classroom. As a resource in her practice, the transparency of talk (i.e., its
enabling use by learners) is related to both its visibility and its invisibility.
Specifically, Helen attended to pupils’ expressions as a shared public resource
for class teaching. This characteristic of classroom talk is not shared by speech
in many other settings (Pimm, 1996). The language itself becomes visible and
the explicit focus of attention. It is no longer the medium of expression, but,
instead, it is the message—that to which the pupils now attend.
The classroom episode shows Helen struggling to mediate the scientific con-
cepts (Vygotsky, 1986) of constant ratios, dependence, and independence when
they arise in school trigonometry. She did this mediation in her multilingual
classroom, in which the complex three-dimensional dynamic of access to
English, to mathematical discourse, and to classroom cultural processes inter-
sects with her educational and political beliefs as well as with her view of math-
ematics as language. Helen focused on correct ways of speaking mathematical-
ly, thus attempting to provide access to English and to mathematical discourse.
These attempts occurred, however, within her classroom culture, within which
language was used simultaneously to explore and to display mathematical
knowledge. And problems emerged.
On reflection, Helen felt that her attempt to enable access to mathematical
(educated) discourse brought with it the problem of “going on too long.” In
explicitly making mathematical language visible, she caused it to become
opaque, obscuring the mathematical problem. It is in this instance that the dilem-
ma of transparency—of whether (and when) to make mathematical language
explicit or leave it more implicit—can be seen. For Helen, there were both polit-
ical and educational dimensions to this dilemma. If she focused on language for
too long, she would inadvertently obscure the mathematics under consideration.
If she left too much implicit, she would then run the risk of losing or alienating
those who most needed opportunity for access to educated discourse. She won-
dered about the possible effects of leaving a shared sense of trigonometric ratios
but a public display of incorrect mathematical language: “If they don’t say it
right, can I let it go?”
Of course, there is a world of difference between “what they are saying is
wrong” and “I can’t get at what they are trying to say to me” (Pimm, 1996).
Teachers like Helen (including other teachers in the wider study) were concerned
about their verbalizing and having pupils verbalize “correct” mathematical lan-
guage, about using language as a shared public resource in the mathematics
classroom. And although access to educated mathematical discourse is impor-
tant, Helen’s classroom illustrates how explicit mathematical language teaching
can initiate a dilemma of transparency.
The fundamental tension between implicit and explicit practices with respect
to language issues in multilingual mathematics classrooms is revealed in the
episodes of Helen’s teaching. As I have argued elsewhere (Adler, 1997), these
kinds of issues are present in all classrooms, but they are present in particularly
Jill Adler 63
heightened form in multilingual classrooms. There are no simple answers here,

nor is it the purpose of this article to provide answers. Instead, in this article I
present a description and analysis of an instance of a teacher grappling with the
issue of transparency while she tried to embrace new practices and make mathe-
matical knowledge available in her particular multilingual classroom.
CONCLUSION
Through Helen’s experience and her reflections on it, one sees that explicit
mathematics language teaching, although beneficial, is not necessarily always
appropriate. This kind of explicit teaching can result in a language-related dilem-
ma of transparency with its dual characteristics of visibility and invisibility.
Helen’s particular questions and reflections, and the discussion they provoked in
the workshops, highlight tensions teachers can experience when they try to initi-
ate new and different forms of instruction.
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of transparency can illuminate classroom
processes. Both visibility and invisibility are part of transparency in the practice
of teaching mathematics. Resources need to be seen to be used. They also need
to be invisible to illuminate aspects of practice. For talk to be a resource for
mathematics learning it needs to be transparent; learners must be able to see it
and use it. They must be able to focus on language per se when necessary, but
they must also be able to render it invisible when they are using it as a means for
building mathematical knowledge. For school mathematics teachers, it is not
simply a matter of going on too long but of managing and mediating the shift of
focus between mathematical language and the mathematical problem (which of
course are intertwined). There is no resolution to the dilemma of transparency for
mathematics teachers; there is only its management through awareness and care-
ful instructional moves when making talk visible in moments of practice.
REFERENCES
Adler, J. (1995). Dilemmas and a paradox: Secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge of their
teaching in multilingual classrooms. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11 (3), 263–274.
Adler, J. (1996a). Lave and Wenger’s social practice theory and teaching and learning school math-
ematics. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 3–10). Valencia, Spain:
University of Valencia.
Adler, J. (1996b). Secondary teachers’ knowledge of the dynamics of teaching and learning mathe-
matics in multilingual classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Adler, J. (1997). A participatory-inquiry approach and the mediation of mathematical knowledge in
a multilingual classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 235–258.
Adler, J. (1998). A language of teaching dilemmas: Unlocking the complex multilingual secondary
mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18 (1), 24–33.
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Berlak, A., & Berlak, H. (1981). Dilemmas of schooling: Teaching and social change. London:
Methuen.
Bernstein, B. (1993). Foreword. In H. Daniels (Ed.), Charting the agenda: Educational activity after
Vygotsky (pp. xii–xxiii). London: Routledge.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1989). Research methods in education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
on research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.
Ivic, I. (1989). Profiles of educators: Lev S. Vygotsky (1896–1934). Prospects: Quarterly Review of
Comparative Education, XIX, 427–435.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice.
Harvard Educational Review, 55, 178–194.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Leontiev, A. N., & Luria, A. R. (1968). The psychological ideas of L. S. Vygotskii. In B. B. Wolman
(Ed.), Historical roots of contemporary psychology (pp. 338–367). New York: Harper & Row.
Levine, J. (1993). Learning English as an additional language in multilingual classrooms. In H.
Daniels (Ed.), Charting the agenda: Educational activity after Vygotsky (pp. 190–215). London:
Routledge.
Meira, L. (1995). Mediation by tools in the mathematics classroom. In L. Meira & D. Carraher (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 19th international conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(Vol. 1, pp. 102–111). Recife, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk among teachers and learners.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Moschkovich, J. (1996). Learning math in two languages. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 20th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 4, pp. 27–34). Valencia, Spain: University of Valencia.
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London:
Routledge.
Pimm, D. (1996). Modern times: The symbolic surfaces of language, mathematics and art. In L. Puig
& A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 35–50). Valencia, Spain: University of
Valencia.
Rose, G. (1982). Deciphering sociological research. London: Macmillan.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
London: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. ed., A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.
Press.
Author Note
Jill Adler, Professor of Mathematics Education Development, Mathematics Department, University of
the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, P O Wits, 2050, South Africa; [email protected]
1999, Vol. 30, No. 1, 65–88
Motivation for Achievement

in Mathematics:
Findings, Generalizations, and
Criticisms of the Research
James A. Middleton, Arizona State University
Photini A. Spanias, Arizona State University
In this review we examine recent research in the area of motivation in mathematics education
and discuss findings from research perspectives in this domain. We note consistencies across
research perspectives that suggest a set of generalizable conclusions about the contextual fac-
tors, cognitive processes, and benefits of interventions that affect students’ and teachers’ moti-
vational attitudes. Criticisms are leveled concerning the lack of theoretical guidance driving the
conduct and interpretation of the majority of studies in the field. Few researchers have attempted
to extend current theories of motivation in ways that are consistent with the current research on
learning and classroom discourse. In particular, researchers interested in studying motivation
in the content domain of school mathematics need to examine the relationship that exists
between mathematics as a socially constructed field and students’ desire to achieve.
Key Words: Achievement; Attitudes; Beliefs; Motivation; Review of research
National assessment data from the 1980s (Carpenter, Corbitt, Kepner,

Lindquist, & Reys, 1981; Dossey, Mullis, Lindquist, & Chambers, 1988) have
indicated that American children tend to enjoy mathematics in the primary
grades but that this level of enjoyment tends to fall dramatically when children
progress into and through high school. In addition, although students feel that
mathematics is important, the number of students who want to take more math-
ematics in school is declining steadily (Dossey et al., 1988). These statistics seem
alarming when coupled with the fact that children do not possess the mathemat-
ical knowledge that they will need to function smoothly in our increasingly tech-
nological society. The problem is considered important enough for the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) to place the motivational domains
Learning to value mathematics and Becoming confident in one’s own ability as
two of its foremost goals for students as an attempt to change the nature of school
mathematics (NCTM, 1989).
Our purpose in this review is to describe theoretical orientations guiding
research in mathematics motivation and to discuss findings in terms of how they
facilitate or inhibit achievement. First, we discuss definitions of motivation and
distinctions among types of motivation in education. Second, we discuss theo-
retical orientations and describe representative research from these orientations.
Third, findings from the reviewed studies are drawn into a set of conclusions rep-
66 Motivation in Mathematics
resenting what is known regarding students’ motivation in mathematics, how

inequities in mathematics education are reflected in students’ motivational pat-
terns, and the role of the teacher in enhancing or inhibiting students’ motivation.
Last, we raise criticisms regarding the role of theory in informing research and
the lack of adequate conceptualization prevalent in operationally defining moti-
vation, achievement, and mathematics as a content domain.
Although pertinent work has been done in motivation outside the domain of
mathematics, in this article we focus on studies in which the participants were
students in mathematics classes or mathematics teachers. We made this choice in
response to criticisms that context has been largely ignored in studies of teach-
ing and learning (Romberg & Carpenter, 1986). Moreover, there is convincing
evidence that student effort and performance can be better explained by task-spe-
cific analyses of motivation in mathematics than by general measures of motiva-
tion (Seegers & Boekaerts, 1993). By focusing on studies within the mathemat-
ics education literature, we hope to draw out conclusions that are sensitive to the
context of school mathematics. This analysis allows exposition and criticism
regarding the limitations of our knowledge about motivation related to mathe-
matics as a content domain.
JUST WHAT ARE MOTIVATIONS?
Simply stated, motivations are reasons individuals have for behaving in a

given manner in a given situation. They exist as part of one’s goal structures,
one’s beliefs about what is important, and they determine whether or not one will
engage in a given pursuit (Ames, 1992). Two distinct types of academic motiva-
tion interrelate in most academic settings—intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Academic intrinsic motivation is the drive or desire of the student to engage in
learning “for its own sake.” Students who are intrinsically motivated engage in
academic tasks because they enjoy them. They feel that learning is important
with respect to their self-images, and they seek out learning activities for the
sheer joy of learning (Middleton, 1992/1993a). Their motivations tend to focus
on learning goals such as understanding and mastery of mathematical concepts
(Ames & Archer, 1988; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Dweck, 1986). Students who
are extrinsically motivated engage in academic tasks to obtain rewards (e.g.,
good grades, approval) or to avoid punishment (e.g., bad grades, disapproval).
These students’ motivations tend to center on such performance goals as obtain-
ing favorable judgments of their competence from teachers, parents, and peers or
avoiding negative judgments of their competence (Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer,
1988; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Dweck, 1986).
When individuals engage in tasks in which they are motivated intrinsically,
they tend to exhibit a number of pedagogically desirable behaviors including
increased time on task, persistence in the face of failure, more elaborative pro-
cessing and monitoring of comprehension, selection of more difficult tasks,
greater creativity and risk taking, selection of deeper and more efficient perfor-
James A. Middleton and Photini A. Spanias 67
mance and learning strategies, and choice of an activity in the absence of an

extrinsic reward (Lepper, 1988). Moreover, intrinsic motivation is related to stu-
dents’ perceptions of their competence in mathematics, to whether they are moti-
vated by curiosity or by grades, and to whether their orientation toward academ-
ic achievement can be characterized as a mastery orientation. Intrinsic motiva-
tion in other subject areas seems to be only moderately correlated with these vari-
ables (Gottfried, 1985).
Researchers have found that although achievement, ability, and perceived
competence each contribute to students’ desire to learn mathematics, intrinsic
motivation is more complex than the additive effects of these domains. When
students see themselves as capable of doing well in mathematics, they tend to
value mathematics more than students who do not see themselves as capable of
doing well (Eccles, Wigfield, & Reuman, 1987; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles,
1989), but these expectations of success also influence short-term strategy use
(Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Pokay & Blumenfeld, 1990), thereby inhibit-
ing or augmenting achievement. It is likely that students must feel comfortable
with mathematics, must be challenged to achieve, and must expect to succeed
before the development of intrinsic motivation can begin.
The findings of these studies suggest that the decline in positive attitudes
toward mathematics can be explained in part as functions of lack of teacher sup-
portiveness and classroom environment. These findings, along with results from
national assessments (Dossey et al., 1988), suggest that motivational patterns are
learned and, what is particularly distressing, that students generally learn to dis-
like mathematics and that this dislike becomes an integral part of their mathe-
matical self-concepts.
When one looks at the subtle ways in which motivations are formed, modified,
and sustained, it becomes clear that there is no such thing as an unmotivated
child. Children are motivated. Motivations help guide children’s activity; they
provide a structure for evaluating the outcomes of activity; and they help deter-
mine whether or not children will engage in future mathematical activity. The
following discussions describe prominent approaches to investigating and apply-
ing motivational theory. We present the main theories, review research, and dis-
cuss results in terms of classroom practices that facilitate or inhibit students’
developing productive motivational patterns.
THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS
Behavioral Theories of Motivation
Throughout most of the 20th century, behaviorist theories of motivation dom-
inated the literature. In this perspective, motivations are seen as incentives for
performing a given behavior (Spence, 1960). Newer reformulations of these the-
ories (McClelland, 1965, cited in Covington, 1984) have focused on the poten-
tial conflict between an individual’s perceived necessity for success and per-
ceived necessity for avoiding failure.
Although the declining popularity of behavioral research has led to a declining

number of studies in this paradigm, this theoretical orientation has provided power-
ful knowledge about student motivation in mathematics. First, research indicates that
success in mathematics is a powerful influence on the motivation to achieve.
Students perceive success as reinforcing, and they will engage in mathematics if they
expect to be successful. In addition, students will not only engage more, they will also
tend to enjoy tasks for which they have a moderately high probability of success
more than tasks for which the probability of success is near chance (Dickinson &
Butt, 1989). Although success may not be the only determinant of on-task behavior,
it is clearly related to the achievement motivation of children in mathematics.
Second, and more important, an orientation toward achieving success in math-
ematics can be built into the mathematics classroom. When students are given
incentives to achieve, the motivation and achievement of entire classes can be
raised (Alschuler, 1969). When children are rewarded for choosing a high level
of personal success in mathematics, they tend to enjoy mathematics more and
achieve more than when they are not given incentives. Slavin (1984), for exam-
ple, recommended the provision of group incentives to motivate students to
achieve (i.e., providing a group reward for individual learning). Because the
group score is rewarded, children are motivated to help others in the group and
are pressured to learn well themselves; through this practice, individual account-
ability is emphasized. This practice allows students to attribute their successes to
themselves and their failures to the group, thus reducing the individual’s onus for
failure proportionately to the number of students in the group.
Severe limitations are, however, evident in this paradigm, which depends on
achievement measures that use either multiple-choice tests or well-defined prob-
lems. It is unclear how more realistic problems, ones that provide more avenues
for failure, would affect the success rate of children. Also unclear is whether suc-
cess should be defined as success with a problem as a whole or in the steps nec-
essary to solve the problem. The operational definition of success inherent in
behaviorist research, with a focus on discrete observable behaviors, may be too
molecular in scope or too removed from children’s attitudes to be a valid index
of their achievement motivation. Time-on-task is often used as an index of moti-
vation (e.g., Dickinson & Butt, 1989). Reliance on time-on-task, however, intro-
duces a confounding variable into the research design: The difficulty level of a
problem is related to the time required to solve the problem, independent of moti-
vation. In addition, because behaviorist theories have not traditionally been con-
cerned with individual differences, they fail to provide information on how stu-
dents define success and failure in mathematics.
The most compelling argument against the use of incentives or coercion, how-
ever, is the “hidden costs of reward,” well described by Lepper and Greene
(1978). Engaging in an intrinsically motivating activity under conditions that
make obvious the fact that the activity is merely a means to an end will diminish
subsequent intrinsic motivation because the presence of the reward is the prima-
ry reason for the student to engage. Consequently, in the absence of the reward
students become less likely to engage in similar tasks in the future. The most
salient (and most misrepresented) feature of this line of research is not that
rewards necessarily undermine intrinsic motivation but that the expectation of
tangible task-contingent rewards tends to weaken the intrinsic desire to learn.
When rewards are not expected, intrinsic interest does not seem to be affected
adversely nor do noncontingent rewards seem to have any real effect on subse-
quent intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1972; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973).
Lepper, Keavney, and Drake (1996) even suggested that judicial application of
reward contingencies can be beneficial for developing sufficient skill in a pursuit
so that intrinsic motivation can develop. Although this longstanding principle
has recently been contested (Cameron & Pierce, 1994, 1996), a plethora of
research suggests that when rewards are used to get someone to engage in some
activity, the probability of subsequent disillusionment with the activity increases
significantly (Kohn, 1996; Lepper et al., 1996; Ryan & Deci, 1996).
Attribution and Learned Helplessness Theories

Researchers in the 1960s and early 1970s, when they began to examine individ-
uals’ perceived reasons for their successes and failures, found that success is not a
universal motivator. Much of an individual’s intention to initiate behavior depends
on the value that the consequences of success have for him or her (Atkinson, 1964).
Researchers began to focus attention on what factors students perceive to be the
causes of their successes and failures. Attribution theories deal with how the out-
comes of an activity are evaluated in relation to the individual’s perception of his
or her own contribution (i.e., ability and effort) and the contribution of the task
demands (i.e., difficulty, consistency, precedent) (Weiner, 1972).
In mathematics education, attribution theory is the most widely held of the the-
oretical orientations discussed in this article, perhaps because (a) attribution the-
ories are cognitive, describing the processes by which motivations are acquired
and changed and (b) they are applicable to a remarkable range of domains.
Moreover, attribution theories provide a middle ground between competing
models of motivation such that findings can be discussed in terms of reinforcers
and contingencies or in terms of students’ thoughts, plans, and goals.
Attributions and achievement in mathematics. Students in the lower elementary
grades are generally highly motivated to learn mathematics. They believe that they
are competent and that working hard will enable them to succeed. Many first and
second graders do not distinguish between effort and ability as causes of success
in mathematics (Kloosterman, 1993). However, there is considerable evidence that
some students begin to differentiate ability for different content domains as early
as kindergarten or first grade (Wigfield et al., 1992). By the middle grades, many
students begin to perceive mathematics to be a special domain in which smart stu-
dents succeed and other students merely “get by” or fail. They begin to believe that
success and failure are attributable to ability and that effort rarely results in a sig-
nificant change in their success patterns (Kloosterman & Gorman, 1990).
When students attribute their successes to ability, they tend to succeed; when
they attribute their failures to lack of ability, they tend to fail. Gender studies
have shown that girls tend not to attribute their successes to ability but do tend
to attribute their failures to lack of ability, exactly the attributional style that
leads to failure. For example, Meyer and Fennema (1985) studied the relation-
ship between students’ attributions of success in mathematics in the 8th grade
and their subsequent achievement in 11th grade. This study was a departure from
most attribution research, at least as it related to mathematics education, in that
it assessed the relationship between attributions and future success in mathemat-
ics instead of current success. The authors found that attribution of success to
ability was the most consistent correlate of Grade 11 achievement. Conversely,
attribution of failure to lack of ability was the most consistent correlate of lack
of achievement for both males and females. For girls in particular, when ability
was controlled for, attributing failure to lack of ability was associated with lower
achievement. However, attributing failure to lack of effort was also a significant
predictor of lack of achievement on computation problems and high-level, con-
ceptual mathematics tasks. Boys’ attributions were not as pronounced as girls’
for these variables. The authors concluded that attributions may be more impor-
tant as predictors of success in mathematics for females than for males.
Kloosterman (1988) studied how seventh graders perceived the role of suc-
cesses and failures in influencing their motivational attributions, their mathe-
matical self-confidence, and their beliefs about effort as a mediator of mathe-
matical ability and failure as an acceptable phase in learning mathematics. He
found that attributional style (a combined score, scaled in the direction of inter-
nal, stable attributions) was the best predictor of mathematical self-confidence.
The belief that effort is a mediator of ability and that failure is an acceptable
phase in learning mathematics also contributed to students’ self-confidence in
mathematics. Although girls, more often than boys, felt that failure was an
acceptable phase in learning mathematics, the fact that girls also thought about
their failures more than boys did may have contributed to differential effects like
those reported by Meyer and Fennema (1985).
These findings are significant in that when students conceive of ability as
amenable to change or augmentation through effort, they tend to expend more
effort in mathematics and, thus, are better achievers than students who believe
that ability is fixed. Because the belief that occasional failure is acceptable in
learning mathematics predicts mathematical self-confidence, the practice of
allowing children to struggle with challenging problems, even in the elementary
grades, is supported. When children who have not experienced difficult problems
in mathematics encounter a problem that cannot be solved in a routine fashion,
they may have their confidence shattered unless they believe that occasional mis-
takes are a part of learning mathematics.
By the time they reach college, students generally have formed stable attribu-
tions regarding their successes in mathematics. Because the attributional patterns
of students in mathematics-related majors tend to focus on ability and effort as
the causes for success and lack of effort for failure, females, who tend to attribute
their failures to ability, may be systematically excluded from mathematics
majors as a result of their prior mathematics education (Amit, 1988; Bassarear,
1986). In addition, because students with unstable attributions for the causes of
failure in mathematics tend to dislike mathematics greatly (Lehmann, 1986),
these students may also be filtered out of mathematics-related majors.
Amit (1988) studied the attributions of university students in five major areas
and found that, overall, females tend to attribute their successes in mathematics
to external and unstable causes, whereas males attribute their successes to abili-
ty, an internal and stable factor. When attributions of success were analyzed tak-
ing academic major into account, however, students tended to attribute their
causes of success and failure the same way regardless of gender. Students choos-
ing mathematics as a major tended to attribute their successes to ability and their
failures to other factors. In fact, as the mathematical requirements for participa-
tion in college majors increased, so did the attribution of success to the internal
factor of ability. Students who attribute their failures in mathematics to internal
factors and their successes to external factors are unlikely to choose a college
curriculum with substantial mathematics content.
Learned helplessness and dealing with failure. An outgrowth of attribution
theory has been the specific attention of researchers to learned helplessness, a
condition in which, because of lack of successes and the attribution of failure to
lack of ability, individuals begin to view success as unattainable (e.g., Dweck,
1986). Unfortunately these beliefs persist as a result of educational environments
that (a) place high value on ability and lower value on effort and (b) offer little
opportunity for individuals with diverse learning styles to supplement their abil-
ities with sustained effort (Covington, 1984). Because helpless individuals
believe that success is out of their grasp and attribute failure to internal factors,
learned helplessness often becomes perceived as a trait (i.e., stable and unchang-
ing) (Dweck, 1986). Helpless individuals tend to show little motivation for chal-
lenging tasks, and, in fact, when facing a challenging task, they display lower
achievement than can be attributed to ability.
Although the findings of most studies regarding learned helplessness are dis-
heartening, there is some evidence that attributions can be positively influenced
through classroom instruction. For example, Relich (1984) hypothesized that
when students are provided attribution retraining in conjunction with skills train-
ing, their feelings of learned helplessness should be reduced and their mathe-
matics achievement should be positively affected.
Those providing attribution training attempted to make students aware that
they were achieving success on increasingly difficult problems as a result of at
least average ability and high effort. Students who received the attribution train-
ing displayed superior self-efficacy gains and fewer learned-helplessness char-
acteristics compared with students receiving no attribution training.
Relich (1984) then proposed a causal model that contrasted the direct effects
of attribution training with the mediated effects on achievement and learned
helplessness. Results of a path analysis indicated that although the attribution

training had a moderate direct influence on achievement, stronger paths resulted
from mediation through self-efficacy. The attribution training also had a direct
influence on reducing learned helplessness; reducing learned helplessness, in
turn, had a direct effect on students’ development of self-efficacy. Thus, it
seemed reasonable to predict that the attribution training’s effects on achieve-
ment were mediated through self-efficacy via reduction of learned helplessness.
Intervention and the role of the teacher. Attribution training has been found to
be effective in helping students develop positive motivational patterns and
increase performance in other content domains as well (Williams, 1993).
However, a major difficulty in designing appropriate intervention strategies in
the mathematics classroom is the tendency for teachers’ attributions to parallel
and reinforce those of their students. Teachers tend to initiate more concern with
boys, prompt boys more, and have more social interaction with boys than with
girls (Fennema & Peterson, 1984, 1985). Thus teachers may unwittingly under-
mine their students’ achievement motivation by reinforcing failure-oriented attri-
butions, especially for their female students.
For the most successful students, teachers tend to attribute success more to
ability for boys than for girls, and teachers more often see boys as the most suc-
cessful students in the class. When less successful girls fail, teachers tend to
attribute their failure to lack of ability, lack of effort, and task difficulty, where-
as boys’ failure is more often attributed solely to lack of effort (Fennema,
Peterson, Carpenter, & Lubinski, 1990). It seems then that teachers’ attributions
of their students’ successes and failures are reflected in the ways in which they
interact with boys and girls in their mathematics classes. These differences in
interaction patterns, in turn, tend to contribute to differential gender-related moti-
vation and achievement patterns.
Goal Theories: Relating Mathematics to What Is Valued

Goal theorists delve more deeply into the cognitive bases of the reasons people
do what they do. They are concerned with understanding how people think about
engaging in meaningful (or meaningless) activity, and they also conduct research
on people’s perceptions, interpretations of academic and social information, and
patterns of self-regulation (Ames & Ames, 1984). Moreover, researchers who
ground their work in goal theory often incorporate the generalized findings from
the attribution literature and attempt to posit how reasons for success and failure
are related to what is valued (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Duda and Nicholls (1992) suggested that the basic dimensions of goal orienta-
tions correspond directly to distinct implicit theories (or beliefs) of how success
is achieved in academic work (see also Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988;
Dweck, 1986). An individual with a mastery (or learning goal) orientation val-
ues the improvement of skill or knowledge in a given domain and believes that
success depends on working hard, attempting to understand the domain, and col-
laborating with others. An individual with an ego (or performance goal) orienta-
tion values establishing “superiority over others” (Duda & Nicholls, 1992, p.
290) and believes that success depends on social comparison and assertion of
superior ability. A third orientation, work avoidance, is an especially disturbing
goal pattern in which working hard is not valued. An individual with this goal
orientation believes success results from, for example, “behaving nicely in class”
or other behaviors superfluous to study and academic thoughtfulness. Work
avoidance is often developed as a coping method for preserving feelings of ade-
quacy by eliminating any threatening or difficult activities so that a legitimate
negative evaluation of one’s ability cannot be made by others (see Covington &
Beery, 1976, for example).
The interplay between goal structures and intrinsic motivation. An individu-
al’s intrinsic motivation is mediated through the types of goal structures he or she
has created (Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988). In particular, possession of a
mastery goal orientation will positively mediate intrinsic motivation such that
one will become more actively involved in a cognitive task. An ego goal orien-
tation (i.e., primarily seeking social recognition) has much less effect on one’s
developing active cognitive engagement patterns.
Motivational patterns have both generality and specificity. The patterns of goal
orientations and beliefs about success listed above seem to be general orientations
that students, at least by the time they are in high school, apply across different
domains in their lives. However, feelings of personal satisfaction, relevance, and
boredom seem to be created by students with respect to specific tasks (Duda &
Nicholls, 1992; Seegers & Boekaerts, 1993). A child may enjoy solving story
problems in arithmetic and yet feel that her ability is undervalued by her teacher
or peers. In such cases, the ego goal of gaining favorable judgments of compe-
tence may begin to undermine her intrinsic enjoyment of the task. Both the salien-
cy of goals and the strength of her intrinsic orientation toward the task are impor-
tant pieces of information the child will use to determine her engagement patterns.
Because of different beliefs about the natures of different academic subjects,
even mastery goals can have differential effects on learning. Students who view
mathematics as a fixed body of knowledge tend to develop goals of memorization
of facts and procedures. These students also tend to emphasize determining correct
answers as the primary goal of mathematics learning. Students who view mathe-
matics as a process, guided by their own search for knowledge, tend to value con-
structing relational understanding of concepts, and consequently they are motivat-
ed intrinsically because the knowledge they develop is their own (Underhill, 1988).
Fortunately, the ways in which teachers structure classroom inquiry can great-
ly influence students’ views of mathematics and can lead students to develop
more powerful conceptual structures in the process (Cobb et al., 1991; Cobb,
Wood, Yackel, & Perlwitz, 1992). Students in inquiry-based classrooms are less
likely to develop ego goals than are students in more traditional classrooms.
Moreover, students in inquiry-oriented classrooms are less inclined to believe
that conformity to the solutions of the teacher or others leads to success in math-
ematics, and they tend to believe more strongly that the classroom is a place
where success is defined as attempts to understand mathematics and explain their
thinking to others. These attitudes contribute to increased student performance
on conceptual and nonroutine tasks that persists even in the face of poor instruc-
tion later on (Cobb et al., 1991; Cobb et al., 1992).
Goal orientation has been found to be a strong predictor of achievement
(Henderson & Landesman, 1993). Students with mastery goals tend to perform
better than those with ego goals regardless of the learning situation.
Students’ goal structures also interact significantly in situations that involve
extrinsic rewards. When students are provided with both coherent goals for
achievement and an extrinsic reward, they tend to achieve more than students to
whom stated goals are not presented (Schunk, 1984). Moreover, when an activi-
ty is not intrinsically motivating, dispensing rewards may not be productive aca-
demically unless the rewards are coupled with an appropriate goal structure. It
seems likely that when goals have no intrinsic value to the students, some reward
or instruction that exerts social pressure on the student must be tied to the goals
to make achieving them worthwhile (Brown & Walberg, 1993).
Theories of the Self: Personal-Construct Theories

Personal-construct theories are idiographic approaches to examining individual
differences in human thought (Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996). They are based on
the premise that individuals construct knowledge about their worlds and use this
knowledge to predict outcomes of activities (Kelly, 1955). The purpose of
employing personal-construct approaches in the study of motivation is to describe
construct systems of individuals in order to uncover the ways they evaluate activ-
ities. Usually this description involves some sort of “mapping” of the relation-
ships between constructs to ascertain the cognitive structure underlying the moti-
vation. Whereas those using other approaches to the study of motivation are typ-
ically concerned with the outcomes of motivational processes (e.g., ability attri-
butions, achievement, etc.), personal-construct psychologists are interested in the
processes themselves: They assume that motivation results from rational cogni-
tive processes, and they provide a method for understanding these processes.
Owens (1987), for example, used personal-construct theory to describe two
teachers’ attitudes toward mathematics and mathematics teaching. Although the
teachers’ conceptions of their mathematics backgrounds were remarkably similar
and although they tended to rate themselves as most similar to the person they
considered their “best” mathematics teacher, their concepts of what makes a good
mathematics teacher differed markedly. The teacher who felt that more difficult
mathematics was enjoyable also felt that inquisitiveness was a desirable trait for
a mathematics teacher. The other teacher, who enjoyed mathematics that was eas-
ier, rated inquisitiveness least desirable as a trait for a mathematics teacher.
Owens concluded that their constructs about mathematics and mathematics
education play a powerful role in determining how teachers anticipate their
teaching roles. In addition, it seems reasonable to assume that the teachers’ prior
mathematics education experiences, especially identification with their mathe-
matics teachers, play a pivotal role in determining what aspects of mathematics
are motivating and thus how they approach teaching mathematics.
Lucock (1987) found that children in high-ability mathematics tracks tended to
find mathematics easier, tended to enjoy doing mathematics more, and tended to
consider mathematics to be more useful than did children in lower ability tracks.
These findings are hardly surprising. However, when children who enjoyed
mathematics were asked to perform routine work (i.e., learning without under-
standing), they became disillusioned with mathematics and tended to give up. In
addition, gender differences were found between the ways in which high-ability
boys and low-ability girls internalized success in mathematics tasks. Lucock
found that high-ability boys tended to fail with confidence; that is, their confi-
dence in their abilities was fairly robust in spite of failure. Low-ability girls tend-
ed to succeed with diffidence; that is, their insecurity tended to be robust even
when they were successful.
Constructing an intrinsic motivation for mathematics. Middleton, Littlefield,
and Lehrer (1992) attempted to test a theory of how academic activities come to
be regarded as intrinsically motivating. Their analysis revealed that children
tended to organize their constructs into three general categories: arousal, or the
cognitive stimulation afforded by an activity; personal control, or the degree to
which the activity was considered a free choice or of appropriate difficulty; and
interests (a loosely defined category), or the degree to which the students liked
the activity, the importance of the activity, and their ability in performing the
activity. Students, girls in particular, seemed to identify with their teachers in
evaluating the motivational value of academic tasks (as was also found by
Owens, 1987). In addition, children tended to rate mathematics as less fun as
they progressed from elementary to junior high school. On the basis of the results
of the study, Middleton et al. developed a model of academic intrinsic motiva-
tion. They asserted that when one first encounters an academic activity, she will
tend to evaluate the stimulation (challenge, curiosity, fantasy) it provides and the
personal control (free choice, not too difficult) the activity affords. If her arousal
and control requirements are met consistently, she may choose to include the
activity among her interests.
Using this model, one can gain some insight into the reasons that motivational
attitudes seem to be so stable over time. If a student has classified mathematics as
an interest, she will tend to engage in mathematics with enthusiasm without hav-
ing to evaluate the engagement requirements of the task at hand. If she has clas-
sified mathematics as “not an interest,” she will tend to avoid engagement with-
out evaluating the task at hand. Thus, once mathematics activities have been clas-
sified with respect to interest, little further evaluation takes place. Because one
must continually and consistently evaluate arousal and control to classify an activ-
ity, it seems likely that only radical and consistent change of the requirements for
engagement in mathematics activities will effect change in motivational patterns.
Other research has indicated that teachers and students can be highly similar in
the ways in which they define intrinsic motivation in their classrooms but that
highly motivated students may tend to focus more on high arousal and less on
control when engaged in mathematics activities, whereas less motivated students
may tend to focus on low arousal and more on control (Middleton, 1995). In
addition, teachers seem to have little background knowledge pertaining to how
students view mathematics activities from a motivational perspective. The teach-
ers’ own personal constructs of what makes mathematics intrinsically motivating
play a pivotal role in determining the types of activities they choose or design for
their classrooms. Overall, however, teachers who are better able to predict their
students’ motivational constructs seem to be better able to fine-tune their instruc-
tion to meet the motivational needs of their students.
Middleton (1993b) examined the changes teachers made in their motivational
constructs after a year of implementing a reform-oriented pilot curriculum that
provided students with more opportunities to learn, more choices of strategies
and activities, and more challenging problems than a traditional curriculum
would provide; its activities were situated within real-world contexts. The data
indicated that teachers’ beliefs about intrinsic motivation broaden and expand
before they deepen and differentiate and that carefully designed curricula, cou-
pled with strong professional development experiences, can influence a shift in
teachers’ attitudes toward providing an atmosphere conducive for the develop-
ment of students’ intrinsic motivation. Teachers became more attuned to the con-
ceptual complexity and challenge of the mathematics activities, placed less
emphasis on task ease in defining what makes mathematics motivating, and
began to perceive the importance of personalizing curricula to make the mathe-
matics more meaningful for their students.
Results of studies in the personal-constructs paradigm have shown that moti-
vations in mathematics education are highly individual, are related to per-
ceived ability, and are relatively stable with regard to success and failure.
Some of the individual differences in motivations can be explained in relation
to students’ identification with their mathematics teachers. Perhaps more
important, researchers can begin to outline how academic activities can be tai-
lored to students’ individual differences such that intrinsic motivation in math-
ematics can be fostered by paying attention to stimulation, control, and inter-
est factors.
Researchers in the personal-constructs paradigm, however, have provided only
limited knowledge of students’ motivational thought processes. The major limi-
tation thus far has been that they have made little attempt to explicate the perti-
nence of extrinsic motivators to mathematics learning. Further research in this
paradigm is critical to understanding the roles of grades and other incentives in
influencing student motivation. In particular, because they deal with the process-
es by which students evaluate mathematics activities as worthwhile, personal-
constructs methodologies seem uniquely useful for discovering why intrinsic
motivation is superior to extrinsic motivation in academic areas.
A second limitation of personal-constructs studies is that they are prone to

experimenter bias in the interpretation of measures of construct organization.
Without well-articulated models guiding their interpretation, results of personal-
constructs studies are difficult to interpret substantively.
Descriptive Studies
The last approach discussed in this review deals with descriptive studies.
Included in this category are studies that have some theoretical orientation but do
not fit neatly into any of the categories mentioned previously. For reasons of
clarity and cohesion, we have grouped descriptive studies according to similari-
ties in both the variables examined and the motivational patterns discovered.
Mathematics anxiety. Individuals who perceive mathematics as difficult and
their ability to do mathematics as poor generally avoid mathematics, if possible
(Hilton, 1981; Otten & Kuyper, 1988). Such students are termed math anxious.
Hoyles (1981), for example, examined the stories told by students about inci-
dents (in their mathematics education histories) that they felt reflected significant
influences on their learning. She was interested in discovering the perceived
causes of their mathematics anxiety. Students tended to derive satisfaction from
a task when they were involved in successful work, and they tended to blame
their dissatisfaction on the teachers. The students seemed to appreciate teachers
who provided a structured, logical progression for students’ work as well as suf-
ficient explanation, encouragement, and friendliness (see also Quilter & Harper,
1988). Although the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction were similar for
mathematics compared to other subjects, the ways in which students internalized
these experiences were markedly different. Students were much more concerned
with their own roles in mathematics versus in learning other subjects. They also
tended to have strong feelings about what they were capable of doing, and they
tended to internalize these feelings into their self-concepts. The stories Hoyles
studied showed that students’ anxiety, feelings of inadequacy, and shame were
common in interpreting their bad experiences in mathematics and that students
generally recall more bad experiences in mathematics than in other subjects.
Despite these similarities with respect to their recollections of mathematics
learning, pupils differed in the ways in which they could achieve satisfaction. For
some, challenge added to their satisfaction; others stressed understanding of the
“whys” as well as the “hows.” Some were satisfied with just being able to know
what to do to solve a problem successfully, and many were quite concerned with
the accuracy of their work and the grades they received.
Nakamura (1988) described motivational differences between high-achieving
and underachieving mathematically gifted students. One of the primary results of
her research indicated that gifted children who exhibit high achievement tend to
experience flow (a construct that corresponds to enjoyable engagement in mean-
ingful activity) more often and anxiety less often in schoolwork than their lower
achieving counterparts. Higher achievers also tend to spend considerably more
time than low achievers in activities that afford high challenge and require well-
developed skills. These activities, according to Nakamura, are those associated
with the greatest amount of enjoyment for the high achievers. Lower achievers,
conversely, tend to avoid challenge. Instead, they choose activities with chal-
lenge below their ability level, presumably to avoid the anxiety caused by high
levels of task difficulty. In other words, higher achievers tend to enjoy academ-
ic challenge, whereas lower achievers tend to feel overwhelmed by challenge.
In short, when teachers emphasize understanding of mathematical concepts
and provide facilitative classroom environments, students tend to be more recep-
tive and less anxious with regard to mathematical activities than when teachers
stress rote activities and are perceived to be authoritarian. Students who have
good experiences in mathematics tend to be less math-anxious and less inhibited
in pursuing mathematics-related careers than students who have bad experiences.
In mathematics, perhaps because it is viewed as a difficult and important subject,
students tend to internalize their experiences into their self-concept more than in
other subject areas.
Motivation and underrepresented populations. Rohrkemper and Bershon
(1984) examined the efficacy statements minority students used to motivate
themselves to solve mathematics problems correctly. Their findings indicated
that some children may begin to feel a lack of efficacy in mathematics as early
as third grade. In addition, a high proportion of students reported negative inner
speech (e.g., “If I don’t get this right, I will maybe fail”) at the outset of problem
solving. These negative self-perceptions with regard to mathematics may under-
mine students’ abilities and efforts to persist when faced with difficult problems.
In addition to the attribution literature, many other studies have documented
gender differences in students’ mathematics motivation. The consistent pattern
that develops is that females are socialized into viewing mathematics as a male
domain and into perceiving themselves as being less able than males to do math-
ematics (Fennema & Sherman, 1976). Males tend to feel more confident in learn-
ing mathematics, are more convinced of the usefulness of mathematics, and iden-
tify more with mathematics, in general, than females. Gender-role stereotyping
does not solely affect females with low ability and motivation. Even girls with
high ability may perceive mathematics as a male domain, or they may defer to
the “dominant male role” because of other social pressures whether or not they
perceive mathematics as a male domain (Jackson & Coutts, 1987).
In the middle grades, students’ motivations toward mathematics tend to crystal-
lize into their adult forms. Students who like mathematics tend to report that they
started liking mathematics at about the seventh grade. Students who dislike math-
ematics report that they started disliking mathematics at about the seventh grade.
Their reasons for liking or disliking mathematics seem to focus on the transition
from elementary to middle school instructional patterns, especially the perceived
supportiveness of the teacher and new rules for determining success in mathemat-
ical tasks (Eccles et al., 1987; Midgley et al., 1989). Girls in particular tend to iden-
tify with their mathematics teachers, and this identification is related to girls’ inter-
est in mathematics (Fennema & Peterson, 1985). By the time students get to high
school, interest in mathematics becomes one of the best predictors of students’ per-
ceptions of the quality of their mathematical experiences, more so than ability or
the desire to achieve (Schiefele & Csikszentmihalyi, 1995).
The research on gender differences in mathematics seems to paint a consistent
picture. Like the research on students’ attributions, other research on gender dif-
ferences has indicated that mathematics is perceived by females as a male
domain. Females tend to defer to males when interacting in mathematics class,
even when their abilities would indicate that deference is unwarranted. Girls also
tend to identify with their mathematics teachers more than boys do. In addition,
inasmuch as motivational factors seem to predict academic achievement more
for girls than for boys, it is reasonable to assume that girls’ feelings of disinter-
est and even anxiety in mathematics contribute to gender-related differences in
achievement. What is not known is what factors cause girls to be less motivated.
Research regarding these causes is necessary to dispel the myth that girls are
inherently less mathematically able than boys (see Secada, 1990).
Intervention studies (e.g., Croom, 1984), however, have shown that appropri-
ate instruction, guidance, and continued support can positively influence students
from underrepresented populations to continue studying high school mathemat-
ics and can foster improved attitudes toward school and toward mathematics and
science in particular.
CONCLUSIONS
The Current State of Research on Motivation in Mathematics

Although research on motivation may not be in its infancy, it has barely
reached toddlerhood, and, like a toddler, it seems to be going in many directions,
frequently getting into trouble. However, some consistencies are evident across
studies, and these consistencies represent the current boundaries of our knowl-
edge. Drawing together the findings from the studies reviewed in this article, we
are beginning to define the body of knowledge pertaining to motivation in math-
ematics as it exists today.
First, findings across theoretical orientations indicate that students’ percep-
tions of success in mathematics are highly influential in forming their motiva-
tional attitudes. Research indicates that the effort a person is willing to expend on
a task is determined by the expectation that participation in the task will result in
successful outcomes, mediated by how much the individual values either partici-
pation in the task itself or the extrinsic rewards associated with success in the task
(Brophy, 1986). Students need a relatively high degree of success in mathematics
for engagement in mathematics to be perceived as worthwhile (Alschuler, 1969),
and they need to feel that success in mathematics is attributable to their ability and
effort (Fennema & Peterson, 1985). In addition, students’ beliefs about the nature
of mathematics and mathematics learning greatly influence their definitions of

what success in mathematics is. Current practice leads students to develop atti-
tudes that value speed of computation, following the example of the teacher, and
correctness of answers over learning and understanding (Kloosterman, 1993).
Moreover, learned helplessness, lack of success, and the perception that failure
is due to lack of ability seriously undermine students’ motivation to learn; these
factors may also affect the ability to process complex mathematical information
(Dweck, 1986). Students also seem to require a healthy appreciation for the role
of failure in mathematical problem solving (Kloosterman, 1988). The likelihood
of failure in a task increases the task difficulty, thus increasing the value of suc-
cess (e.g., Brophy, 1987). Further, learning appropriate coping strategies for fail-
ure is necessary for developing a healthy mathematical self-concept.
Motivations develop when students evaluate the demands of the mathematical
task (Seegers & Boekaerts, 1993). To allow students to feel successful in mathe-
matics without undermining either the value of success or a healthy attitude
toward failure, teachers must structure tasks such that they present an appropriate
level of challenge and difficulty for students (e.g., Middleton et al., 1992). Thus,
mathematics activities must be difficult enough that students are not bored, yet
tasks must allow for a high degree of success given appropriate effort by the stu-
dent. Moreover, students should be encouraged to attribute their successes to a
combination of ability and effort and their failures either to insufficient effort (so
failures can be overcome through renewed diligence) or to confusion or reliance
on inappropriate strategies (so failures can be overcome with additional prepara-
tion). Students must not be given cause to believe that their failures are due to lack
of ability for fear of exacerbating their feelings of learned helplessness.
Second, motivations toward mathematics are developed early, are highly sta-
ble over time, and are influenced greatly by teacher actions and attitudes.
Students seem to consolidate their motivational attitudes toward mathematics in
junior high school (Eccles et al., 1987), and these attitudes in the middle grades
predict the courses taken and mathematics achievement in high school and col-
lege (Amit, 1988; Meyer & Fennema, 1985). These motivations are internalized
into students’ self-concepts, thus affecting how they see themselves with regard
to mathematics-related activities. Students with high self-concepts related to
mathematics tend to be more focused on the selection and use of specific strate-
gies for successful problem solving and are more likely to pursue further study
in mathematics (Meece et al., 1990; Pokay & Blumenfeld, 1990).
The preponderance of students’ recollections of bad experiences (e.g.,
Oldfather, 1992) explains in part why students’ liking of mathematics tends to
decrease when they get older and why enrollment in higher level mathematics
courses has declined. These students do not see mathematics as being integral to
their academic self-concepts, and they try to avoid the anxiety resulting from
involvement in mathematical tasks. Because anxious or alienated students are
unlikely to have or to develop the motivation to learn mathematics, the teacher
should be patient, encouraging, and supportive of students’ individual learning

styles. Students will feel more comfortable taking risks if they know that they
will not be criticized or humiliated for making mistakes (Brophy, 1987).
Students tend to attribute their feelings about mathematics to their identification
with influential teachers or to their reactions to bad experiences, for which they
blame teachers (Hoyles, 1981; Otten & Kuyper, 1988).
It is unclear, however, what role culture plays in the ways in which motivation-
al strategies are implemented in the classroom. Hess and Azuma (1991), for exam-
ple, found that Japanese students are expected to be more self-motivated than
American students. In Japan, overt control of tasks by the teacher is minimal, effort
is valued over ability, and determinations of interest and success are primarily left
up to the student. In the United States, motivation is still primarily stimulus dri-
ven—that is, teachers in the United States are expected to make instruction inter-
esting and appealing, and students are less likely to be blamed for inattention if the
topic is personally unappealing. In essence, students are expected to dislike math-
ematics and are not provided direction or support when they fulfill this expectation.
Third, providing opportunities for students to develop intrinsic motivation in
mathematics is generally superior to providing extrinsic incentives for achieve-
ment. To facilitate the development of students’ intrinsic motivation, teachers
must teach knowledge and skills that are worth learning. In other words, students
must understand that the mathematics instruction they receive is useful, both in
immediate terms and in preparing them to learn more in the fields of mathemat-
ics and in areas in which mathematics can be applied (e.g., physics, business,
etc.). Use of ill-structured, real-life problem situations in which the use of math-
ematics facilitates uncovering important and interesting knowledge promotes
this understanding. However, utility and importance are not sufficient to devel-
op students’ intrinsic motivation.
Students who come to value and enjoy mathematics increase their achieve-
ment, their persistence in the face of failure, and their confidence (Gottfried,
1985; Lehmann, 1986; Meece et al., 1990; Pokay & Blumenfeld, 1990).
Tailoring activities to provide stimulation and student control and matching
activities with students’ interests increase intrinsic motivation (Middleton,
1993b). Providing incentives for success, however, can and does encourage stu-
dents to achieve (Alschuler, 1969). Further research regarding interaction of
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in the context of the classroom is necessary
because no academic task is free from the influence of either.
Fourth, inequities exist in the ways in which some groups of students in math-
ematics classes have been taught to view mathematics. Girls, in particular, may
be influenced through gender-role stereotyping, teacher expectations, and peer
pressure to view themselves negatively with respect to mathematics motivation
(Fennema & Peterson, 1985; Meyer & Fennema, 1985). Girls, far more than
boys, feel that their failures are due to a lack of ability in mathematics, and this
attributional style may lead them to believe that success in mathematics is unat-
tainable (Benenson & Dweck, 1986). Unfortunately, teachers’ thoughts and

behaviors tend to reinforce learned helplessness in girls, further widening the
gender gap in mathematics achievement (Fennema et al., 1990).
Last, and most important, achievement motivation in mathematics, though sta-
ble, can be affected through careful instructional design. If students realize that
their successes are meaningful and result both from their abilities and from a high
degree of effort, they are likely to believe that they can do mathematics if they
try (Relich, 1984). Providing group incentives leads to cooperation and recipro-
cal instruction in mathematics problem solving so that all children are given
opportunities to succeed (Slavin, 1984). Creating interesting contexts within
which problems are situated stimulates students’ imaginations and illustrates to
them that mathematics is useful in various applications (Bransford et al., 1988).
Most important, a supportive, authoritative teacher serving as a model and as a
friend gives children the confidence and feelings of self-worth necessary to be
comfortable in mathematics (Covington, 1984).
In addition, teachers who are more attuned to bettering their students’ motiva-
tional belief systems are better able to adjust their classroom practice to motivate
their students (Middleton, 1995). This finding would suggest that preservice and
in-service programs could profit from detailed examination of the research find-
ings in the field of motivation, including the studies reviewed here. Particular
attention should be paid to developing strategies for assessing students’ motiva-
tional beliefs in the classroom so that teachers’ awareness will be linked to the
instructional sequence. In such a program teachers would be able to use practi-
cal knowledge about how students’ beliefs are formed and changed to tailor their
instruction to better influence their students to take charge of their own learning.
Thus, it seems that there is hope after all. Motivation to achieve in mathemat-
ics is not solely a product of mathematics ability nor is it so stable that interven-
tion programs cannot be designed to improve it. Instead, achievement motivation
in mathematics is highly influenced by instructional practices, and if appropriate
practices are consistent over a long period of time, children can and do learn to
enjoy and value mathematics. There is a building body of evidence that indicates
that the larger, more general goals of schooling can be restructured and rein-
vented with a fair degree of success so that the school culture becomes conducive
for student learning and motivation (e.g., Maehr & Anderman, 1993). The
research reviewed in this article also provides evidence that classroom practice
can be positively reinvented so that the culture of the classroom can become con-
ducive for learning and enjoying mathematics.
Little is known, however, about the socially constructed nature of motivations.
What happens in the mathematics classroom when students work together and
create a shared reality? Do different interpretations of mathematics support a
motivating environment for some children but not others? Preliminary findings
indicate that students in cooperative groups perceive the input of others in very
different ways and react to the social situation in both positive and negative ways
(Mulryan, 1992). Naturalistic, observational research seems a plausible first step

in examining how individual and social motivational sets become negotiated in
mathematics problem-solving situations.
A FEW CRITICISMS
Although the current research on motivation in mathematics education has

provided profound insights into why students achieve and why they fail, we have
some criticisms pertaining to the lack of theoretical guidance driving the conduct
of, and implications drawn from, the majority of studies. The research on moti-
vational variables in mathematics education has been primarily descriptive and
inadequately conceptualized. Often motivation has been thrown “into the pot” to
add a little spice to studies originally focused on other factors—such as mathe-
matics achievement.
Particularly evident is the lack of conceptualization of how mathematics moti-
vation develops over time. With few exceptions, researchers have neglected to
examine the motivations of students while they change and develop over sever-
al years of instruction. If we as mathematics educators are interested in effecting
change in students’ motivational patterns, we need further research regarding the
acquisition, consolidation, and maturation of students’ motivations.
In addition, measurement procedures have been primarily atheoretical and
poorly defined. A prime example is the operational definition of motivation as
student engagement (observed affect, time on task) without the use of comple-
mentary measures. Although students’ motivations should influence their engage-
ment patterns, engagement itself is not motivation. Engagement can be influenced
by a number of factors that distort the actual reasons behind students’ levels of
task involvement—fatigue, for example. At the other end of the spectrum, those
conducting most motivation studies reviewed in this article have used self-report
measures as indices of motivation without actually looking at and listening to chil-
dren who are engaged in mathematical activity. The potential biases associated
with self-report measures of attitude have been clearly delineated (Gall, Borg, &
Gall, 1996; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). When secondary measures of motivation
are used, some additional measure should be administered as a validity check.
Moreover, even the theoretically driven studies are limited in their explana-
tions of why students are motivated to achieve. Most describe personality corre-
lates of motivation, differences or similarities in existing groups, or the correla-
tion between motivation and achievement. Few attempts to predict and then test
causal relationships between factors influencing motivation have been made. To
build a more extensive body of knowledge about motivational factors in mathe-
matics education, mathematics education researchers must attend to theoretical
or model-based research that is designed to ascertain causal and interactive rela-
tionships between motivational domains and student achievement (McLeod,
Reyes, Fennema, & Surber, 1984). Moreover, through these models they must
begin to examine the interplay of motivational factors as they exist in the social
and cognitive worlds of the child. Researchers using causal modeling have made
a first attempt at large-scale description of the web of factors influencing and
affected by motivational structures. Further research along this line of inquiry
holds promise for untangling the causal relationships between motivation and
achievement. At the other end of the spectrum, naturalistic studies of students
engaging in meaningful activity can provide powerful insight into the ways indi-
viduals and social groups define motivational constructs, modify these defini-
tions that are based on situational variables, and abstract workable goal structures
that inform future engagement.
But even with the application of appropriate methodologies, nearly all the
research conducted in the area of mathematics has utilized a model of mathemat-
ics instruction that is not conceptually driven. Researchers studying a conceptual
model of instruction have found that the effects of such instruction on student
motivation are quite different from the effects of traditional instruction (e.g.,
Bransford et al., 1988; Cobb et al., 1992; Middleton, 1993b). In addition, when
students who are motivated to learn mathematics concepts in a meaningful way
are forced to work on routine, skills-related mathematics problems, their enjoy-
ment of mathematics tends to plummet (Lucock, 1987). Thus, even the positive
results from studies using more traditional models of mathematics teaching and
achievement may be irrelevant or even misleading (Romberg & Carpenter, 1986).
One final criticism is aimed toward the use of theories in motivational
research. Although studies may be situated within a theoretical framework, little
attempt has been made to test the adequacy of current theories. Researchers have
used theories to explain behavior, but they have done little to increase the accu-
racy, precision, and applicability of these theories. Consequently, very few new
theories or reformulations of existing theories of motivation have been forth-
coming. Noticeably absent are approaches that capitalize on research in the cog-
nitive science domain. Because they are focused on individual differences, cog-
nitive science approaches may prove to be powerful theoretical tools for the
motivation researcher, especially in the area of goal theory, by providing theo-
retical means for examining volitional decision-making processes (e.g., Corno,
1993; Cruz, 1992). A primary goal for future researchers should be the testing
and refinement of motivational theories so that their range of applicability can be
delineated and exploited.
REFERENCES
Alschuler, A. S. (1969). The effects of classroom structure on achievement motivation and academ-
ic performance. Educational Technology, 9 (8), 19–24.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a qualitative def-
inition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 535–556.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and
motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.
Amit, M. (1988). Career choice, gender and attribution patterns of success and failure in mathemat-
ics. In A. Bourbás (Ed.), Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 125–130). Veszprém, Hungary:
Hungarian National Centre for Educational Technology.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Bassarear, T. J. (1986). New perspectives for investigating the relationship between attitudes and per-
formance in mathematics courses. In G. Lappan & R. Even (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth annu-
al meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (pp. 232–237). East Lansing, MI: Authors.
Benenson, J. F., & Dweck, C. S. (1986). The development of trait explanations and self-evaluations
in the academic and social domains. Child Development, 57, 1179–1187.
Bransford, J., Hasselbring, T., Barron, B., Kulewicz, S., Littlefield, J., & Goin, L. (1988). Uses of
macro-contexts to facilitate mathematical thinking. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The
teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 125–147). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teaching and learning mathematics: Where research should be going. Journal for
Brophy, J. (1987). Socializing students’ motivation to learn. In M. L. Maehr & D. A. Kleiber (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 5, pp. 181–210). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brown, S. M., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Motivational effects on test scores of elementary students.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analy-
sis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363–423.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1996). The debate about rewards and intrinsic motivation: Protests and
accusations do not alter the results. Review of Educational Research, 66, 39–51.
Carpenter, T. P., Corbitt, M. K., Kepner, H. S., Lindquist, M. M., & Reys, R. E. (1981). Results from
the second mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., & Perlwitz, M. (1991).
Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & Perlwitz, M. (1992). A follow-up assessment of a second-grade
problem-centered mathematics project. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 483–504.
Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research.
Educational Researcher, 22 (2), 14–22.
Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implica-
tions. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 5–20.
Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston.
Croom, L. (1984). The urban project: A model to help minority students prepare for mathematics-
based careers. [Brief Report] Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 172–176.
Cruz, C. A. (1992). Knowledge-representation networks: Goal direction in intelligent neural systems.
In D. S. Levine & S. J. Leven (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and goal direction in neural networks
(pp. 369–410). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic
motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 217–229.
Dickinson, D. J., & Butt, J. A. (1989). The effects of success and failure on the on-task behavior of
high-achieving students. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 243–252.
Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S., Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers, D. L. (1988). The mathematics report
card. Are we measuring up? Trends and achievement based on the 1986 national assessment.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and
sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-
1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Reuman, D. (1987, April). Changes in self-perceptions and values at early
adolescence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco.
Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. (1985). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of gen-
der-related differences in mathematics. In L. C. Wilkinson & C. B. Marrett (Eds.), Gender influ-
ences in classroom interaction (pp. 17–35). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. L. (1984). Classroom processes and autonomous learning behavior in
mathematics (Final Report, National Science Foundation, SEB-8109077). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Lubinski, C. A. (1990). Teachers’ attributions and
beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 55–69.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976, April). Sex-related differences in mathematics learning: Myths,
realities, and related factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, Boston.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.).
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631–645.
Henderson, R. W., & Landesman, E. M. (1993). The interactive videodisc system in the zone of prox-
imal development: Academic motivation and learning outcomes in precalculus. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 9 (1), 29–43.
Hess, R. D., & Azuma, H. (1991). Cultural support for schooling: Contrasts between Japan and the
United States. Educational Researcher, 20 (9), 2–9.
Hilton, P. J. (1981). Avoiding math avoidance. In L. A. Steen (Ed.), Mathematics tomorrow (pp.
73–82). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hoyles, C. (1981). The pupil’s view of mathematics learning. In C. Comiti & G. Vergnaud (Eds.),
Proceedings of the conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 1, pp. 340–345). Grenoble, France: Authors.
Jackson, L., & Coutts, J. (1987). Measuring behavioral success avoidance in mathematics in dyadic
settings. In J. C. Bergeron, N. Herscovics, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh annu-
al meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp.
84–91). Montreal, Canada: Authors.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs: Vol. 1. A theory of personality. New
York: W. W. Norton.
Kloosterman, P. (1988). Self-confidence and motivation in mathematics. Journal of Educational
Kloosterman, P. (1993, April). Students’ views of knowing and learning mathematics: Implications
for motivation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.
Kloosterman, P., & Gorman, J. (1990). Building motivation in the elementary mathematics class-
room. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 375–382.
Kohn, A. (1996). By all available means: Cameron and Pierce’s defense of extrinsic motivators.
Review of Educational Research, 66, 1–4.
Lehmann, C. H. (1986). The adult mathematics learner: Attributions, expectations, achievement. In
G. Lappan & R. Even (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth annual meeting of the North American
Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 238–243).
East Lansing, MI: Authors.
Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and
Instruction, 5, 289–309.
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (Eds.). (1978). The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the
psychology of human motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with
extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Lepper, M. R., Keavney, M., & Drake, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards: A com-
mentary on Cameron and Pierce’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 5–32.
Lucock, R. (1987). Children’s attitudes to mathematics: A personal construct approach. In J. C.
Bergeron, N. Herscovics, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 126–132).
Montreal, Canada: Authors.
Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. M. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents: Emphasizing
task goals. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 593–610.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motivation acquisition. American Psychologist, 20,
321–333.
McLeod, D., Reyes, L., Fennema, E., & Surber, C. (1984). Affective factors and mathematics learn-
ing. In J. M. Moser (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the North American Chapter
of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 263–264). Madison,
WI: Authors.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on
young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 60–70.
Meyer, M. R., & Fennema, E. (1985). Predicting mathematics achievement for females and males
from causal attributions. In S. K. Damarin & M. Shelton (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh annu-
al meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (pp. 201–206). Columbus, OH: Authors.
Middleton, J. A. (1993a). An analysis of the congruence of teachers’ and students’ personal con-
structs regarding intrinsic motivation in the mathematics classroom (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 3150A.
Middleton, J. A. (1993b, April). The effects of an innovative curriculum project on the motivational
beliefs and practice of middle school mathematics teachers. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Middleton, J. A. (1995). A study of intrinsic motivation in the mathematics classroom: A personal
constructs approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 254–279.
Middleton, J. A., Littlefield, J., & Lehrer, R. (1992). Gifted students’ conceptions of academic fun:
An examination of a critical construct for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 38–44.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward
mathematics before and after transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981–992.
Mulryan, C. M. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups in mathematics. Journal
of Educational Research, 85, 261–273.
Nakamura, J. (1988). Optimal experience and the uses of talent. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S.
Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp.
150-171). New York: Cambridge University Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Oldfather, P. (1992, April). “My body feels completely wrong”: Students’ experiences when lacking
motivation for academic tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Otten, W., & Kuyper, H. (1988). Gender and mathematics: The prediction of choice and achieve-
ment. In A. Bourbás (Ed.), Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 519–527). Veszprém, Hungary:
Hungarian National Centre for Educational Technology.
Owens, J. E. (1987). Personal constructs of mathematics and mathematics teaching. In J. C.
Bergeron, N. Herscovics, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 163–169).
Montreal, Canada: Authors.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late in the semester: The
role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 41–50.
Quilter, D., & Harper, E. (1988). “Why we didn’t like mathematics, and why we can’t do it.”
Educational Research, 30, 121–134.
Relich, J. (1984). Learned helplessness in arithmetic: An attributional approach to increased self-effi-
cacy and division skills. In B. Southwell, R. Eyland, M. Cooper, J. Conroy, & K. Collis (Eds.),
Proceedings of the eighth international conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(pp. 487–503). Sydney, Australia: Authors.
Rohrkemper, M. M., & Bershon, B. L. (1984). Elementary school students’ reports of the causes and
effects of problem difficulty in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 85, 127–147.
Romberg, T. A., & Carpenter, T. P. (1986). Research on teaching and learning mathematics: Two dis-
ciplines of scientific inquiry. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.,
pp. 850–873). New York: Macmillan.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce’s
claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66,
33–38.
Schiefele, U., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995). Motivation and ability as factors in mathematics expe-
rience and achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 163–181.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Enhancing self-efficacy and achievement through rewards and goals:
Motivational and informational effects. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 29–34.
Secada, W. G. (1990). Needed: An agenda for equity in mathematics education. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 21, 354–355.
Seegers, G., & Boekaerts, M. (1993). Task motivation and mathematics achievement in actual task
situations. Learning and Instruction, 3, 133–150.
Slavin, R. E. (1984). Students motivating students to excel: Cooperative incentives, cooperative
tasks, and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 85, 53–63.
Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative func-
tions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243–310).
New York: Macmillan.
Spence, K. W. (1960). Behavior theory and learning: Selected papers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Underhill, R. (1988). Mathematics learners’ beliefs: A review. Focus on Learning Problems in
Mathematics, 10 (1), 55–69.
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Markham.
Wigfield, A., Harold, R., Eccles, J., Blumenfeld, P., Aberbach, A., Freedman-Doan, C., & Yoon, K.
S. (1992, April). The structure of children’s ability perceptions and achievement values: Age, gen-
der, and domain differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Williams, M. D. (1993, April). Interaction among attributional style, attributional feedback, and
learner-controlled CBI. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Authors
James A. Middleton, Associate Professor, Department of Elementary Education, Arizona State
University, Box 870911, Tempe, AZ 85287-0911; [email protected]
Photini A. Spanias, Instructor, Department of Elementary Education, Arizona State University, Box
870911, Tempe, AZ 85287-0911
1999, Vol. 30, No. 1, 89–110
Elementary Preservice Teachers’

Changing Beliefs and Instructional
Use of Children’s Mathematical
Thinking
Nancy Nesbitt Vacc and George W. Bright
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
In this research, we examined changes in preservice elementary school teachers’ beliefs about
teaching and learning mathematics and their abilities to provide mathematics instruction that was
based on children’s thinking. The 34 participants in this study were introduced to Cognitively Guided
Instruction (CGI) as part of a mathematics methods course. Belief-scale scores indicated that sig-
nificant changes in their beliefs and perceptions about mathematics instruction occurred across
the 2-year sequence of professional course work and student teaching during their undergradu-
ate program but that their use of knowledge of children’s mathematical thinking during instruc-
tional planning and teaching was limited. Preservice teachers may acknowledge the tenets of CGI
and yet be unable to use them in their teaching. The results raise several questions about factors
that may influence success in planning instruction on the basis of children’s thinking.
Key Words: Children’s strategies; Constructivism; Early childhood, K-4; Pedagogical knowl-
edge; Planning, decision making; Preservice teacher education; Teacher beliefs
This study was designed and carried out as an attempt to document the effect of
introducing preservice elementary school teachers to Cognitively Guided Instruc-
tion (CGI) (Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, & Carey, 1988). CGI’s effectiveness
in changing teachers’ beliefs about mathematics instruction and the nature of
mathematics instruction in primary grades is well documented (Fennema et al.,
1996; Fennema, Franke, Carpenter, & Carey, 1993; Peterson, Fennema,
Carpenter, & Loef, 1989). Teachers prepared in CGI spend more time having their
students solve problems, listen more to their students, and are more likely to
expect students to find multiple solution strategies to problems than teachers who
are not prepared in CGI (Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef, 1989).
CGI also results in improved performance by primary-grade students on both
standardized and problem-solving tests (Carpenter et al., 1989; Fennema,
Carpenter, & Peterson, 1989; Peterson et al., 1989). In question is whether simi-
lar findings would accrue to the integration of CGI within preservice teacher edu-
cation programs.
Preparation of this article was supported in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant
MDR-8954679 to the University of Wisconsin (UW). All opinions expressed are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of either NSF or UW.
90 Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs and Instruction
The research reported in this article was part of a larger project, the Primary
Preservice Teacher Preparation Project (funded by the National Science
Foundation) that was designed to begin to investigate the effects of including
information about CGI in preservice teacher education programs. The project
was conducted through the University of Wisconsin and involved preservice
teacher education programs at three sites. The data reported here are from the
project site at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Specifically, we
examined (a) preservice teachers’ beliefs about mathematics instruction and (b)
mathematics instruction provided by two of these preservice teachers. In our
analysis of mathematics instruction we focused on how the two preservice teach-
ers used knowledge of their students’ mathematical thinking in instruction dur-
ing the student-teaching semester.
BACKGROUND
Cognitively Guided Instruction
CGI is an approach to helping “teachers use knowledge from cognitive science
to make their own instructional decisions” (Carpenter & Fennema, 1991, p. 10).
Children’s knowledge and the teacher’s understanding of that knowledge are cen-
tral to instructional decision making. Teachers plan instruction using research-
based knowledge about children’s mathematical thinking and well-defined tax-
onomies of problem types and children’s solution strategies for arithmetic opera-
tions (Carpenter & Fennema, 1991; Carpenter & Moser, 1983). Teachers seek
specific information about individual students’ thinking and understanding and
then adjust the level of content to match individual students’ performance levels.
A single model of a “CGI teacher” does not exist. Instead, teachers use CGI in a
manner that fits their own teaching styles, knowledge bases, and beliefs, as well as
the needs of their students. Similarities do exist, however, across “CGI classrooms.”
For example, students in CGI classrooms spend most of their mathematics instruc-
tion time solving various problems by creating their own solutions instead of by fol-
lowing a set of procedures provided by an outside source such as the teacher or the
mathematics textbook. Students also spend a considerable amount of time sharing
their solution strategies and asking questions of one another and the teacher until
they have developed an understanding of the problem solutions.
Teachers who use CGI principles when teaching (a) believe that their under-
standing of children’s thinking is a critical component of instructional planning,
(b) facilitate children’s problem solving and discussions of children’s thinking,
(c) listen to their children and question them until the students’ thinking becomes
clearer, and (d) are willing and able to make instructional decisions that are
appropriate to the mathematical needs of their students (Fennema et al., 1996).
As a result, significant positive correlations exist between CGI and students’
mathematics problem-solving achievement (Peterson et al., 1989), ability to
solve complex addition and subtraction word problems (Fennema et al., 1989),
and level of recall of number facts (Carpenter et al., 1989).
Nancy Nesbitt Vacc and George W. Bright 91
Experienced teachers are able to apply the research-based knowledge that they
gain while learning about CGI to an already existing set of understandings about
children’s thinking and about their own preferred teaching styles. In contrast, pre-
service teachers are likely to have limited knowledge about children’s mathemati-
cal thinking and to be in the process of developing preferred styles of teaching;
indeed, their teaching styles may be shifting repeatedly while they gain experience
and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). Thus, their preparation in
CGI may not be synthesized and applied in a manner similar to that of experienced
teachers, and the extent to which they consider CGI principles in instruction may
be significantly different from that of experienced teachers.
Beliefs About Mathematics Instruction

Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics significantly affect the
form and type of instruction they deliver (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Richardson,
Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991). If teachers’ beliefs are compatible with the under-
lying philosophy and materials of a curriculum, there is greater likelihood that the
curriculum will be fully implemented (Hollingsworth, 1989; Richardson, 1990).
These findings are supported in the CGI literature. A critical factor in a teacher’s use
of CGI principles is his or her beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics
(Fennema et al., 1996; Fennema et al., 1993; Peterson et al., 1989). Preparation in
CGI helps primary teachers organize and expand their knowledge about children’s
thinking while they construct instructional strategies on the basis of what they are
learning about their students’ thinking (Fennema et al., 1996; Fennema et al., 1993).
Thus, the processes of learning about research on children’s mathematical thinking
and using that knowledge while interacting with students are associated with
changes in both teachers’ beliefs and the type of instruction they provide their stu-
dents. Precisely how these findings apply to preservice teachers is unclear.
Preservice teachers’ general beliefs about teaching are tenacious (Holt-
Reynolds, 1992) as are their beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics
(Ball, 1989; McDiarmid, 1990). Learning new theories and concepts may have
little effect in changing preservice teachers’ general beliefs about teaching prac-
tices (Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Kagan, 1992). Instead, preservice teachers’
beliefs seem to be drawn from previous vivid episodes or events in their lives
(Pajares, 1992); their beliefs about teaching and learning appear to be general-
izations derived from their own experiences as students (Holt-Reynolds, 1992;
Knowles & Holt-Reynolds, 1991). Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982)
suggested that for existing beliefs to be replaced or reorganized, new beliefs need
to be intelligible and appear plausible. For example, the framework underlying
the content presented in mathematics methods courses needs to be consistent
with the framework of the mathematics education program that preservice teach-
ers observe and implement during field experiences. If the two frameworks are
in conflict, the theories and concepts presented during the mathematics methods
course may not seem plausible and may be rejected.
Schram, Wilcox, Lanier, and Lappan (1988) found that preservice teachers’
beliefs about what it means to know mathematics were challenged when concep-
tual development, group work, and problem-solving activities were emphasized
during a mathematics content course. However, emphasizing these components
had little effect on the preservice teachers’ beliefs about what should be included
in elementary school mathematics education. Schram and Wilcox (1988) con-
cluded that instead of changing beliefs, some preservice teachers fit existing
beliefs to their new experiences. These conclusions were supported by
McDiarmid (1990), who indicated that many preservice teachers resisted change
even when a course was designed specifically to challenge their underlying beliefs
about mathematics education. Despite their experiences in the course, most of the
preservice teachers in his study ended the course still believing that a teacher’s
role is to explain the answer instead of to help students develop understanding.
It appears that even full-time teaching during a teacher preparation program may
not be a powerful change agent inasmuch as preservice teachers’ beliefs remain
stable across the student-teaching experience (Calderhead & Robson, 1991;
McDaniel, 1991; McLaughlin, 1991). Zeichner and Liston (1987) found that
instead of changing beliefs, preservice teachers became more skillful in expressing
and implementing their points of view. These studies, however, focused on beliefs
about teaching and learning, in general. Whether their results generalize to preser-
vice teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics is unclear.
Brousseau and Freeman (1988) indicated that teacher preparation programs
generally do not challenge students’ initial beliefs about mathematics education.
As a result, preservice teachers may conclude their programs of study without
examining their own perspectives about teaching and learning mathematics.
Kagan (1992), on the basis of a review of 40 learning-to-teach studies conduct-
ed between 1987 and 1991, identified three elements that seem essential for
changing preservice teachers’ beliefs. First, preservice teachers need to have
extended opportunities to interact with and study students. Second, the content
of their university courses needs to be connected to the exigencies of classroom
teaching; university courses need to focus on procedural knowledge and practi-
cal strategies as well as theory. Third, their field experiences need to include
opportunities to work with classroom teachers who engage in ongoing self-
reflection by questioning and reconstructing their own pedagogical beliefs. As
discussed later, the first two elements were included in the present study as part
of the teacher preparation program. The classroom teachers (i.e., the on-site
teacher educators) who supervised the field experiences of the participants in this
study may have engaged in self-reflection practices, but it was not part of the cri-
teria for their selection as field-experience supervisors.
Teacher Preparation Program

In our elementary education teacher preparation program, students are
required to complete 46 semester hours of liberal arts courses that include 6
hours of mathematics course work and to complete a second major that consists
of a minimum of 24 semester hours of course work in one of the arts or sciences.
The program incorporates professional development schools (PDSs) that support
sustained experiences in classrooms to help preservice teachers integrate what
they are learning about teaching (i.e., theoretical frameworks) with what they are
observing, doing, and experiencing in classrooms (i.e., practice). As a result of
the partnership between the university and PDSs, classroom teachers serve as on-
site teacher educators. They meet with university faculty to plan field experi-
ences for the preservice teachers and sometimes model instructional activities as
part of the methods courses. They typically are willing for undergraduates to try
out various instructional methods during the field experiences.
Preservice teachers take all their professional courses in cohort groups beginning
in the junior year. The sequence of professional course work includes a mathemat-
ics methods course taught during the fall semester of the senior year. Preservice
teachers also complete 10 hours per week of internship in the PDSs during both
semesters of the junior year and the fall semester of the senior year. Full-time stu-
dent teaching is completed during the spring semester of the senior year in the same
classroom in which the senior fall-semester internship is completed.
METHOD
Participants
Thirty-four members of an undergraduate cohort of preservice teachers took
part in the study. At the beginning of the study, they were commencing their 2-
year sequence of professional course work in elementary education.
Only two of the on-site teacher educators working with this cohort were expe-
rienced CGI teachers, and both taught at the same PDS. One was a third-grade
teacher and the other taught kindergarten. Thus, only two preservice teachers in
the cohort completed their senior-year field experiences in classrooms of experi-
enced CGI teachers.
Because this study was undertaken to document changes in preservice ele-
mentary school teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics, we
wanted to monitor changes in their instruction. Two preservice teachers (Helen
and Andrea) were selected as cases for in-depth study because of similarities in
their senior-year field experiences. They completed their senior-year internships
and student teaching in adjacent third-grade classrooms. Thus, they shared a
common grade-level curriculum, worked with the same school personnel outside
the classroom (e.g., administrators, resource teachers), and were not in PDSs that
might have had different school philosophies. Helen’s on-site teacher educator
was a third-grade teacher with extensive experience with CGI. In contrast, the
CGI experience of Andrea’s on-site teacher educator was limited to participation
in a 2-hour “awareness” workshop about CGI. Other differences existed between
the two preservice teachers: Their junior field experiences were in different
schools and at different grade levels, and Helen’s second major was psychology
whereas Andrea’s was speech communication.
Cohort Leaders
The cohort was led by the first author, who is a faculty member in the
Department of Curriculum and Instruction. She taught these students’ mathe-
matics methods course and conducted their weekly seminars during the three
semesters of internship and student teaching. An experienced classroom teacher,
who was a full-time graduate student in the same department, assisted with the
leadership of the cohort. These two leaders served as the liaison between the uni-
versity and the PDSs and also worked collaboratively with the on-site teacher
educators in supervising field experiences and student teaching.
The university faculty member, who was an experienced classroom teacher, had
been prepared in CGI through professional development workshops at the
University of Wisconsin. Also, she spent a considerable amount of time each year
working with children and observing in experienced CGI teachers’ classrooms.
The graduate student participated in one of the workshops at the University of
Wisconsin during the summer prior to the cohort’s mathematics methods course,
and she was an observer during the mathematics methods course.
Mathematics Methods Course

The 3-semester-hour mathematics methods course met once a week, for 2 hours
and 50 minutes per session, during the fall semester of the students’ senior year.
Course content centered around process learning and the national curriculum
reform; problem solving, communicating mathematically, reasoning, and making
mathematical connections were emphasized. Course requirements were designed
to provide opportunities for preservice teachers to focus on children’s thinking
and included (a) conducting two case studies (with assessment interviews) of stu-
dents in the internship classroom; (b) planning, implementing, and evaluating a
mathematics lesson in the internship classroom; and (c) carrying out observations
of three mathematics lessons taught by the on-site teacher educator. In conduct-
ing their case studies, the preservice teachers had opportunities to focus on the
thinking and understanding of individual students. Teaching the mathematics les-
son helped the preservice teachers learn to monitor children’s thinking during
whole-class instruction. During classroom observations the preservice teachers
could focus on different aspects of the teacher’s role as it relates to understanding
children’s thinking: the amount of wait time used by the on-site teacher educator
when she questioned students, the types of questions (i.e., factual, open-ended,
restated, and probing) the teacher asked along with the responses of the students,
and the instructional procedures the teacher employed during the lesson.
CGI was introduced through a five-session module. We introduced problem
types for the basic operations and children’s solution strategies (Carpenter,
Fennema, & Franke, 1993) during the first four sessions, and knowledge of chil-
dren’s geometrical thinking (Lehrer, Fennema, Carpenter, & Osana, 1992) was
addressed during the fifth session. In general, to introduce problem types and solu-
tion strategies, we presented a mathematics story problem and asked the preservice
teachers to find alternative solutions to the problem. After sharing some solution
strategies, the preservice teachers viewed videotaped examples of children’s solu-
tions to the same problem and discussed how their solutions were similar to or dif-
ferent from those of the children. We also focused the discussion on what problems
might be given next to an individual child, thus encouraging the preservice teach-
ers to begin using knowledge of children’s thinking to plan instruction. During the
fifth session, in a PDS second-grade classroom, the instructor conducted a demon-
stration geometry lesson that focused on the children’s visual, descriptive, and rela-
tional thinking about shapes. The discussion that followed this lesson centered
around the information gained or not gained about the students’ thinking and mod-
ifications in the lesson that would have provided additional information about the
students’ understanding. Immediately following this discussion, the preservice
teachers, individually or in pairs, used the same instructional activities with a stu-
dent from another second-grade classroom. The session concluded with the pre-
service teachers sharing what they learned or did not learn about their students’
geometrical thinking, with possible reasons for their outcomes.
Instrumentation
To assess changes in the preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learn-
ing mathematics, we administered the CGI Belief Scale (Peterson et al., 1989)
four times: beginning of the professional preparation program (i.e., start of the
fall semester of the junior year), beginning of the mathematics methods course
(i.e., start of the fall semester of the senior year), beginning of student teaching
(i.e., start of the spring semester of the senior year), and end of student teaching
(i.e., end of senior year).
The Belief Scale consists of 48 items designed to assess teachers’ beliefs,
which are categorized on four subscales: Role of the Learner, Relationship
Between Skills and Understanding, Sequencing of Topics, and Role of the
Teacher. Respondents rate each item using a 5-point Likert scale of strongly
agree, agree, undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree. Each subscale measures
interrelated but separate constructs. High scores on the Role of Learner subscale
indicate a belief that children, instead of being receivers of knowledge, are able
to construct their own knowledge. High scores on the Relationship Between
Skills and Understanding subscale indicate the belief that skills should be taught
in relationship to understanding and problem solving rather than in isolation.
High scores on the Sequencing of Topics subscale indicate a belief that the
sequencing of topics for instruction should be based on children’s natural devel-
opment of mathematical ideas rather than on the logical structure of formal math-
ematics. High scores on the Role of Teacher subscale indicate a belief that math-
ematics instruction should facilitate children’s construction of knowledge rather
than consist of the teacher’s presentation of knowledge. Peterson et al. (1989)
reported that internal consistency estimates for each subscale ranged from .57 to
.86; internal consistency of teachers’ scores on the total belief scale was .93.
In addition to the data from eight on-site formal observations of each prospec-
tive teacher (two by each cohort leader and four by the on-site teacher), data for
the more in-depth study of Helen and Andrea included reflective journal entries
during the mathematics methods course and student teaching, four videotaped
mathematics lessons during the student-teaching semester, and three open-ended
interviews. One interview was conducted during the fall semester of the junior
year, one during the fall semester of the senior year, and one at the end of stu-
dent teaching. The interviews were planned by the authors in collaboration with
a third departmental faculty member who also had been prepared in CGI.
Graduate students conducted the first two interviews as part of the requirements
for a component on ways of knowing in a human development course that was
taught by the third departmental faculty member. The final interview was con-
ducted by a doctoral student who was paid to conduct the interviews. To elimi-
nate any effect due to an interviewer’s leading the interviewees’ responses in a
given direction, we chose interviewers who were not knowledgeable about CGI.
Each interview focused on the teacher’s role in mathematics education (e.g.,
How do you figure out what children know in mathematics?); the final interview
also addressed decisions that each participant had made while teaching a lesson
that the interviewer had observed (e.g., What, if anything, happened during the
lesson today that caused you to change your plans for the lesson?).
RESULTS
We present the findings of this study in two parts. Results concerning the preser-
vice teachers’ beliefs are presented first followed by the results related to Helen’s
and Andrea’s beliefs and their use of CGI-based knowledge in their teaching.
Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs

The 34 preservice teachers’ mean scores on the Belief Scale across the four
administrations are given in Table 1. Changes in the mean total scores during con-
secutive administrations of the Belief Scale were 2.3, 24.7, and 12.2, respective-
ly. The preservice teachers’ Beliefs Scale scores changed little during the first
year of their program, increased significantly during the mathematics methods
course, and continued to increase significantly across the student-teaching expe-
rience. A repeated-measures analysis of variance and follow-up paired t-tests of
scores at adjacent times showed a significant overall time effect (p < .0001) for all
four subscales as determined by Wilks’s Lambda and its associated F-statistic.
Subscale means changed little across the first year of the study, but there were sig-
nificant increases (p < .0001) in the means of all four subscales during the math-
ematics methods course. Also, on average, the preservice teachers’ belief scores
continued to increase significantly (p < .005) during student teaching, with the
greatest increase occurring in their beliefs about sequencing of topics.
Table 1
Mean Scores (and Standard Deviations) on the Belief Scale Across Administrations for the 34
Preservice Teachers
Beginning Beginning Beginning of End of
Subscales of program of methods student teaching student teaching
Role of Learner 36.5 35.7 42.2*** 44.9*
(5.2) (6.0) (6.7) (5.8)
Skills and Understanding 36.9 37.9 44.7*** 48.0*
(4.7) (5.1) (6.6) (7.4)
Sequence of Topics 39.3 40.3 45.3*** 48.7**
(4.6) (4.9) (6.1) (5.0)
Role of Teacher 38.5 39.4 46.0*** 48.8*
(5.0) (4.8) (6.2) (5.3)
Total beliefs 151.2 153.5 178.2*** 190.4*
(14.8) (17.5) (21.7) (20.4)
Note. The maximum score is 60 for each subscale and 240 for the total score.
*Change from previous mean significant at p < .005. **Change from previous mean significant at p
< .0005. ***Change from previous mean significant at p < .0001.
Helen’s and Andrea’s Beliefs and Their Use of CGI Principles

When we analyzed the data concerning Helen and Andrea, we found differ-
ences in (a) the ways their beliefs, as measured by the Belief Scale, changed
across their preparation program and (b) their use of CGI principles during math-
ematics instruction.
Belief changes. Helen’s and Andrea’s respective scores on the four adminis-
trations of the Belief Scale are presented in Table 2. Although belief scores of
both participants increased across the 2 years, the changes varied by preservice
teacher. Helen’s overall belief scores about teaching and learning mathematics
increased substantially across the methods course and continued to increase dur-
ing student teaching. In contrast, Andrea’s overall belief scores increased con-
siderably across the first three semesters of her preparation program, including
substantial increases during the mathematics methods course, but little change
occurred during the student-teaching experience.
Table 2
Helen’s and Andrea’s Subscale and Total Scores on the Belief Scale Across Administrations
Beginning Beginning Beginning of End of
Subscales of program of methods student teaching student teaching
Helen
Role of Learner 35 36 48 47
Skills and Understanding 37 42 52 58
Sequence of Topics 45 45 49 56
Role of Teacher 46 47 49 49
Total beliefs 163 170 198 210
Andrea
Role of Learner 30 32 51 51
Skills and Understanding 34 42 48 52
Sequence of Topics 33 39 55 52
Role of Teacher 31 33 51 49
Total beliefs 128 146 205 204
Note. The maximum score is 60 for each subscale and 240 for the total score.
The two preservice teachers differed in their belief-score changes by subscale

area. Their belief scores about the role of the learner during mathematics instruc-
tion increased somewhat similarly across the four administrations of the Belief
Scale with the greatest change occurring during the mathematics methods course
and no change occurring during student teaching. Their belief scores about math-
ematical skills and understanding increased continually across the program, but
Helen’s score changed most during the semester when she was enrolled in the
mathematics methods course, whereas Andrea’s seemed to change most because
of her experiences during the first year of the program. Helen’s belief scores
about the sequencing of mathematics topics did not change during the first year
of the program, increased somewhat after the mathematics methods course, and
continued to increase during student teaching. Andrea’s belief scores in this area
increased somewhat during the first year and substantially during the mathemat-
ics methods course, but the scores decreased somewhat during student teaching.
Helen began the program with a belief about the role of the teacher that tended
more toward a perspective of the teacher’s facilitating student learning, and
Andrea began the program with a set of beliefs that tended more toward the
teacher’s telling students what they need to know. By the conclusion of the
preparation program, however, Helen and Andrea shared similar perspectives
about the teacher’s role. Helen’s belief scores related to the role of the teacher
remained rather stable across the 2 years. In comparison, Andrea’s belief scores
about the role of the teacher increased considerably during the mathematics
methods course but decreased slightly during student teaching.
Helen’s use of CGI principles. Helen’s reflective writings and interviews illus-
trate her beliefs across the program of study. Although Helen’s score on the Belief
Scale at the beginning of the study indicated a belief that the role of the teacher
was to facilitate learning, she indicated in a written reflection paper at the begin-
ning of the mathematics methods course that the teacher’s role was to model prob-
lem solutions for students. During the mathematics-methods-course semester, she
stated that a teacher should question children to find out what they were thinking
as they solved problems. After Helen had gained instructional experience during
student teaching, she questioned the use of worksheets and stated in a journal
entry that teachers need to help students understand what they are learning. This
reflection supports the changes that occurred in her beliefs about skills and under-
standing during student teaching. Although the most significant change in Helen’s
overall belief scores on the Belief Scale occurred during the mathematics-meth-
ods-course semester, her reflective journal entries and comments during inter-
views indicate that changes occurred across the entire 2 years:
Children learn mathematics through modeling others. I think children need some guid-
ance but then they go use their own “style.” (Journal entry, September, Junior Year)
[Teaching mathematics] means to look at how children are thinking and how they
solve their mathematics problems … making information relevant to what the chil-
dren are going to do later in life.… You ask questions to get them to share their pre-
vious knowledge and you observe them and keep records.… Listening to children’s
conversation can tell you a lot. (Journal entry, December, Junior Year)
This probably sounds horrible to some people, but I have not really had a chance to
look through the math textbook [for this grade] until today (a teacher workday).…
Regular “student pages” are almost identical to what I used in elementary school,
boring, fill-in-blank pages.… “Fun stuff” was in the teachers’ guide … fun, useful,
and very “CGI-ish.” It was almost as if they were saying, “OK, once your students
suffer through these boring worksheets, then you can let them … try to understand
it. (Journal entry, February, Senior Year)
[The teacher’s role] is to make the children want to learn and to facilitate their learn-
ing rather than telling them [what they need to know]. (Interview, April, Senior Year)
Helen appeared to believe in the principles of CGI, and she was fairly suc-
cessful in applying some of these during student teaching. She planned and
implemented instruction that was based on problem solving, and she facilitated
student understanding and critical thinking through a rather high level of ques-
tioning. This finding is illustrated by the following excerpt from a lesson she
taught in February, shortly after she assumed full-time responsibility for the class
during student teaching. The third graders were solving the following problem:
“Tyrone wants to buy seven baseball cards. Each card costs 5 cents. How much
money does he need?” Prior to this segment in the lesson, one of the students in
the class, Erik, had shared how he had solved the problem by counting out dimes
and pennies: “I knew I could get 20 cents out of 4 nickels, so I had ten, twenty,
thirty, and then I counted pennies, one, two, three, four, five to equal thirty-five.”
(A fictitious name has been assigned to each student.)
Helen: Who can show me a way to do it where you use all the same coins?
Alice: I started counting by fives and he wanted … to buy seven baseball cards and
each cost 5 cents, so I got seven nickels and started counting.
Helen: Why did you use a nickel?
Alice: Because they were 5 cents each and I counted by fives.
Helen: How did you know when to stop [counting]?
Alice: When I ran out of nickels.
Helen: You counted out the seven nickels first?
Alice: Yes.
Helen: Okay, very good.… Who can tell me what is different between the way Erik did
it and the way Alice did it?
Susan: Erik had more coins than Alice.
Helen: “Erik had more coins than Alice.” Very good.… Who can tell me something alike
about what they did? They did one thing exactly alike.… Can anyone come up [to
the overhead projector] and write a number sentence for this story problem?
Helen’s use of the teaching strategy of asking questions that facilitated and
promoted children’s critical thinking (e.g., asking students to compare different
solution strategies) was evident across the student-teaching semester. She also
asked probing questions to gain further information about students’ solution
strategies (e.g., “How did you know how many nickels to put down and how
many pennies?”, “Why did you use 20 children?”, and “Would you say that the
units or the longs would give you more of an exact answer? . . . Why the units?”).
Yet, there were also occasions during some of Helen’s lessons when she demon-
strated behaviors that seem indicative of directed teaching. This fluctuation
between facilitating and telling was evident during a lesson in mid-April, one
week prior to the conclusion of her student-teaching experience.
Helen: What do you think this … means, unit of measure?
Jose: What you used to go around the book.
Helen: What about this word right here? That’s one of your spelling words. Anybody
remember how to say that word?
Bobbie: Perimeter.
Helen: Perimeter, and that’s what you have been measuring.… That’s the distance
around something.… Who can tell me one unit of measure you used?
Erin: Those cubes.
Helen: Okay, I’m gonna put “long base 10s” (writes on chart). And how many of those
did it take?
Erin: Ten.
Helen: So, we would say the perimeter of your book is 10 long base 10s. Did anyone
use the long base 10s and get a different answer?
Michael: I got 11.
Helen: You got 11 (records number on chart). Who has an idea about why they think
this is different?
After the preceding segment, students discussed reasons for getting different
answers when they had used the same book and unit of measurement; Helen
asked probing questions that resulted in the students’ identification of differences
in how the two students placed the base-ten longs on their respective books.
Subsequently, the students discussed units that could be used to measure the
perimeter of the room. Prior to the exchange excerpted below, Helen had indi-
cated that everyone was going to use a piece of string and had asked how they
would use it to determine the perimeter.
Deanna: You could take the strings and go around the room and then take the ruler to see
how long each string was, so you’d know how long the string was to count how
long they are.
Helen: Okay, to see how many inches or feet there are? … Okay, do we need to use the
ceiling?
Deanna: No.
Helen: We can use what?
Tien: The floor.
Helen: The floor. Anywhere, really; you can use the wall. I think it would be easiest,
well I don’t know. It might be easier to use the wall. Whatever you want to
use.… You all came up with some good ways to figure out the perimeter.… I’m
going to give each two people a string … [and] assign you a wall.… So, if you
had this wall, where are you going to start?… So one partner—I need a volun-
teer—will hold it there? So Sandy is going to hold it there and I’m going to
bring it around here. How many strings is the wall so far?… Okay, you let go
of your end, Sandy, and bring it around the wall. How many strings is that?
Although Deanna’s response indicated a clear understanding of how the room’s

perimeter could be measured, it appears Helen believed that she needed to
demonstrate the process before the students could proceed on their own. After
the measurements for each wall were determined, the lesson was concluded with
a rather rich student-centered discussion that focused on determining the perime-
ter of the room on the basis of the measurements obtained for each wall.
Helen: How can I tell what the perimeter of the room is?
Erin: Add all of those [measurements for each wall] up?
Helen: Why should I add all of those together?
Erin: ‘Cause that’s how, um, how, um, you know, um how long the walls are.
Helen: Let’s see if we can do that. Can we round these up? Those that have a half?
Think that would be okay?
Tien: Yeah. Two halves are a whole.
Helen: How did you know that?
Tien: Half of the string.…
Helen: (Interrupts Tien) Okay, this is half of it.
Tien: And half and half puts together a whole string.
Helen: Okay so if we put this half and this half, we have one whole?
Tien: Yes.
Helen: So how am I going to remember to do that?
Jeremy: Cross the halves out.
Helen: Cross the halves out and put a 1 (does this on overhead). Okay, that works for
me. Does everyone understand that?… So our room is thirty-eight and a half
what?
Students: Feet. Strings. Yards. (Shared simultaneously)
Helen: Strings. Those strings are close to a yard, but we’re just going to say strings.
And what’s that called?
Students: Perimeter.
It is interesting to note that during this part of the lesson, which illustrates a
focus on children’s thinking, there surfaced occasionally shades of teacher-cen-
teredness, illustrated by Helen’s use of the pronoun I (referring to herself) and
by her telling students that the unit of measurement is strings.
Andrea’s use of CGI principles. As documented by the reflections presented
below, when Andrea began her program of study, she believed that memoriza-
tion of facts was the framework for learning mathematics. By the conclusion of
the mathematics methods course, she indicated that children needed to have
opportunities to discover mathematical concepts through explorations of differ-
ent problems and to build on what they already know. She also indicated that
asking students questions was more important than telling them what they need
to know. This perspective remained stable across the student-teaching semester.
Children learn mathematics through memorizing the facts and symbols of math.
They then take these skills and really learn them through much practice. (Journal
entry, September, Junior Year)
[The teacher lets] the children … discover learning instead of getting up there and
telling them what [they] are going to learn. [The teacher lets] them discover through
their manipulatives or whatever … the concepts and build on what they already know
instead of just … doing everything for them and telling them everything. [The teacher
figures out what children know by letting] them have a chance to talk,… write, and
… show you what they already can do. (Interview, December, Junior Year)
I am realizing that my students perform better when given story problems than when
they see the same problems written out in number-sentence formation. (Journal
entry, March, Senior Year)
During an interview near the end of student teaching, Andrea stated that the
most important thing she had learned about teaching mathematics was the impor-
tance of questioning and trying to find out what students were thinking. However,
she did not seem to realize that for the purpose of making informed instructional
decisions teachers have to interpret students’ responses to understand what they
know. Instead, she appeared to focus more on whether the students’ answers
matched the responses she was expecting. In a journal entry that she wrote fol-
lowing a lesson she had taught during her third week of full-time student teach-
ing, Andrea reported that her “best” questions were those designed to get students
to show their processes. The transcript of this lesson, however, showed that she
moved away from students who gave wrong answers and followed up only with
students who gave correct answers. At one point in this lesson, she asked her
third-grade students, “How are the ways [that certain students solved the problem]
different? … Could you tell anything about what the person was thinking?”
Although responses to these high-level questions might have provided her with
valuable information to use in planning future instruction, Andrea gave the stu-
dents only a few seconds to think about or respond to the questions. She did not
probe the two responses that she accepted, thus missing an opportunity to gain
more in-depth knowledge of those students’ understanding. This type of compar-
ative questioning did not occur again during any of her videotaped lessons.
Instead, she appeared to pursue only correct thinking or thinking that was aligned
with a predetermined procedure that she wanted the students to learn. This prac-
tice is illustrated with the following segment from a March lesson, during which
she seems to have had in mind a predetermined procedure for writing a fraction.
Andrea: What fraction of your M&Ms is purple?
Rashida: Well, I only had 14 M&Ms and only one was purple, so I had one fourteenth.
Andrea: One fourteenth. How did you get your 14? How did you know what went on the
bottom?
Rashida: Because it’s the number that you had, the denominator.
Andrea: It’s the denominator and that is what again?
Rashida: The number of things that you have.
Andrea: Okay, and how did you all come up with your top number?
Latasha: You see how many you got in the purples?
Andrea: Of the purples. Okay.… Now I would like to know the fraction of pinks and yel-
lows.
Kim: Five fifteenths.

Andrea: Now how did you get five fifteenths?
Kim: Because I counted both of these as 3 plus 2 equals 5 and then I counted these
[everything except the pinks and yellows] and that was 15.
Andrea: Okay, when we do fractions, do we subtract the part … the yellows and pinks
from the overall group number? How do we get that bottom number? Where
does our number come from? We need to decide how we get that first.
Terry: From the amount, the number of everything.
Andrea: The number of every single one or just.…
Terry: The number of every one in the group that you’re using.
Andrea: Okay, every one in the group that we’re using. So, how many M&Ms do you
have altogether, including every one of every color?
Kim: Twenty-four.
Andrea: Twenty-four. So what is the fraction of the yellow and the pink if you’re using
all 24?… Okay, where do we put that?
Kim: At the top.
Andrea appeared uninterested in hearing about interpretations that the students
might be developing, and there was no discussion of the quantities that any of the
fractions might represent. When Andrea asked at the end of the lesson what the
students had learned about fractions, one responded, “The top number is the
numerator and that’s the one that we chose stuff to put in, and the bottom num-
ber is the denominator and that shows all the things that are together.” The parts
of the symbol seemed to have been learned as isolated from one another; students
did not seem to have had a chance to make sense of fractions as quantities. This
lesson, which seems to be representative of Andrea’s instruction during the lat-
ter part of student teaching, illustrates that her focus during mathematics instruc-
tion became more directed toward procedure building with the teacher being the
ultimate authority on what procedures were to be learned.
In late April, when asked to describe CGI, Andrea stated, “It is more of letting
[students] find [the mathematics] through knowing the appropriate or best ques-
tions to ask.” Yet, although she appeared to believe in the importance of asking
questions to determine what students were thinking, her own questions seemed
to be quite controlling; she appeared to want students to learn one predetermined
way of solving problems. Any changes she wanted to make in their thinking
appeared to be those that aligned students’ thinking with her own.
DISCUSSION
Preservice Teachers’ Beliefs

In general, the preservice teachers in this study appeared to change their beliefs
to a more constructivist orientation about the learning of mathematics during
their teacher-preparation program. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to conclude
that preservice teachers are able to develop views of instruction that are different
from telling.
The greatest change in the preservice teachers’ beliefs, as measured on the

Belief Scale, occurred during the semester in which the mathematics methods
course was taught. This phenomenon indicates that dealing explicitly with math-
ematics pedagogy and a research-based model of children’s mathematical under-
standing may influence preservice teachers’ thinking about teaching and learn-
ing mathematics. The preservice teachers’ beliefs continued to change fairly sig-
nificantly during the student-teaching semester to reflect greater concern about
the mathematical understanding of the students and greater awareness of the
need to help students make sense of mathematics. However, the extent to which
the preservice teachers changed beliefs guiding their own teaching varied, as
exemplified by Helen’s and Andrea’s instruction.
Helen’s Beliefs and Use of CGI Principles

Overall, Helen appeared to believe that children could solve problems without
instruction and that the knowledge she gained from listening to children talking
about their thinking could help her make informed decisions. Yet, her use of this
information in planning instruction was unclear. Unlike most of the preservice
teachers in this study, Helen was supervised during her senior year by an on-site
teacher educator who was experienced in using CGI. As a result, she had seen
CGI principles being incorporated in regular mathematics instruction before she
assumed full responsibility for planning and implementing instruction. Also, the
on-site teacher educator encouraged Helen to gather information about students’
thinking and to use that information to adapt instruction.
During student teaching Helen involved students in various problem-solving
activities that extended beyond the basic arithmetic problem types. She also pro-
vided students with various challenging problems, and she encouraged them to
share their different solution strategies. Thus, Helen established a learning envi-
ronment that provided her with numerous opportunities to assess students’ think-
ing and understanding during each lesson. She also indicated that she used stu-
dents’ journal entries as a form of assessment.
On the basis of the levels of mathematics instruction defined by Fennema et al.
(1996), Helen’s mathematics instruction at the conclusion of the preparation pro-
gram would be categorized as Level 3: “Provides opportunities for children to
solve problems and share their thinking. Beginning to elicit and attend to what
children share but doesn’t use what is shared to make instructional decisions” (p.
412). And on the basis of the Fennema et al. (1996) levels of cognitively guided
beliefs, her beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics also would be cate-
gorized as Level 3: “Believes that children can solve problems without instruc-
tion. Believes only in a limited way that his or her students’ thinking should be
used to make instructional decisions” (p. 413).
The instruction Helen provided appeared to be consistent with her beliefs.
Students spent most of their time during mathematics solving problems and shar-
ing their solution strategies. Usually two to four problems were completed dur-
ing each lesson, and students were encouraged to look for connections, to reason,
and to communicate mathematically. She generally assigned the same problems
to the entire class with students working independently, although they could con-
sult with others in their group of four if they wished. Helen also attended to what
the children said or wrote in their journals for the purpose of understanding how
they solved the problems, but she did not seem to use this knowledge in planning
subsequent instruction as would be expected of a Level 4 teacher. As with the
Level 3 teachers in Fennema et al.’s (1996) study, “understanding children’s
thinking appeared to be an end in itself rather than a means by which to plan
instruction” (p. 418). Helen did not deviate from her planned lessons on the basis
of what students said or did during an activity, and her instructional planning
seemed to be directed mainly by curriculum objectives. Indeed, Helen stated dur-
ing an interview near the end of student teaching that she planned instruction on
the basis of the North Carolina Standard Course of Study, without acknowledg-
ing any role for her own understanding of the children’s thinking. Helen applied
some of the principles of CGI (e.g., she encouraged students to create their own
problem solutions and she asked high-level questions), but she missed opportu-
nities to follow up on students’ thinking; she failed to fully interpret the sense of
what the students said in response to her questions.
Andrea’s Beliefs and Use of CGI Principles

When Andrea began student teaching, she appeared to believe that children are
able to find their own solutions to problems and that their sharing of solution
strategies provides helpful information for planning instruction. Although these
beliefs seemed fairly stable throughout Andrea’s student-teaching experience, as
evidenced by her belief scores and journal entries, such beliefs were not evident
in her instruction. Indeed, the relationship between her beliefs and instruction
seemed to become more divergent while she gained teaching experience. For
example, she asked questions at the beginning of the student-teaching semester
that appeared to be attempts to challenge students’ reasoning skills by getting
them to compare solution strategies. However, she abandoned this level of ques-
tioning during the last half of the semester. Also, throughout her teaching, she
increasingly guided children to accept particular solution strategies that she had
identified, independent of what the students were thinking.
In a written evaluation of one of Andrea’s lessons, the on-site teacher educa-
tor indicated that Andrea needed to “use every opportunity to model and rein-
force any new activity being introduced.” Further, Andrea was not encouraged
by the on-site teacher educator to investigate in detail what children were think-
ing. Instead, as Andrea indicated in an interview near the end of student teach-
ing, she taught “CGI-type” lessons “only on days when a lesson was going to be
videotaped.… The rest of the time [we went] by the textbook.” This choice
seemed to be encouraged by the on-site teacher educator. Andrea seemed willing
to ask students questions and to create an environment in which children could
give wrong answers without being embarrassed; she encouraged students to

explain their reasoning for problem solutions. We cannot know, of course,
whether this is a sufficient base of knowledge and beliefs from which she can
progress to develop into a CGI teacher.
Using the levels defined by Fennema et al. (1996), we considered Andrea’s
beliefs at the conclusion of the preparation program to be in transition between
Level 2 (i.e., “Struggling with the beliefs that children can solve problems with-
out instruction and should use their own strategies” [p. 413]) and Level 3. We
categorized her level of cognitively guided instruction (Fennema et al., 1996) as
Level 2: “Provides limited opportunities for children to engage in problem solv-
ing or to share their thinking. Elicits or attends to children’s thinking or uses
what they share in a very limited way” (p. 412). Andrea occasionally planned
lessons that involved problem solving, and during these lessons she had students
find and then share their solutions. However, although she often appeared to be
listening to and accepting a student’s thinking, she did not seem to actively try
to understand how the student solved the problem. She did not ask probing ques-
tions to gain clarity, and she often ignored answers that were incorrect.
Case Comparisons and Contrasts

It is not clear why these two preservice teachers differed in their use of CGI prin-
ciples during student teaching, nor is it clear whether either preservice teacher’s
progress might be representative of the progress preservice teachers, in general,
could make. Did having an on-site teacher educator who was an experienced CGI
teacher affect Helen’s progress? If so, would Andrea have attained instructional
Level 3 (Fennema et al., 1996) had her on-site teacher educator been more knowl-
edgeable of CGI? Is becoming a Level 3 teacher a realistic expectation for preser-
vice teachers even though some experienced teachers do not achieve this level after
4 years of CGI experience (Fennema et al., 1996)? Did Helen’s more constructivist
set of beliefs at the beginning of her preparation program affect the extent to which
she was able to use what she had learned about CGI, compared with Andrea’s
beliefs and level of use? Did the second major (i.e., psychology for Helen and
speech and communication for Andrea) affect the background knowledge that each
preservice teacher brought to the teaching experience?
It is encouraging that both Helen and Andrea came to believe that children’s
mathematical thinking is important and that instruction needs to be based on prob-
lem solving. At differing points during their full-time student teaching, each
demonstrated competencies in encouraging students to find their own solutions to
problems, and they asked questions that encouraged critical thinking and reason-
ing skills. Perhaps this is all that can be expected of preservice teachers; ability to
apply knowledge gained from listening to children’s solution strategies may not be
a realistic expectation for the 2-year sequence of professional course work during
an undergraduate teacher preparation program. At the same time that preservice
teachers are being prepared in CGI, they also are gaining baseline knowledge about
teaching and learning in general and are identifying basic elements such as their
own preferred teaching style; these two factors generally have been addressed by
experienced teachers prior to learning about CGI. Developing beginning compe-
tencies in the area of mathematics education while achieving in-depth knowledge
of children’s mathematical thinking and applying that to one’s instructional plan-
ning may be too much to expect of novice teachers. Indeed, attaining instructional
Level 2 (Fennema et al., 1996) as a student teacher may be commendable.
CONCLUSIONS
Students in primary grades can develop fragile mathematics knowledge that pro-
duces correct answers in some contexts, but the knowledge may not transfer to
other contexts. Similarly, preservice teachers can develop fragile knowledge about
teaching that in some contexts may produce behavior consistent with CGI princi-
ples, but this behavior may not transfer to all teaching contexts. As we found in this
study, preservice teachers may acknowledge the tenets of CGI and yet be unable
to use them in their teaching, perhaps in part because of their lack of teaching expe-
rience. Unlike the inservice teachers in previous CGI studies, the preservice teach-
ers in this study were establishing a knowledge base about children’s thinking and
learning and were beginning to develop competencies as mathematics teachers at
the same time that they were attempting to construct instructional strategies on the
basis of what they were learning about their students’ understanding.
There is also a concern about the extent to which the preservice teachers’ lev-
els of mathematical understanding may have affected their use of CGI principles
during mathematics lessons. For example, Andrea’s focus in the excerpt from her
lesson on fractions may reflect her own lack of understanding about fractions as
quantities as well as her expectation for use of a predetermined procedure for writ-
ing the fraction. Because we have no data about the fractions instruction that
Helen provided during her field experiences, it is unclear how her teaching of this
topic might have changed our perception of her use of the CGI framework. Data
collected during the mathematics methods course indicated that she viewed the
multiplication of fractions as producing larger answers and division of fractions
as producing smaller answers. There was no opportunity to observe how this mis-
understanding might have affected her instruction during student teaching.
Beliefs related to the use of CGI principles appear to be manifested by each
teacher in the ways that instruction is carried out in the classroom. Considerable per-
sonal reflection on one’s beliefs and behavior would seem to be necessary for one
to develop coherent pedagogy; short, reflective journal entries may not provide ade-
quate opportunity for reflection. Other contexts for reflection (e.g., debriefings after
classroom observations by an outsider, meetings with peers to discuss the progress
of using CGI principles) may be necessary. It is not clear whether preservice teacher
education programs can structurally accommodate these needed “reflection events.”
The results of this study seem to be counter to the previous research finding
that preservice teachers’ beliefs are resistant to change (Calderhead & Robson,
1991; Holt-Reynolds, 1992; Kagan, 1992; McDiarmid, 1990; Schram et al.,

1988; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). On the basis of their beliefs scores, interview
statements, and reflective journal entries, we conclude that, on average, the pre-
service teachers in this study changed their beliefs to a more constructivist ori-
entation as a result of their teacher preparation program. On the basis of the find-
ings of this study, we believe that CGI may provide preservice teachers with the
foundation for an intelligible and plausible alternative approach to teaching and
learning mathematics while at the same time offering them opportunities to link
their new set of beliefs to previous conceptions (Posner et al., 1982). Using the
taxonomy of problem types and solution strategies as a guide for planning
instruction, listening to how children solve problems, and exploring children’s
geometrical thinking may have provided the preservice teachers in this study
with the reinforcement needed to support changes in their beliefs.
The results of this study support Kagan’s (1992) conclusions that extensive
field experiences and linkages between theory and practice are essential elements
for changing preservice teachers’ beliefs. The belief changes that occurred for
the preservice teachers in this study may be attributed, in part, to the numerous
opportunities they had to interact with and study students during field experi-
ences (i.e., 10 hours per week of internship across three semesters prior to full-
time student teaching). Also, the case studies, assessment interviews, and obser-
vational activities that the preservice teachers completed during the mathematics
methods course may have influenced belief changes because of the opportunity
each provided for connecting the content of the methods course to the exigencies
of classroom teaching. Data on Kagan’s second factor (i.e., working with class-
room teachers engaged in ongoing self-reflection) were not examined as part of
this study, although reflection is an expected part of a PDS teacher’s role.
Overall, the 34 preservice teachers in this study changed beliefs and perceptions
about mathematics instruction across the 2-year sequence of professional course
work during their undergraduate program. We cannot be certain, however, whether
the changes were fundamental or superficial. We also cannot be certain of the
effects that different factors had on their changing beliefs. The data indicate the pos-
sibility that intensity of experience and a focus on children’s thinking in the mathe-
matics methods course may be keys for helping preservice teachers change their
views. Programs of minimal duration and programs that provide limited field expe-
riences and give minimal attention to focusing on the needs of children may not be
as successful in facilitating changes in preservice teachers’ perceptions. Preparation
in the use of CGI principles through a 5-week module during the mathematics meth-
ods course seemed to affect preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning
mathematics, and their beliefs continued to change significantly during student
teaching. Yet, findings from the more in-depth study of Helen and Andrea indicate
that the extent to which they are able to incorporate these beliefs in their instruction
varies. Perhaps the amount of time (i.e., five sessions) spent on CGI during the
mathematics methods course may have been insufficient for these novice teachers.
Another factor, however, appears to be the amount of consistency that exists among
the philosophical perspectives of the teacher educators with whom preservice teach-
ers work. Helen and Andrea completed the same mathematics methods course,
completed student teaching at the same school and at the same grade level, followed
the same school mathematics curriculum, and were supervised by the same univer-
sity teacher educators. The major difference in their student-teaching experiences
was that Helen’s on-site teacher educator was an experienced CGI teacher and
Andrea’s on-site teacher educator had limited knowledge of CGI. Thus, although
we believe that providing preservice teachers with a robust research-based model of
children’s thinking during a mathematics methods course changes their beliefs
about teaching and learning mathematics, their abilities to incorporate these beliefs
during student teaching may depend on the support preservice teachers receive from
the classroom teacher who supervises their student-teaching experiences. In Helen’s
case, the mathematics methods course, university teacher educators, and on-site
teacher educators held consistent philosophical perspectives. Andrea did not expe-
rience this level of coherence and thus may have been placed in the awkward posi-
tion of believing in one approach to teaching and learning mathematics and having
to follow a different approach because of the environment to which she was
assigned. It appears that if preservice teachers are to internalize coherent applica-
tions to teaching and learning mathematics, the environment in which they student
teach and the support they receive need to be consistent with the principles being
advocated in their professional preparation program.
REFERENCES
Ball, D. (1989). Breaking with experience in learning to teach mathematics: The role of a preservice
methods course (Issue Paper #89–10). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher
Education.
Brousseau, B., & Freeman, D. (1988). How do teacher education faculty members define desirable
teacher beliefs? Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 267–273.
Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early conceptions of
classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1–8.
Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1991). Research and cognitively guided instruction. In E. Fennema,
T. P. Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathemat-
ics (pp. 1–16). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1993). Cognitively guided instruction: Children’s
thinking about whole numbers. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A. (1988). Teachers’ pedagogical con-
tent knowledge of students’ problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. -P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge
of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1983). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts. In R.
Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), The acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 7–44).
New York: Academic Press.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A lon-
gitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Peterson, P. L. (1989). Teachers’ decision making and cognitively
guided instruction: A new paradigm for curriculum development. In N. F. Ellerton & M. A.
Clements (Eds.), School mathematics: The challenge to change (pp. 174–187). Geelong, Victoria,
Australia: Deakin University Press.
Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. A. (1993). Using children’s mathematical
knowledge in instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 555–583.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American
Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work.
American Educational Research Journal, 29, 325–349.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 129–169.
Knowles, J. G., & Holt-Reynolds, D. (1991). Shaping pedagogies through personal histories in pre-
service teacher education. Teachers College Record, 93, 87–113.
Lehrer, R., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Osana, H. P. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction in
geometry. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
McDaniel, J. E. (1991, April). Close encounters: How do student teachers make sense of the social
foundations? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers’ beliefs during early field experience:
A quixotic undertaking? Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (3), 12–20.
McLaughlin, H. J. (1991). The reflection on the blackboard: Student teacher self-evaluation. Alberta
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teachers’ pedagogical content
beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 1–40.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scien-
tific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.
Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational
Researcher, 19 (7), 10–18.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’
beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research
Journal, 28, 559–586.
Schram, P., & Wilcox, S. K. (1988). Changing preservice teachers’ conceptions of mathematics
learning. In M. J. Behr, C. B. Lacampagne, & M. M. Wheeler (Eds.), PME-NA: Proceedings of
the tenth annual meeting (pp. 349–355). DeKalb: Northern Illinois University.
Schram, P., Wilcox, S. K., Lanier, P., & Lappan, G. (1988). Changing mathematical conceptions of
preservice teachers: A content and pedagogical intervention (Research Report No. 1988–4). East
Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15 (2), 4–14.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational
Review, 57, 23–48.
Authors
Nancy Nesbitt Vacc, Associate Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Curry Building,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27402-6171; [email protected]
George W. Bright, Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of North
Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27402-6171; [email protected]

Vol 30 Issue 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol 30 Issue 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol 30 Issue 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

1999, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2

Relationships Between Research and

Once again, the fundamentals of mathematics education are the subject of a

Relationships Between Research

What is the relationship between what is known from research in mathematics

Preparation of the more complete version of this article, to be published in an edited

WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT FROM RESEARCH?

Some Things We Should Not Expect From Research

of consensus is understandable given the rapid changes in mathematical compe-

of calculators, or a feature of instruction unrelated to calculators, and not the

on efficient execution of written computation procedures to a balance between a

Some Things We Can Expect From Research

lected systematically about what was going on in classrooms. We do not know

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM RESEARCH?

The Current State of Mathematics Teaching and Learning

How Effective Are the New Programs?

• Focus on the analysis of (multiple) methods. Classroom discussion usually

summary of these findings is presented in Hiebert et al., 1996.

Explaining the Lack of Implementation

Gender Differences in First-Grade

Martha Carr, Donna L. Jessup, and Diana Fuller

Keywords: Addition, subtraction; Children’s strategies; Gender issues; Metacognition; Parents’

manipulatives and boys tended to use invented derived facts. Metacognitive

The Role of Parents

The Role of Teachers

should influence teachers’ instruction on strategies and on the metacognitive

Procedure and Materials

es were checked against observed activities. This technique is a commonly used

Children’s perceptions of parents’ and teachers’ beliefs. The children were

Predictors of Parents’ and Teachers’ Reported Instruction

In the regression analyses shown in Table 3, gender by strategy use interac-

interaction predicting instruction on retrieval, for boys the relationship between

Parents’ and Teachers’ Instruction and Children’s Strategy Use and

Parents’ and Teachers’ Instruction and Perceived Parents’ and Teachers’

tle evidence in the literature on young children’s mathematical cognitive devel-

ties, and sex-related differences in learning mathematics. American Educational Research

APPENDIX A: PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE

“Discouraged the use of manipulatives” was scored as –1 point in the overt-strat-

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON TEACHER

The Dilemma of Transparency:

SOME THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL COMMENT

If an apprentice carpenter, for example, is to become a full participant in the

Access to a practice relates to the dual visibility and invisibility of its

classroom cultural processes (educational discourse). How do teachers manage

Teachers in different multilingual contexts revealed different teaching dilem-

Helen and Her Focus on Explicit Language Teaching

learners were construing and to respond appropriately. One summed up this

The School and Class

matics as language as well as her concern that mathematics should be contextu-

A VIGNETTE—A CLASSROOM EPISODE

Figure 1. Similar triangles.

Specifically, two groups’ explanations included the following expressions: “Uh,

Ss: (Some say no, and some say yes.)

40° 40° 20° 20°

Figure 2. Two sets of similar triangles.

Helen then recapped by drawing attention to diagrams on the board, to reiter-

Helen spoke about explicit language teaching on numerous occasions and in

In concluding her presentation for discussion to the workshop, Helen remarked