Contributions from CrossNational Comparative Studies to the Internationalization of Mathematics Education: Studies of Chinese and U.S. Classrooms
 Jinfa Cai,
 Frank Lester
 … show all 2 hide
Abstract
Crossnational studies offer a unique contribution to the internationalization of mathematics education. In particular, they provide mathematics educators with opportunities to situate the teaching and learning mathematics in a wider cultural context and to reflect on generalization of theories and practices of teaching and learning mathematics that have been developed in particular countries. In this chapter, we discuss a series of crossnational studies involving Chinese and U.S. students that illustrate to how cultural differences in Chinese and U.S. teachers’ teaching practices and beliefs affect the nature of their students’ mathematical performance. We do this by showing that the types of mathematical representations teachers present to students strongly influence the choice of representations students use to solve problems. Specifically, the Chinese teachers overwhelmingly used symbolic representations of instructional tasks, whereas the U.S. teachers relied almost exclusively on verbal explanations and pictorial representations, illustrating that mathematics teaching is local practice which takes place in settings that are both socially and culturally constrained. These results demonstrate the social and cultural nature of teachers’ pedagogical practice
 Atweh, B., & Clarkson, P. (2001). Internationalization and globalization of mathematics education: Toward an agenda for research/action. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B. Nebres, (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective, (pp. 77–94). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Ball, D. L. (1993). Halves, pieces, and troths: Constructing and using representational contexts in teaching fractions. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg, (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research, (pp. 328–375). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Baroody, A. J. (1990) How and when should placevalue concepts and skills be taught? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 281–286. CrossRef
 Becker, J. P., Sawada, T., & Shimizu, Y. (1999). Some findings of the U.S.Japan crosscultural research on students’ problemsolving behaviors. In G. Kaiser, E. Luna, & I. Huntley, (Eds.), International comparisons in mathematics education, (pp. 121–139). London: Falmer Press.
 Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Burrill, G. (1997). The NCTM standards: Eight years later. School Science and Mathematics, 97(6), 335–339. CrossRef
 Cai, J. (1995). A cognitive analysis of U.S. and Chinese students’ mathematical performance on tasks involving computation, simple problem solving, and complex problem solving, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education monograph series 7), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.
 Cai, J. (2000a). Mathematical thinking involved in U.S. and Chinese students’ solving processconstrained and processopen problems. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 309–340. CrossRef
 Cai, J. (2000b). Understanding and representing the arithmetic averaging algorithm: An analysis and comparison of U.S. and Chinese students’ responses. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31, 839–855. CrossRef
 Cai, J. (2001). Improving mathematics learning: Lessons from crossnational studies of U.S. and Chinese students. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 400–405.
 Cai, J. (2004). Why do U.S. and Chinese students think differently in mathematical problem solving? Exploring the impact of early algebra learning and teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 135–167.
 Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). U.S. and Chinese students’generalized and generative thinking in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 401–421. CrossRef
 Cai, J., & Lester, F. K. (2005). Solution and pedagogical representations in Chinese and U.S. classrooms. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3–4), 221–237. CrossRef
 Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1996). On different facets of mathematical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg & T. BenZeev, (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking,(pp. 253–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 DufourJanvier, B., Bednarz, N., & Belanger, M. (1987). Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation. In C. Janvier, (Ed.)_ Problems of representation in the teaching and learning mathematical problem solving(pp. 109–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Goldin, G. A. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem solving, In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education(pp. 197–218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Goldin, G. A. (2003). Representation in school mathematics: A unifying research perspective. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter, (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics(pp. 275–285). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
 Janvier, C. (1987). Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematical problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics.In D. Genter & A. L. Stevens (Ed.), Mental models(pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Leinhardt, G. (1993). On teaching. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–54)., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Mathematical Science Education Board. (1998). The nature and role of algebra in the K14 curriculum: Proceedings of a national symposium. Washington DC : National Research Council.
 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Author..
 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Author.
 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004).Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
 Pimm, D. (1995). Symbols and meanings in school mathematics. London: Routledge.
 Sekiguchi, Y. (1998). Mathematics education research as socially and culturally situated. In A. Serpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity(pp. 391–396). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 Silver, E. A., Leung, S. S., & Cai, J. (1995). Generating multiple solutions for a problem: A comparison of the responses of U.S. and Japanese students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28(1), 35–54. CrossRef
 Smith, S. P. (2003). Representation in school mathematics: Children’s representations of problems. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Ed.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics(pp. 263–274). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
 Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
 Title
 Contributions from CrossNational Comparative Studies to the Internationalization of Mathematics Education: Studies of Chinese and U.S. Classrooms
 Book Title
 Internationalisation and Globalisation in Mathematics and Science Education
 Book Part
 Section 2
 Pages
 pp 269283
 Copyright
 2007
 DOI
 10.1007/9781402059087_15
 Print ISBN
 9781402087905
 Online ISBN
 9781402059087
 Publisher
 Springer Netherlands
 Copyright Holder
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
 Additional Links
 Topics
 Keywords

 crossnational studies
 internationalization
 Chinese and U.S. Classrooms mathematical problem solving
 solution representations
 pedagogical representations
 eBook Packages
 Editors

 Bill Atweh ^{(1)}
 Angela Calabrese Barton ^{(2)}
 Marcelo C. Borba ^{(3)}
 Noel Gough ^{(4)}
 Christine Keitel ^{(5)}
 Catherine VistroYu ^{(6)}
 Renuka Vithal ^{(7)}
 Editor Affiliations

 1. Curtin University of Technology
 2. Columbia University
 3. State University of São Paulo
 4. La Trobe University
 5. Freie University Berlin
 6. Ateneo de Manila University
 7. University of KwaZuluNatal
 Authors

 Jinfa Cai ^{(8)}
 Frank Lester ^{(9)}
 Author Affiliations

 8. Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Delaware
 9. School of Education Indiana University, Indiana
Continue reading...
To view the rest of this content please follow the download PDF link above.