Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 73, Issue 2, pp 121–142

Fifth-grade students’ use and preferences for mathematically and practically based explanations



This paper focuses on fifth-grade students’ use and preference for mathematically (MB) and practically based (PB) explanations within two mathematical contexts: parity and equivalent fractions. Preference was evaluated based on three parameters: the explanation (1) was convincing, (2) would be used by the student in class, and (3) was one that the student wanted the teacher to use. Results showed that students generated more MB explanations than PB explanations for both contexts. However, when given a choice between various explanations, PB explanations were preferred in the context of parity, and no preference was shown for either type of explanation in the context of equivalent fractions. Possible bases for students’ preferences are discussed.


Elementary school students Mathematically based explanations Practically based explanations Parity Equivalent fractions 


  1. Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Constructivism in Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (1996). Mathematical discussion and perspective drawing in primary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 11–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., Boni, M., Ferri, F., & Garuti, R. (1999). Early approach to theoretical thinking: Gears in primary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezuk, N., & Bieck, M. (1993). Current research on rational numbers and common fractions: Summary and implications for teachers. In D. T. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom—middle grades mathematics (pp. 118–136). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  5. Bingolbali, E., & Monaghan, J. (2008). Concept image revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonotto, C. (2005). How informal out-of-school mathematics can help students make sense of formal in-school mathematics: The case of multiplying by decimal numbers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(4), 313–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonotto, C. (2006). Extending students’ understanding of decimal numbers via realistic mathematical modeling and problem posing. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics (vol. 2, pp. 193–200). Prague: Charles University Faculty of Education.Google Scholar
  8. Bowers, J., & Doerr, H. (2001). An analysis of prospective teachers’ dual roles in understanding the mathematics of change: Eliciting growth with technology. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruner, J. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Busse, A. (2005). Individual ways of dealing with the context of realistic tasks—first steps towards a typology. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37(5), 354–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman, O. (2006). Classroom practices for context of mathematics word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cobb, P., McLain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2003). Learning about statistical covariation. Cognition and Instruction, 21(1), 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connell, M., & Peck, D. (1993). Report of a conceptual intervention in elementary mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 329–350.Google Scholar
  14. Cramer, K., & Henry, A. (2002). Using manipulative models to build number sense for addition and fractions. In B. Litwiller (Ed.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions (pp. 41–48). Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  15. Davydov, V., & Tsvetkovich, Z. (1991). On the objective origin of the concept of fractions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 13(1), 13–64.Google Scholar
  16. Dreyfus, T. (1999). Why Johnny can’t prove. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  18. Fischbein, E. (1993). The interaction between the formal, the algorithmic and the intuitive components in a mathematical activity. In R. Biehler, R. Scholz, R. Straber, B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline (pp. 231–245). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  20. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Phillips, N., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students’ helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 97(3), 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ginsburg, H., & Seo, K. (1999). Mathematics in children’s thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Healey, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 396–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional reasoning in nursing practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Israel national mathematics curriculum (2006). Retrieved December 10, 2008, from
  26. Koren, M. (2004). Acquiring the concept of signed numbers: Incorporating practically-based and mathematically-based explanations. Aleh (in Hebrew), 32, 18–24.Google Scholar
  27. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.Google Scholar
  28. Levenson, E., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2004). Elementary school students’ use of mathematically-based and practically-based explanations: The case of multiplication. In M. Hoines, & A. Fuglestad (Eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol. 3 (pp. 241–248). Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
  29. Levenson, E., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2006). Mathematically and practically-based explanations: Individual preferences and sociomathematical norms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levenson, E., Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (2007a). First and second graders’ use of mathematically-based and practically-based explanations for multiplication with zero. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 29(2), 21–40.Google Scholar
  31. Levenson, E., Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (2007b). Elementary school teachers’ preferences for mathematically-based and practically-based explanations. In J. Novotna & H. Morava (Eds.), Approaches to teaching mathematics at the elementary level (pp. 166–173). Prague: SEMT 07.Google Scholar
  32. Levenson, E., Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (2007c). Neither even nor odd: Sixth grade students’ dilemmas regarding the parity of zero. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Linchevsky, L., & Williams, J. (1999). Using intuition from everyday life in ‘filling’ the gap in children’s extension of their number concept to include the negative numbers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mack, N. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mack, N. (1995). Confounding whole-number and fraction concepts when building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(5), 422–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  38. Nunes, T., Schliemann, A., & Carraher, W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Nyabanyaba, T. (1999). Whither relevance? Mathematics teachers’ discussion of the use of ‘real-life’ contexts in school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(3), 10–14.Google Scholar
  40. Parameswaran, R. (2007). On understanding the notion of limits and infinitesimal quantities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perry, M. (2000). Explanations of mathematical concepts in Japanese, Chinese, and U.S. first- and fifth-grade classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piaget, J. (1952). The child’s conception of number. New York: Humanities.Google Scholar
  43. Raman, M. (2002). Coordinating informal and formal aspects of mathematics: Student behavior and textbook messages. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ried, D. (2002). Elements in accepting an explanation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 527–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Streefland, L. (1987). Free production of fraction monographs. In J. C. Bergeron, N. Herscovics, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh international conference Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-XI) vol I (pp. 405–410). Montreal.Google Scholar
  46. Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education: A paradigm of developmental research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, A., Philipp, R., Thompson, P., & Boyd, B. (1994). Calculational and conceptual orientation in teaching mathematics. In A. Coxford (Ed.), 1994 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 79–92). Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  48. Tsamir, P., & Sheffer, R. (2000). Concrete and formal arguments: The case of division by zero. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(2), 92–106.Google Scholar
  49. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verschaffel, L., De corte, E., & Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic considerations in mathematical modeling of school arithmetic word problems. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu, H. (1999). Basic skills versus conceptual understanding: A bogus dichotomy. American Educator, 23(3), 14–19. 50-52.Google Scholar
  52. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yackel, E., Rasmussen, C., & King, K. (2000). Social and sociomathematical norms in an advanced undergraduate mathematics course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yoshida, H., Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (1997). Realistic considerations in solving problematic word problems: Do Japanese and Belgian children have the same difficulties. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations