Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 181–203 | Cite as

Exploring one student’s explanations at different ages: the case of Sharon

Article

Abstract

This study describes the types of explanations one student, Sharon, gives and prefers at different ages. Sharon is interviewed in the second grade regarding multiplication of one-digit numbers, in the fifth grade regarding even and odd numbers, and in the sixth grade regarding equivalent fractions. In the tenth grade, she revisits each of these concepts again. The study investigates the different forms Sharon’s explanations take at different ages as well as how she perceives the nature of mathematical explanations at different ages. Sharon’s explanations are also used to investigate her conceptualization of the number zero, a concept which runs across the curriculum at different ages. Finally, the study explores a method for investigating the long-term mathematical development of one student. Implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Mathematically based explanations Practically based explanations Zero 

References

  1. Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2004). Zero: A “none” number? Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(1), 38–41.Google Scholar
  3. Balacheff, N. (2010). Bridging knowing and proving in mathematics: A didactical perspective. In G. Hanna, H. N. Jahnke, & H. Pulte (Eds.), Explanation and proof in mathematics: Philosophical and educational perspectives (pp. 115–136). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, D. (1990). Prospective elementary and secondary teachers’ understanding of division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(2), 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 (pp. 193–224). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Board of Studies NSW (2006). Mathematics K-6 syllabus. Retrieved February 5, 2010 from http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/files/maths/k6_maths_syl.pdf
  7. De Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17–24.Google Scholar
  8. Dreyfus, T. (1999). Why Johnny can’t prove. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1–3), 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2006). Epistemic dimensions of students’ mathematics-related belief system. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1–2), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  12. Hanna, G. (1989). More than formal proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(1), 20–25.Google Scholar
  13. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Israel National Mathematics Curriculum (2006). Retrieved December 10, 2009, from http://cms.education.gov.il
  16. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Krummheuer, G. (2000). Mathematics learning in narrative classroom cultures: Studies of argumentation in primary mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(1), 22–32.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levenson, E. (2010). Fifth grade students’ use and preferences for mathematically and practically based explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levenson, E., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2009). Students’ perceived sociomathematical norms: The missing paradigm. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levenson, E., Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (2007). 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
  22. 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
  23. Maher, C., & Martino, A. (1996). The development of the idea of mathematical proof: A 5-year case study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 194–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mancosu, P. (2008). Explanation in mathematics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/mathematics-explanation/
  25. Mueller, M. (2009). The co-construction of arguments by middle-school students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  27. Nunokawa, K. (2010). Proof, mathematical problem-solving, and explanation in mathematics teaching. In G. Hanna, H. N. Jahnke, & H. Pulte (Eds.), Explanation and proof in mathematics: Philosophical and educational perspectives (pp. 223–236). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pogliani, L., Randic, M., & Trinajstic, N. (1998). Much ado about nothing—an introductive inquiry about zero. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 29(5), 729–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seife, C. (2000). Zero: The biography of a dangerous idea. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  30. Tall, D. (2004). Thinking through three worlds of mathematics. In M. Hoines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 281–288). Bergen, Norway: PME.Google Scholar
  31. Tsamir, P., Sheffer, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). Intuitions and undefined operations: The case of division by zero. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  32. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, P. (2001). Zero: A special case. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(5), 300–303, 308–309.Google Scholar
  36. Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education PME-25, (Vol. 1, pp. 1–9). Utrecht, the Netherlands: PME.Google Scholar
  37. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1998). The interactive constitution of mathematical meaning in one second grade classroom: An illustrative example. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zazkis, R., & Chernoff, E. J. (2008). What makes a counterexample exemplary? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(3), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations