Advertisement

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 375–400 | Cite as

Productive struggle in middle school mathematics classrooms

  • Hiroko Kawaguchi WarshauerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Prior studies suggest that struggling to make sense of mathematics is a necessary component of learning mathematics with understanding. Little research exists, however, on what the struggles look like for middle school students and how they can be productive. This exploratory case study, which used episodes as units of analysis, examined 186 episodes of struggles in middle school students as they engaged in tasks focused on proportional reasoning. The study developed a classification structure for student struggles and teacher responses with descriptions of the kinds of student struggle and kinds of teacher responses that occurred. The study also identified and characterized ways in which teaching supported the struggles productively. Interaction resolutions were viewed through the lens of (a) how the cognitive demand of the task was maintained, (b) how student struggle was addressed and (c) how student thinking was supported. A Productive Struggle Framework was developed to capture the episodes of struggle episodes from initiation, to interaction and to resolution. Data included transcripts from 39 class session videotapes, teacher and student interviews and field notes. Participants were 327 6th- and 7th-grade students and their six teachers from three middle schools located in mid-size Texas cities. This study suggests the productive role student struggle can play in supporting “doing mathematics” and its implications on student learning with understanding. Teachers and instructional designers can use this framework as a tool to integrate student struggle into tasks and instructional practices rather than avoid or prevent struggle.

Keywords

Student learning Instructional practice Middle school mathematics Productive struggle Persistence 

References

  1. Adams, D., & Hamm, M. (2008). Helping students who struggle with math and science: A collaborative approach for elementary and middle schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  2. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anghileri, J. (2006). Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 27–44). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  6. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory consideration in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boaler, J., & Humphreys, C. (2005). Connecting mathematical ideas: Middle school video cases to support teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  10. Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as “springboards for inquiry”: A teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 166–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borasi, R. (1996). Reconceiving mathematics instruction: A focus on errors. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  12. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brownwell, W. A., & Sims, V. M. (1946). The nature of understanding. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part I. The measurement of understanding (pp. 27–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1987). Written and oral mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carter, S. (2008). Disequilibrium & questioning in the primary classroom: Establishing routines that help students learn. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(3), 134–138.Google Scholar
  16. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  17. Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 2–10.Google Scholar
  18. Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243–307). The Netherlands: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom practice. In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 91–119). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cramer, K., & Post, T. (1993). Connecting research to teaching proportional reasoning. Mathematics Teacher, 86(5), 404–407.Google Scholar
  21. De-Hoyos, M. G., Gray, E. M., & Simpson, A. P. (2004). Pseudo-solutioning. Research in Mathematics Education-Papers of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 6, 101–113.Google Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (1910, 1933). How we think. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
  23. Doerr, H. M. (2006). Examining the tasks of teaching when using students’ mathematical thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in Mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., MacIver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students’ motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eggleton, P. J., & Moldavan, C. (2001). The value of mistakes. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(1), 42–47.Google Scholar
  29. Ellis, A. B. (2011). Generalizing-promoting actions: How classroom collaborations can support students’ mathematical generalizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(4), 308–345.Google Scholar
  30. Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. S. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook for qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Fawcett, L. M., & Gourton, A. F. (2005). The effects of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  33. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plaines, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Gresalfi, M. S. (2004). Taking up opportunities to learn: Examining the construction of participatory mathematical identities in middle school classrooms. Unpublished Dissertation, Stanford, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  35. Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(49–70), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Handa, Y. (2003). A phenomenological exploration of mathematical engagement: Approaching an old metaphor anew. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23, 22–28.Google Scholar
  37. Haneda, M. (2004). The joint construction of meaning in writing conferences. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 178–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hatano, G. (1988). Social and motivational bases for mathematical understanding. New Directions for Child Development, 41, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heinz, K., & Sterba-Boatwright, B. (2008). The when and why of using proportions. Mathematics Teacher, 101(7), 528–533.Google Scholar
  40. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2005). Questioning our patterns of questioning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(9), 484–489.Google Scholar
  42. Hersh, R. (1997). What is mathematics, really?. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In J. Frank & K. Lester (Eds.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  45. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (2003). Developing understanding through problem solving. In H. L. Schoen & R. I. Charles (Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Grades (pp. 6–12). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  46. Holt, J. (1982). How students fail (revised edition). New York: Delta/Seymour Lawrence.Google Scholar
  47. Inagaki, K., Hatano, G., & Morita, E. (1998). Construction of mathematical knowledge through whole-class discussion. Learning and Instruction, 8, 503–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., Philipp, R. A., & Schappelle, B. P. (2011). Deciding how to respond on the basis of children’s understandings. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing (pp. 97–116). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  49. Kapur, M. (2009). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38, 523–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kapur, M. (2011). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components. Instructional Science, 39(4), 561–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kulm, G., & Bussmann, H. (1980). A phase-ability model of mathematics problem solving. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 11(3).Google Scholar
  55. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems with teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional Reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 93–118). Reston, VA: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stierer, B. (Eds.). (1992). Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project. Seven Oaks, Kent: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  60. McCabe, T., Warshauer, M., & Warshauer, H. (2009). Mathematics exploration part 2. Champaign, IL: Stipes.Google Scholar
  61. Michell, M., & Sharpe, T. (2005). Collective instructional scaffolding in English as a Second Language classrooms. Prospect, 20(1), 31–58.Google Scholar
  62. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  63. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  64. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestraing thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins or intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Piaget, J. (1960). The psychology of intelligence. Garden City, NY: Littlefield, Adams Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Austin.Google Scholar
  69. Polya, G. (1945, 1957). How to solve it (2nd ed.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  70. Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). Iterating between lessons on concepts and procedures can improve mathematics knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Santagata, R. (2005). Practices and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A video study of Italian and US mathematics lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schielack, J., Charles, R. I., Clements, D., Duckett, P., Fennell, F., Lewandowski, S., et al. (2006). Curriculum focal points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  74. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  75. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  77. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). Reflection on doing and teaching mathematics. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 53–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  78. Silver, E. A., & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR Project: The ‘revolution of the possible’ in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Education, 30, 476–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3, 344–350.Google Scholar
  80. Sorto, M. A., McCabe, T., Warshauer, M., & Warshauer, H. (2009). Understanding the value of a question: An analysis of a lesson. Journal of Mathematical Sciences & Mathematics Education, 4(1), 50–60.Google Scholar
  81. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Education Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  84. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  85. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280.Google Scholar
  87. Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2005). Chapter 111. Texas essential knowledge and skills for mathematics subchapter B. Middle school.http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter111/index.html.
  88. VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition & Instruction, 21(3), 209–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. vanZee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Science, 6(2), 227–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2004). What is high quality instruction. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 24–28.Google Scholar
  91. Williams, S. R., & Baxter, J. A. (1996). Dilemmas of discourse-oriented teaching in one middle school mathematics classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  93. Zaslavsky, O. (2005). Seizing the opportunity to create uncertainty in learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(3), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations