Instructional Science

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 311–329 | Cite as

Preservice teachers’ use of contrasting cases in mathematics instruction

  • Katerina Schenke
  • Lindsey E. Richland


Drawing comparisons between students’ alternative solution strategies to a single mathematics problem is a powerful yet challenging instructional practice. We examined 80 preservice teachers’ when asked to design a short lesson when given a problem and two student solutions—one correct and one incorrect. These micro-teaching events were videotaped and coded, revealing that fewer than half of participants (43%) made any explicit comparison or contrasts between the two solution strategies. Those who did were still not likely to use additional support strategies to draw students’ attention to key elements of the comparison. Further, correlations suggest that participants’ mathematical content knowledge may be related to whether participants’ showed contrasting cases but not to whether they used specific pedagogical cues to support those comparisons. While these micro-teaching events differ from the interactive constraints of a classroom, they reveal that participants did not immediately orient toward differing student solutions as a discussion opportunity, and that future instruction on contrasting cases must highlight the utility of this practice.


Teacher cognition and practices Professional development Mathematics education 



This work was supported by a National Science Foundation CAREER Award to the second author, NSF#0954222, and an NSF Science of Learning Center, SPE 0541957. We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their feedback on previous versions on this paper.


  1. Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J., Wolfgram, M. S., Church, R. B., Jacobs, S. A., Johnson Martinez, C., et al. (2014). How teachers link ideas in mathematics instruction using speech and gesture: A corpus analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 32(1), 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baroody, A. J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1983). The effects of instruction on children’s understanding of the” equals” sign. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartell, T. G., Webel, C., Bowen, B., & Dyson, N. (2013). Prospective teacher learning: recognizing evidence of conceptual understanding. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Begolli, K., & Richland, L. E. (2016). Teaching mathematics by comparison: Analog visibility as a double-edged sword. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 194–213. doi: 10.1037/edu0000056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth, J. L., Lange, K. E., Koedinger, K. R., & Newton, K. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Empson, S. B., & Levi, L. W. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from
  10. Dalehefte, I. M., Prenzel, M., & Seidel, T. (2012). Reflecting on learning from errors in school instruction: Findings and suggestions from a Swiss-German video study. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human fallibility. The ambiguity of errors for work and learning. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Durkin, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. English, L. D. (Ed.). (1997). Mathematical reasoning: analogies, metaphors, and images. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. English, L. D. (2004). Promoting the development of young children’s mathematical and analogical reasoning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical and analogical reasoning of young learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. L. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 306–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. L. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 612–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S. W., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 631–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hadfield, O. D., Littleton, C. E., Steiner, R. L., & Woods, E. S. (1998). Predictors of preservice elementary teacher effectiveness in the micro-teaching of mathematics lessons. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(1), 34–48.Google Scholar
  21. 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, 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study., NCES 2003-013 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  23. Hill, H., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking “pedagogical content knowledge”: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  24. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kajander, A. (2007). Unpacking mathematics for teaching: A study of preservice elementary teachers’ evolving mathematical understandings and beliefs. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 22–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational studies in Mathematics, 12(3), 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. Knuth, E. J., Stephens, A. C., McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 297–312.Google Scholar
  29. Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Lynch, K., & Star, J. R. (2014). Views of struggling students on instruction incorporating multiple strategies in Algebra I: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(1), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., Kelley-Petersen, M., Mikolasy, K., Thompson, J., Valencia, S. W., et al. (2014). Practice makes practice: Learning to teach in teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 500–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  35. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newton, K. J. (2008). An extensive analysis of preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge of fractions. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1080–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers. Beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  38. Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy generation in eighth grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(3), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316, 1128–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J., & Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 836–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13(4), 629–639.Google Scholar
  45. Santagata, R. (2004). “Are you joking or are you sleeping”. Cultural beliefs and practices in Italian and U.S. teachers’ mistake-handling strategies. Linguistics and Education, 15, 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santagata, R. (2005). Practice and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A video study of Italian and US mathematics lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Santagata, R., & Yeh, C. (2014). Learning to teach mathematics and to analyze teaching effectiveness: Evidence from a video-and practice-based approach. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(6), 491–514.Google Scholar
  48. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seaman, C. E., & Szydlik, J. E. (2007). Mathematical sophistication among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(3), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In N. Garnott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: A process-oriented perspective for studying development and learning (pp. 31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Strawhun, B. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, M., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  53. Star, J. R., Caronongan, P., Foegen, A., Furgeson, J., Keating, B., Larson, M. R., Lyskawa, J., McCallum, W. G., Porath, J., & Zbiek, R. M. (2015). Teaching strategies for improving algebra knowledge in middle and high school students (NCEE 2014-4333). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evalua- tion and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website:
  54. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Helping teachers learn to better incorporate student thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–17.Google Scholar
  56. Stockero, S. L. (2008). Using a video-based curriculum to develop a reflective stance in prospective mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(5), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–595.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Education & Information StudiesUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Comparative Human Development and the Committee on EducationUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations