• Ruhama EvenEmail author
  • Tova Kvatinsky


This study examines a commonly held view that teachers tend to focus less on developing understanding and more on mechanistic answer-finding when teaching in classes of lower-achieving students. The study investigates this by analyzing actual practices of teaching mathematics and of classroom interactions in classes having different levels taught by the same teacher. Four classes taught by two teachers participated in the study. Each teacher taught the same probability syllabus in two of the classes; one class of higher- and one of lower-achieving students. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of observed teaching practices and classroom interactions suggest that one teacher adopted a teaching for mechanistic answer-finding approach in both of her classes, whereas the other teacher used a teaching-for-understanding approach. In contrast with current literature, both teaching approaches were somewhat amplified in the lower-level class of each teacher. The manuscript suggests that in their own way, each teacher attempted to help more those students who encountered more difficulties—the lower-achieving students—and they did so by using the resources available to them. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Key words

classroom interactions mathematics teaching probability teaching teaching approach teaching for mechanistic answer-finding teaching for understanding teaching low-achievers 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arcavi, A., Hadas, N. & Dreyfus, T. (1994). Engineering curriculum tasks on the basis of theoretical and empirical findings. In J. P. da Ponta & J. F. Matos (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 280–287). Lisbon: University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
  2. Bauersfeld, H. Interaction, construction, and knowledge: alternative perspectives for mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching (pp. 27–46). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K. & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 73–77.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, R. B. (1989). Three ways of improving cognitive studies in algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 115–119). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  8. Eisenmann, T. & Even, R. (in press). Similarities and differences in the types of algebraic activities in two classes taught by the same teacher. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Even, R. & Lappan, G. (1994). Constructing meaningful understanding of mathematics content. In D. B. A. F. Aichele Coxford (Ed.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics, 1994 Yearbook (pp. 128–143). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  10. Even, R. & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teacher knowledge and understanding of students’ mathematical learning. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 219–240). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Geva, Y. (1997). Mathematics for 3-units: Linear programming, statistics and probability, Vol.3. Tel Aviv: Author (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  12. Goren, B. (1993). Statistics and probability (3 & 4 learning units). Tel Aviv: Author (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  13. Goren, B. (2002). A collection of matriculation exams for 4 learning units. Tel Aviv: Author (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  14. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). In Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. NCES. CD Rom: Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  15. Hollingsworth, H., Lokan, J. & McCrae, B. (2003). Teaching mathematics in Australia. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  16. Manouchehri, A. & Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge within. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ministry of Education (1998). Bank of mathematics questions for the 3-unit level Matriculation exam, unified program. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, Testing Unit (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Page, R. N. (1991). Lower-track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B. & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 523–555.Google Scholar
  24. Sabar Ben-Yehoshua (1997). Qualitative research in teaching and learning. Tel Aviv: Modan (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  25. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stigler, J. W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P. A., Kawanka, T., Knoll, S. & Serrano, A. (February 1999). The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. 1999074
  28. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Tirosh, D., Even, R. & Robinson, N. (1998). Simplifying algebraic expressions: Teacher awareness and teaching approaches. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. William, D. (1998). What makes investigation difficult. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood, T. (1994). Patterns of interaction and the culture of mathematics classrooms. In S. Lerman (Ed.), The culture of the mathematics classroom (pp. 149–68). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  33. Wood, T., Williams, G. & McNeal, B. (2006). Children’s mathematical thinking in different classroom cultures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3), 222–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yair, G. (1997). Teachers’ polarization in heterogeneous classrooms and the social distribution of achievements: An Israeli case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zohar, A., Degani, A. & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zohar, A. & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students—Are they mutually exclusive. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science TeachingWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  2. 2.Talpiot College of EducationTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations