Abstract
The discipline of mathematics values precision and teachers are accountable for promoting and supporting their students in attending to precision (ATP), which in the USA is an explicit standard for mathematical practice included in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. This study used thematic discourse analysis to examine how eight middle and high school teachers understand and interpret the mathematical practice of ATP through discussion within a teacher learning community. Findings suggest that teachers’ talk prioritized the themes of precision with numerical quantities, precision with vocabulary, and precision with symbols. In many cases, these themes were discussed through examples from the teachers’ experiences with students and the focus was on being precise (or not) rather than attending to issues of precision. Their discourse also highlighted the teachers’ influential role in engaging their students in ATP and the relationship between ATP and student learning, with some teachers articulating a direct relationship of teachers explaining ATP to students and other teachers articulating a complex relationship of experiences via ATP. Overall, teachers’ perspectives on ATP provide insight into how they create opportunities for students to engage in ATP in their classrooms and may inform the development of shared meaning about ATP across the field.
References
Adler, J. (1999). The dilemma of transparency: Seeing and seeing through talk in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 47–64.
Adler, J. B. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. New York, NY: Springer.
Bieda, K. N. (2010). Enacting proof-related tasks in middle school mathematics: Challenges and opportunities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 351–382.
Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 375–402.
Ellis, A. B. (2011). Generalizing-promoting actions: How classroom collaborations can support students’ mathematical generalizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 308–345.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Press.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2003). An introduction to functional grammar. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2002). Using student contributions and multiple representations to develop mathematical language. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8, 100–105.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Cirillo, M. (Eds.). (2009). Promoting purposeful discourse: Teacher research in mathematics classrooms. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Johnson, K. R., Otten, S., Cirillo, M., & Steele, M. D. (2015). Mapping talk about the mathematics register in a secondary mathematics teacher study group. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 29–42.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Otten, S. (2011). Mapping mathematics in classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 451–485.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Steele, M., & Cirillo, M. (2013). (Developing) teacher discourse moves: A framework for professional development. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1, 181–196.
Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289–318.
Johnson, R., Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., & Leary, H. (2016). Teachers, tasks, and tensions: Lessons from a research-practice partnership. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19, 169–185.
Joint Commission of the Mathematical Association of America and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1940). The place of mathematics in secondary education. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Kaplan, J. J., Fisher, D. G., & Rogness, N. T. (2009). Lexical ambiguity in statistics: What do students know about the words association, average, confidence, random and spread. Journal of Statistics Education, 17(3), 1–19.
Kidd, D. H., Madsen, A. L., & Lamb, C. E. (1993). Mathematics vocabulary: Performance of residential deaf students. School Science and Mathematics, 93(8), 418–421.
Koestler, C., Felton, M. D., Bieda, K. N., & Otten, S. (2013). Connecting the NCTM process standards and the CCSSM practices. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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, 29–63.
Lannin, J. K. (2005). Generalization and justification: The challenge of introducing algebraic reasoning through patterning activities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 231–258.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Greenwood Publishing.
Males, L. M., Otten, S., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2010). Challenges of critical colleagueship: Examining and reflecting on study group interactions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 459–471.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2005). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum International.
Moschkovich, J. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 189–212.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers.
Nowlin, D. (2007). Precision: The neglected part of the measurement standard. Mathematics Teacher, 100, 356–360.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. New York, NY: Continuum.
Otten, S., Gilbertson, N. J., Males, L. M., & Clark, D. L. (2014). The mathematical nature of reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16, 51–79.
Paulos, J. A. (1997). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday.
Powell, S. R., & Driver, M. K. (2014). The influence of mathematics vocabulary instruction embedded within addition tutoring for first-grade students with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(4), 221–233.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46, 705–718.
Reys, R. E., Rybolt, J. F., Bestgen, B. J., & Wyatt, J. W. (1982). Processes used by good computational estimators. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 183–201.
Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness and generalisation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 19–26.
Rubenstein, R. (1985). Computational estimation and related mathematical skills. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 106–119.
Schleppegrell, M. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159.
Sowder, J. T., & Wheeler, M. M. (1989). The development of concepts and strategies used in computational estimation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 130–146.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), Confronting complexity: Defining the field of education policy implementation. Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
Voskoglou, M. G., & Kosyvas, G. D. (2012). Analyzing students’ difficulties in understanding real numbers. REDIMAT Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 1, 301–336.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webel, C., & Platt, D. (2015). The role of professional obligations in working to change one’s teaching practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 204–217.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the University of Missouri Research Council and the University of Missouri System Research Board (Grant No. URC-13-071). We thank Christopher Engledowl and Vickie Spain for their assistance on the project, and the participating teachers, who made this work possible.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Common core description of attend to precision
Appendix: Common core description of attend to precision
Mathematically proficient students try to communicate precisely to others. They try to use clear definitions in discussion with others and in their own reasoning. They state the meaning of the symbols they choose, including using the equal sign consistently and appropriately. They are careful about specifying units of measure, and labeling axes to clarify the correspondence with quantities in a problem. They calculate accurately and efficiently, express numerical answers with a degree of precision appropriate for the problem context. In the elementary grades, students give carefully formulated explanations to each other. By the time they reach high school they have learned to examine claims and make explicit use of definitions (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers 2010, p. 7).
The following figure depicts a “clean map” of semantic relations from the CCSS-M paragraph above. The entire map is situated within the context of attending to precision.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Otten, S., Keazer, L.M. & Karaman, R. Teachers’ talk about the mathematical practice of attending to precision. J Math Teacher Educ 22, 69–93 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9375-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9375-1