Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ talk about the mathematical practice of attending to precision

  • Published:
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, J. B. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieda, K. N. (2010). Enacting proof-related tasks in middle school mathematics: Challenges and opportunities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 351–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 375–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. B. (2011). Generalizing-promoting actions: How classroom collaborations can support students’ mathematical generalizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 308–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2003). An introduction to functional grammar. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2002). Using student contributions and multiple representations to develop mathematical language. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8, 100–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Cirillo, M. (Eds.). (2009). Promoting purposeful discourse: Teacher research in mathematics classrooms. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Otten, S. (2011). Mapping mathematics in classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 451–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Steele, M., & Cirillo, M. (2013). (Developing) teacher discourse moves: A framework for professional development. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1, 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lannin, J. K. (2005). Generalization and justification: The challenge of introducing algebraic reasoning through patterning activities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 231–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Greenwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2005). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moschkovich, J. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowlin, D. (2007). Precision: The neglected part of the measurement standard. Mathematics Teacher, 100, 356–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. New York, NY: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulos, J. A. (1997). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness and generalisation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubenstein, R. (1985). Computational estimation and related mathematical skills. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 106–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voskoglou, M. G., & Kosyvas, G. D. (2012). Analyzing students’ difficulties in understanding real numbers. REDIMAT Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 1, 301–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. University of Missouri, 121B Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Samuel Otten

  2. Central Connecticut State University, Marcus White 127, New Britain, CT, 06050, USA

    Lindsay M. Keazer

  3. University of Missouri, 119 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Ruveyda Karaman

Authors
  1. Samuel Otten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lindsay M. Keazer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruveyda Karaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Otten.

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.

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9375-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation