Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
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.
Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 73–77.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Geva, Y. (1997). Mathematics for 3-units: Linear programming, statistics and probability, Vol.3. Tel Aviv: Author (in Hebrew).
Goren, B. (1993). Statistics and probability (3 & 4 learning units). Tel Aviv: Author (in Hebrew).
Goren, B. (2002). A collection of matriculation exams for 4 learning units. Tel Aviv: Author (in Hebrew).
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.
Hollingsworth, H., Lokan, J. & McCrae, B. (2003). Teaching mathematics in Australia. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Manouchehri, A. & Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge within. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 1–34.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
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).
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Page, R. N. (1991). Lower-track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.
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.
Sabar Ben-Yehoshua (1997). Qualitative research in teaching and learning. Tel Aviv: Modan (in Hebrew).
Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179.
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.
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. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid= 1999074
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tirosh, D., Even, R. & Robinson, N. (1998). Simplifying algebraic expressions: Teacher awareness and teaching approaches. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 51–64.
William, D. (1998). What makes investigation difficult. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 329–353.
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.
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.
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.
Zohar, A., Degani, A. & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469–485.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Even, R., Kvatinsky, T. APPROACHES TO TEACHING MATHEMATICS IN LOWER-ACHIEVING CLASSES. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 7, 957–985 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9141-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9141-z