Illustration 4: Supporting teachers in analyzing the results of a test on area

The episode we report in this section occurred in the Making Mathematics Reform a Reality (MMRR) project described in Chapter 2. It was part of the field experiences that took place in the first year of the professional development program. In the MMRR project a mathematics teacher educator was assigned to each school as school facilitator to support participating teachers as they implemented innovative instructional experiences in their classes. The professional development activity described below took place while one of the school facilitators worked with two 7th grade teachers implementing their first inquiry unit, an adaptation of the inquiry on area described in Chapter 1.

The two teachers had designed a comprehensive paper-and-pencil test to assess what their students had learned about area at the end of the unit. This test included items to assess whether students could compute the area of different figures, describe the strategies they used to solve these problems and show understanding of some basic concepts about area. The teachers had already graded these tests, but when the school facilitator asked them to say what they thought their students actually learned about area and what aspects of area might still be a problem, neither teacher felt able to respond.

The facilitator then suggested that each teacher select three or four student papers that presented interesting differences in students responses and re-examine these tests to determine what each student knew or did not know about area. In the after-school meeting scheduled to discuss their findings, both teachers expressed surprise at the challenge this analysis presented, especially since grading the test had been rather straightforward. In several cases, they came to the meeting with just a guess about why a student might have answered a question in a certain way. The discussion that developed as everyone tried to make sense of such puzzling responses was very informative. It often clarified some mathematical points about area, uncovered the student’s thinking process and helped teachers further articulate their instructional goals for the unit. Since some student work revealed particular misconceptions, the facilitator also asked both teachers to brainstorm ideas about how to help each student gain a better understanding, either in individual after-school sessions or in future classroom instruction.

Although not planned as part of the professional development program, this experience was an eye-opener for the both the teachers and the school facilitator. Among other things, it engendered a greater appreciation for the importance of analyzing students’ work, and it also called into question the grading process that the teachers had so far taken for granted as a viable way to measure student learning.

Main elements and variations

As stated at the beginning of the chapter, analyzing students’ thinking involves primarily the in-depth examination and discussion of selected artifacts of students’ mathematical activity. Effective implementations of this type of professional development also require the following:

Worthwhile student artifacts for analysis. Discussions around the selected artifact will be rich only when the mathematical task(s) assigned to the students admit more than one solution and/or methods of solution, and result in partial or incorrect solutions by some students.
Alternative interpretations to be examined. As teachers first analyze the artifacts, they should be requested to generate a variety of hypotheses about possible interpretations. The group can then examine each hypothesis for its likelihood of being correct.

Although analyzing students’ thinking may at first appear straightforward, our illustrations show that there is not just one way to implement this kind of professional development. Considerable variations can occur depending on the kind of student artifacts available, who provides them, and how teachers analyze them.

For example, teachers can analyze productively the following kinds of student artifacts:

Written work students produce in response to homework assignments or assessments.
Videotaped “clinical interviews,” where the interviewer presents a student with a mathematical task and asks probing questions about what the child is doing and why.
Videotaped excerpts and/or written transcripts of actual lessons in which students actively discuss a mathematical topic, solve problems in a group or report on the results of individual and/or small-group work.
Cases” or narratives of classroom experiences created to highlight the mathematical thinking and activities of selected students.

The suitability of each type of artifact depends on the goals of the professional development experience. For example, among the artifacts listed above, written work may reveal the least because it is only a product of student thinking, and even the student’s written explanation of his/her solution may not always be enlightening. On the other hand, this kind of artifact presents some unique advantages, as teachers can quickly skim through the work of several different students, noting similarities and differences that can generate interesting questions and speculations. Clinical interviews are more likely to reveal the thinking processes of an individual student working to solve a problem alone. Video excerpts from a mathematics lesson may instead allow teachers to analyze the interaction among several learners working on a mathematical task. Finally, while videos and/or transcripts of a problem-solving session can capture the actual dialogue of students working on mathematical tasks, they do not provide background information on the individual learners or the instructional context to support interpretations of the learning event. Cases, or classroom narratives, on the other hand, usually do offer such information, but they are necessarily based on the writer’s interpretation of the event, which may unduly influence the teachers’ analysis of the students’ thinking and reasoning.

Who provided the artifacts to be examined can also affect the implementation of this type of professional development. The main options in this case are as follows:

The facilitator provides the artifacts, or
The teachers themselves collect the artifacts from their own students.

Once again, each option has its strengths and weaknesses. Only when the facilitator provides the artifacts can these be carefully selected beforehand to illustrate specific kinds of student strategies or misconceptions. Also, some teachers may feel somewhat uncomfortable and defensive when using their own students’ work. On the other hand, teachers may be more interested and motivated in analyzing their own students’ work. Moreover, collecting and making sense of their own students’ work apprentices teachers immediately to the daily process of analyzing student thinking. Several programs, cognizant of the benefits and limitations of each option, do both. That is, teachers experience a guided analysis of pre-selected artifacts first, and then they collect and analyze student work from their own classroom.

How the artifacts are analyzed also varies, depending on the main goals of the professional development experience. The most interesting variations occur along the following dimensions:

 The extent to which the facilitator structures and focuses the analysis.
 The role the facilitator plays in the analysis and/or discussion of the artifacts.
 The role that research-based knowledge of student thinking about the mathematical topic plays in the analysis. It is worth noting that, while using research is always highly desirable, to date there are only a few mathematical topics for which substantial research on student thinking is available.
 The extent to which instructional implications of the analysis are explicitly addressed.
 The nature and extent of follow-up experiences that could extend what teachers learn from analyzing the artifacts.

Analyzing students’ thinking can occur in any of the formats we identified in Chapter 3: summer institutes, university courses, workshops, study groups, one-on-one interactions with a teacher educator, and independent work.

Facilitators for this type of professional development experience are most effective if they understand clearly the mathematics principles underlying the tasks being analyzed and know well the research on students’ thinking in the particular mathematical topic.

previous page
CHAPTER 5 continued