Assignment 1 TJ

1 AMERICAN EDUCATOR/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS FALL 1999

THE TITLE of this article is also the title of a remark- able new book written by Liping Ma.1 The basic

format of the book is simple. Each of the first four chapters opens with a standard topic in elementary school mathematics, presented as a part of a situation that would arise naturally in a classroom. These scenar- ios are followed by extensive discussion by teachers regarding how they would handle each problem, and this discussion is interspersed with commentary by Liping Ma.

Here are the four scenarios:

Scenario 1: Subtraction with Regrouping

Let’s spend some time thinking about one particular topic that you may work with when you teach: sub- traction with regrouping. Look at these questions:

52 91 – 25 – 79

How would you approach these problems if you were teaching second grade? What would you say pupils would need to understand or be able to do be- fore they could start learning subtraction with re- grouping?

* * * Scenario 2: Multidigit Multiplication

Some sixth-grade teachers noticed that several of their students were making the same mistake in multi- plying large numbers. In trying to calculate

123 3 645

the students seemed to be forgetting to “move the numbers” (i.e., the partial products) over on each line. They were doing this:

123 3 645

615 492 738

1845

instead of this:

123 3 645

615 492

738 79335

While these teachers agreed that this was a problem, they did not agree on what to do about it. What would you do if you were teaching sixth grade and you no- ticed that several of your students were doing this?

* * * Scenario 3: Division by Fractions People seem to have different approaches to solving problems involving division with fractions. How do you solve a problem like this one?

1³⁄₄ ÷ ¹⁄₂

Imagine that you are teaching division with fractions. To make this meaningful for kids, something that many teachers try to do is relate mathematics to other things. Sometimes they try to come up with real-world situations or story problems to show the application of some particular piece of content. What would you say would be a good story or model for 1³⁄₄ ÷ ¹⁄₂?

* * * Scenario 4: The Relationship Between Perimeter and Area Imagine that one of your students comes to class very excited. She tells you that she has figured out a theory that you never told the class. She explains that she has discovered that as the perimeter of a closed figure in- creases, the area also increases. She shows you this

KNOWING AND TEACHING

ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS

BY RICHARD ASKEY

Richard Askey is John Bascom Professor of Mathe- matics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In addition to work on special functions, he has a long term interest in the history of mathematics, and of the life and work of the great Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.

picture to prove what she is doing:

How would you respond to this student?

* * * The 20- to 30-page discussions that follow each of

these four problems are the richest examples I have encountered of teachers explaining what it means to really know and be able to teach elementary school mathematics. As the word “understanding” continues to be bandied about loosely in the debates over math education, this book provides a much-needed ground- ing. It disabuses people of the notion that elementary school mathematics is simple—or easy to teach. It cau- tions us, as Ma says in her conclusion, that “the key to reform...[is to] focus on substantive mathematics.” And at the book’s heart is the idea that student understand- ing is heavily dependent on teacher understanding. We can all learn from this book.

The problem that best illustrates the insights in this book is the one about the division of fractions. For that reason and because of space limitations, I will confine my comments in this article to that problem.

The teachers Ma interviewed composed numerous story problems to illustrate fractional division. They also explained the mathematical reasoning that under- lies the calculation of division of fractions. And they provided mathematical proofs for their calculation pro- cedures.

Before giving examples of story problems composed by the teachers Ma interviewed, it is worthwhile to give a general picture of different types of division problems, using whole numbers:

• 8 feet / 2 feet = 4 (measurement model) • 8 feet / 2 = 4 feet (partitive model) • 8 square feet / 2 feet = 4 feet (product and factors)

Now if we substitute fractions, using 1³⁄₄ in place of 8 and ¹⁄₂ in place of 2, these categories can be illus- trated by the following examples:

• How many ¹⁄₂ foot lengths are there in something that is 1 and ³⁄₄ feet long?

• If half a length is 1 and ³⁄₄ feet, how long is the whole?

• If one side of a 1³⁄₄ square foot rectangle is ¹⁄₂ feet, how long is the other side?

Many other examples are given in Ma’s book to rep- resent this division problem. Here are two examples that use the measurement model:

Given that a team of workers construct ¹⁄₂ km of road each day, how many days will it take them to con- struct a road 1³⁄₄ km long?

Given that ¹⁄₂ apple will be a serving, how many serv- ings can we get from 1³⁄₄ apples? (p. 73)

Many of the teachers favored the partitive model of

division. Here are some of the story problems they composed based on that model:

Yesterday I rode a bicycle from town A to town B. I spent 1³⁄₄ hours for ¹⁄₂ of my journey; how much time did I take for the whole journey?

A factory that produces machine tools now uses 1³⁄₄ tons of steel to make one machine tool, ¹⁄₂ of what they used to use. How much steel did they used to use for producing one machine tool?

We want to know how much vegetable oil there is in a big bottle, but we only have a small scale. We draw ¹⁄₂ of the oil from the bottle, weigh it, and find that it is 1³⁄₄ kg. Can you tell me how much all the oil in the bottle originally weighed? (p. 79)

These are illuminating examples. They show the teachers’ deep mathematical knowledge and their abil- ity to represent mathematical problems to students. The latter has been called “pedagogical content knowl- edge.”

It is important for students to learn both how to translate mathematical expressions into verbal prob- lems and how to translate verbal problems into mathe- matical expressions that can be worked with. It is also important for students to understand how to do the calculation of division of fractions, and why this calcu- lation works. Just telling students to “invert and multi- ply” is not enough. The following quotation from one of the teachers Ma interviewed starts with a brief state- ment about the relationship between division and mul- tiplication. This statement provides a background for the story problem that follows.

Division is the inverse of multiplication. Multiplying by a fraction means that we know a number that rep- resents a whole and want to find a number that rep- resents a certain fraction of that. For example, given that we want to know what number represents ¹⁄₂ of 1³⁄₄, we multiply 1³⁄₄ by ¹⁄₂ and get ⁷⁄₈. In other words, the whole is 1³⁄₄ and ¹⁄₂ of it is ⁷⁄₈. In division by a fraction, on the other hand, the number that represents the whole becomes the unknown to be found. We know a fractional part of it and want to find the number that represents the whole. For ex- ample, if ¹⁄₂ of a jump rope is 1³⁄₄ meters, what is the length of the whole rope? We know that a part of the rope is 1³⁄₄ meters, and we also know that this part is ¹⁄₂ of the rope. When we divide the number of the part, 1³⁄₄ meters, by the corresponding fraction of the whole, ¹⁄₂, we get the number representing the whole, 3¹⁄₂ meters.… But I prefer not to use dividing by ¹⁄₂ to illustrate the meaning of division by frac- tions. Because one can easily see the answer without really doing division by fractions. If we say ⁴⁄₅ of a jump rope is 1³⁄₄ meters, how long is the whole rope? The division operation will be more significant because then you can’t see the answer immediately. The best way to calculate it is to divide 1³⁄₄ by ⁴⁄₅ and get 2 ³⁄₁₆ meters. (p. 74)

This is a rich passage. The teacher begins by remind- ing her students that division is the inverse of multipli- cation. She then reviews what it means to multiply fractions, a topic that her students have already stud- ied. Then building on their previous knowledge, the teacher offers an example that moves her class smoothly and logically to the division of fractions.

2 AMERICAN EDUCATOR/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS FALL 1999

Perimeter = 16 cm Area = 16 square cm

Perimeter = 24 cm Area = 32 square cm

4 cm

4 cm4 cm

8 cm

But this teacher is not content with the problem the interviewer gave her, 1³⁄₄ ÷ ¹⁄₂. She fears it will allow her students to “see the answer without really doing division by fractions.” She substitutes a different prob- lem—1³⁄₄ ÷ ⁴⁄₅— one that her students cannot easily vi- sualize, thus forcing them deeper into the mathematics of the division of fractions.

This teacher is telling us something important about the level of knowledge needed if that knowledge is to be stable rather than fragile. If all that is expected of students is that they have a picture of how to deal with simple fractions like ¹⁄₂ and 3¹⁄₂ , their knowledge will not be deep enough to build on. Likewise, if their knowledge is limited to the computational procedure without any idea why the procedure works, this is also not enough to build on. Students need both.

Like the teacher quoted above, many of the other teachers Liping Ma interviewed used the explanation that division is the inverse of multiplication. However, Ma points out that the teachers who used this explana- tion preferred the phrase “dividing by a number is equivalent to multiplying by its reciprocal.” That is,

one can do division by multiplying by the reciprocal (or inverse) of the number being divided by. This is the mathematical reasoning that lies behind the “invert and multiply” computation.

Some of the teachers interviewed offered a formal mathematical proof to show why the algorithm for di- vision of fractions works:

OK, fifth-grade students know the rule of “maintain- ing the value of a quotient.” That is, when we multi- ply both the dividend and the divisor with the same number, the quotient will remain unchanged. For ex- ample, dividing 10 by 2 the quotient is 5. Given that we multiply both 10 and 2 by a number, let’s say 6, we will get 60 divided by 12, and the quotient will remain the same, 5. Now if both the dividend and the divisor are multiplied by the reciprocal of the di- visor, the divisor will become 1. Since dividing by 1 does not change a number, it can be omitted. So the equation will become that of multiplying the divi- dend by the reciprocal of the divisor. Let me show you the procedure:

1³⁄₄ ÷ ¹⁄₂ = (1³⁄₄ 3 ²⁄₁) ÷ (¹⁄₂ 3 ²⁄₁) = (1³⁄₄ 3 ²⁄₁) ÷1 = 1³⁄₄ 3 ²⁄₁ = 3¹⁄₂

With this procedure we can explain to students that this seemingly arbitrary algorithm is reasonable. (p. 60)

This is what Ma said of the teachers who offered proofs: “Their performance is mathematician-like in the sense that to convince someone of a truth one needs to prove it, not just assert it.”

Many of the teachers Ma interviewed emphasized the necessity of thorough mastery of a topic before moving on to the next. In this instance, solid com- mand of the multiplication of fractions was considered a “necessary basis” for approaching the division of fractions.

The meaning of multiplication with fractions is par- ticularly important because it is where the concepts of division by fractions are derived.... Given that our students understand very well that multiplying by a fraction means finding a fractional part of a unit, they will follow this logic to understand how the models of its inverse operation work. On the other hand, given that they do not have a clear idea of what mul- tiplication with fractions means, concepts of division by a fraction will be arbitrary for them and very diffi- cult to understand. Therefore, in order to let our stu- dents grasp the meaning of division by fractions, we should first of all devote significant time and effort when teaching multiplication with fractions to make sure students understand thoroughly the meaning of this operation.... Usually, my teaching of the meaning of division of fractions starts with a review of the meaning of multiplication with fractions. (p. 77)

This description shows an appreciation of how new knowledge is built on old knowledge. The insistence on mastery of a topic before moving on to the next stands in sharp contrast to the curriculum organization known as the “spiral curriculum.” In the “spiral” ap- proach to learning, mastery is not expected the first

3 AMERICAN EDUCATOR/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS FALL 1999

As the word ‘understanding’ continues to be bandied about loosely in the debates over math education, this book provides a much-needed grounding.

(Continued on page 6)

For too many people, mathematics stopped mak- ing sense somewhere along the way. Either slowly or dramatically, they gave up on the field as hopelessly baffling and difficult, and they grew up to be adults who—confident that others share their experience— nonchalantly announce, “Math was just not for me” or “I was never good at it.”

Usually the process is gradual, but for Ruth McNeill, the turning point was clearly defined. In an article in the Journal of Mathematical Behavior, she described how it happened:1

What did me in was the idea that a negative number times a negative number comes out to a positive number. This seemed (and still seems) inherently unlikely—counterintuitive, as mathematicians say. I wrestled with the idea for what I imagine to be several weeks, trying to get a sensible explanation from my teacher, my classmates, my parents, any- body. Whatever explanations they offered could not overcome my strong sense that multiplying intensi- fies something, and thus two negative numbers multiplied together should properly produce a very negative result. I have since been offered a moder- ately convincing explanation that features a film of a swimming pool being drained that gets run back- wards through the projector. At the time, however, nothing convinced me. The most commonsense of all school subjects had abandoned common sense; I was indignant and baffled.

Meanwhile, the curriculum kept rolling on, and I could see that I couldn’t stay behind, stuck on nega- tive times negative. I would have to pay attention to the next topic, and the only practical course open to me was to pretend to agree that negative times nega- tive equals positive. The book and the teacher and the general consensus of the algebra survivors of so- ciety were clearly more powerful than I was. I capitu- lated. I did the rest of algebra, and geometry, and trigonometry; I did them in the advanced sections, and I often had that nice sense of “aha!” when I could suddenly see how a proof was going to come out. Underneath, however, a kind of resentment and betrayal lurked, and I was not surprised or dismayed by any further foolishness my math teachers had up their sleeves.... Intellectually, I was disengaged, and when math was no longer required, I took German instead.

Happily, Ruth McNeill’s story doesn’t end there. Thanks to some friendships she formed in college, her interest in math was rekindled. For most of our students, there is no rekindling. This is a tragedy, both for our students and for our country. Part of the reason students give up on math can be attributed to the poor quality of most of the math textbooks used in the United States. Many texts are written with the premise that if they end a problem with the words, “Explain your answer,” they are engendering “understanding.” However, because these texts do not give students what they would need to enable them to “explain,” the books only add to students’ mystifi-

cation and frustration. Here is an example of how a widely acclaimed

contemporary math series handles the topic that baf- fled Ruth McNeill: After a short set of problems deal- ing with patterns in multiplication of integers from 5 to 0 times (–4), the student is asked to continue the pattern to predict what (–1)(–4) is and then to give the next four equations in this pattern. There are then four problems, one of them being the product of two negative numbers. In the follow-up problems given next, there are four problems dealing with neg- ative numbers, the last of which is the only one treat- ing multiplication of negative numbers. This is how it reads: “When you add two negative numbers, you get a negative result. Is the same true when you mul- tiply two negative numbers? Explain.”

The suggested answer to the “explain” part is: “The product of two negative numbers is a positive.” This is not an explanation, but a claim that the stated an- swer is correct.

Simply asking students to explain something isn’t sufficient. They need to be taught enough so that they can explain. And they need to learn what an ex- planation is and when a statement is not an expla- nation.

The excerpt that follows is taken from a serious but lively volume entitled Algebra by I.M.Gelfand and A. Shen, which was originally written to be used in a cor- respondence school that Gelfand had established. Con- trast the inadequate treatment of the multiplication of negative numbers described above to the way Gelfand and Shen handle the topic.2 Although their presenta- tion would need to be fleshed out more if it’s being pre- sented to students for the first time, it provides us with a much better model for what “explain” might entail, offering as it does both an accessible explanation and a formal proof.

—Richard Askey

The multiplication of negative numbers To find how much three times five is, you add three

numbers equal to five:

5 + 5 + 5 = 15.

The same explanation may be used for the product 1 . 5 if we agree that a sum having only one term is equal to this term. But it is evidently not applicable to the product 0 . 5 or (–3) . 5: Can you imagine a sum with a zero or with minus three terms?

However, we may exchange the factors:

5 . 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0,

5 . (–3) = (–3) + (–3) + (–3) + (–3) + (–3) = –15.

So if we want the product to be independent of the order of factors (as it was for positive numbers) we must agree that

0 . 5 = 0, (–3) . 5 = –15.

4 AMERICAN EDUCATOR/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS FALL 1999

Why does a negative 3 a negative = a positive? (including how to explain it to your younger brother or sister)

Now let us consider the product (–3) . (–5). Is it equal to –15 or to +15? Both answers may have advocates. From one point of view, even one negative factor makes the product nega- tive—so if both factors are negative the product has a very strong reason to be negative. From the other point of view, in the table

we already have two minuses and only one plus; so the “equal opportunities” policy requires one more plus. So what?

Of course, these “arguments” are not convincing to you. School education says very definitely that minus times minus is plus. But imagine that your small brother or sister asks you, “Why?” (Is it a caprice of the teacher, a law adopted by Congress, or a theorem that can be proved?) You may try to answer this ques- tion using the following example:

Another explanation. Let us write the numbers

1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...

and the same numbers multiplied by three:

3, 6, 9, 12, 15,...

Each number is bigger than the preceding one by three. Let us write the same numbers in the reverse order (starting, for example, with 5 and 15):

5, 4, 3, 2, 1 15, 12, 9, 6, 3

Now let us continue both sequences:

5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, –1, –2, –3, –4, –5,... 15, 12, 9, 6, 3, 0, –3, –6, –9, –12, –15,...

Here –15 is under –5, so 3 . (–5) = –15; plus times minus is minus.

Now repeat the same procedure multiplying 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... by –3 (we know already that plus times minus is minus):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 –3,–6, –9, –12, –15

Each number is three units less than the pre- ceding one. Now write the same numbers in the reverse order:

5, 4, 3, 2, 1 –15, –12, –9, –6, –3

and continue:

5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, –1, –2, –3, –4, –5,... –15,–12, –9, –6, –3, 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15,...

Now 15 is under –5; therefore (–3) . (–5) = 15.

Probably this argument would be convincing for your younger brother or sister. But you have the right to ask: So what? Is it possible to prove that (–3) . (–5) = 15?

Let us tell the whole truth now. Yes, it is possible to prove that (–3) . (–5) must be 15 if we want the usual properties of addition, subtraction, and multiplication that are true for positive numbers to remain true for any integers (including negative ones).

Here is the outline of this proof: Let us prove first that 3 . (–5) = –15. What is –15? It is a number oppo- site to 15, that is, a number that produces zero when added to 15. So we must prove that

3 . (–5) + 15 = 0.

Indeed,

3 . (–5) + 15 = 3 . (–5) + 3 . 5 = 3 . (–5 + 5) = 3 . 0 = 0.

(When taking 3 out of the parentheses we use the law ab + ac = a(b + c) for a = 3, b = –5, c = 5; we assume that it is true for all numbers, including negative ones.) So 3 . (–5) = –15. (The careful reader will ask why 3 . 0 = 0. To tell you the truth, this step of the proof is omit- ted—as well as the whole discussion of what zero is.)

Now we are ready to prove that (–3) . (–5) = 15. Let us start with

(–3) + 3 = 0

and multiply both sides of this equality by –5:

((–3) + 3) . (–5) = 0 . (–5) = 0.

Now removing the parentheses in the left-hand side we get

(–3) . (–5) + 3 . (–5) = 0,

that is, (–3) . (–5) + (–15) = 0. Therefore, the number (–3) . (–5) is opposite to –15, that is, is equal to 15. (This argument also has gaps. We should prove first that 0 . (–5) = 0 and that there is only one number op- posite to –15.) l ______ 1 Ruth McNeill, “A Reflection on When I Loved Math and How I

Stopped.” Journal of Mathematical Behavior, vol. 7 (1988) pp. 45-50.

2 Algebra by I. M. Gelfand and A. Shen. Birkhauser Boston (1995, Second Printing): Cambridge, Mass. © 1993 by I. M. Gelfand. Reprinted with permission.

FALL 1999

3 . 5 = 15 Getting five dollars three times is getting fifteen dollars.

3 . (–5) = –15 Paying a five-dollar penalty three times is a fifteen-dollar penalty.

(–3) . 5 = –15 Not getting five dollars three times is not getting fifteen dollars.

(–3) . (–5) = 15 Not paying a five-dollar penalty three times is getting fifteen dollars.

5 AMERICAN EDUCATOR/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

3 . 5 = +15 3 . (–5) = –15

(–3) . 5 = –15 (–3) . (–5) = ?

time, and the same topics are revisited in two, three, and even four successive years.

In her discussion of the division of fractions, Ma mentions other methods of doing the calculation, in- cluding changing the problem to decimals, and dealing with numerators and denominators separately. The teachers who suggested these methods also noted that they were not always easier than the standard text- book method of multiplying by the reciprocal. The level of knowledge expected is illustrated by the fol- lowing quotation:

The teachers argued that not only should students know various ways of calculating a problem but they should also be able to evaluate these ways and to de- termine which would be the most reasonable to use. (p.64)

Throughout her book, Ma provides illustrations that help show how the topic under consideration fits into the larger picture of elementary mathematics. For ex- ample:

The learning of mathematical concepts is not a unidi- rectional journey. Even though the concept of divi- sion by fractions is logically built on the previous learning of various concepts, it, in turn, plays a role in reinforcing and deepening that previous learning. For example, work on the meaning of division by fractions will intensify previous concepts of rational number multiplication. Similarly, by developing ratio- nal number versions of the two division models, one’s original understanding of the two whole num- ber models will become more comprehensive. (p. 76)

AS THE reader might have suspected from the mea- surement units used in some of the story prob-

lems, the teachers who were quoted are from a coun- try that uses the metric system. The country is China, and these teachers live in Shanghai and neighboring areas of China. Liping Ma grew up in Shanghai until she was in the eighth grade, when China’s “Cultural Revolution” sent her to the countryside for “re-educa- tion” by the peasants. In the poor rural village in South China where she was sent, the mostly illiterate vil- lagers wanted their children to get an education. Ma was asked to teach, which she did for seven years, and later became elementary school superintendent for the county. Later she returned to Shanghai and started to read the classical works in the field of education. This eventually led her to Michigan State University (MSU) where she began working on a doctoral degree.

While at MSU, Liping Ma worked on a project run by Deborah Ball, which was a study to find out more about the mathematical knowledge of elementary school teachers in the United States. The four ques- tions Ma used in her interviews with Chinese teachers were originally developed by Ball as part of the MSU study, and first used to interview U.S. teachers.2 In her book, Ma draws on this database of U.S. teacher inter- views as a point of comparison to the Chinese teach- ers.

The U.S. teachers fared poorly when compared to their Chinese counterparts. For the division of frac-

tions problem discussed in this article, some of the U.S. teachers had difficulties with the calculations. None of them could adequately explain the mathemati- cal reasoning embedded in the algorithm, provide ap- propriate real-world applications, or offer proofs.

It was not surprising to find that our elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge is not nearly as ro- bust as that of the Chinese teachers. How could it be otherwise? Where could our teachers possibly have ac- quired the knowledge base that the Shanghai teachers demonstrated? Not from their own K-12 schooling, which focused mainly on developing a little skill on routine problems. Not from the math methods courses U.S. colleges offer, since these are light on math con- tent. And—what may be surprising to many people— not even from the math courses they might have taken from a university mathematics department. At most colleges and universitites, there is a major disconnect between what is taught in these courses and the kind of math elementary school teachers need. As H. Wu has written: “There is an alarming irrelevance in the present preservice professional development in mathe- matics.”3

A high school teacher who took a course from the well-known mathematician George Polya put it an- other way:

The prospective teacher is badly treated both by the mathematics department and by the school of educa- tion. The mathematics department offers us tough steak which we cannot chew and the school of edu- cation vapid soup with no meat in it.4

It is not just the courses for high school math teach- ers that are problematic. Courses for prospective ele- mentary school teachers, for example, frequently slight material dealing with fractions since whole num- ber arithmetic is the main focus in our elementary schools. Middle school teachers frequently fall be- tween the cracks. The material they will be teaching is not taught in detail to either prospective elementary school teachers or to prospective high school teach- ers; there are no courses specifically for middle school teachers.

If not from their pre-college education and not from their college education, where else might a U.S. teacher have acquired a deep understanding of mathe- matics? Perhaps from the textbooks and teachers’ guides they use in their teaching. Liping Ma reports that Chinese teachers spend considerable time study- ing the textbooks:

6 AMERICAN EDUCATOR/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS FALL 1999

Ordering Information Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics by Liping Ma is available in paperback from Lawrence Erlbaum Associates for $19.95 plus $2 han- dling charges by sending a check to Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430-2262. For more information, call 800/926-6579 or e-mail: [email protected].

(Continued from page 3)

Teachers study textbooks very carefully; they investi- gate them individually and in groups, they talk about what textbooks mean, they do the problems to- gether, and they have conversations about them. Teachers’ manuals provide information about con- tent and pedagogy, student thinking, and longitudinal coherence. (p. 149)

Unfortunately, there are very few of our textbooks that a teacher would profit much from studying.

The U.S. Department of Education has just an- nounced the results of an exercise to identify “exem- plary” and “promising” texts. Connected Mathematics, a series for grades 6-8, is one the department has deemed exemplary. I do not understand why it de- serves that rating. I am quite familiar with this series, as I reviewed it as part of a textbook adoption process. Regarding fractions, for example, Connected Math has some material on the addition and subtraction of frac- tions, but nothing as systematic as described by the Chinese teachers interviewed by Ma. There is less on multiplication of fractions, and nothing on the division of fractions. If our students go through grade 8 with- out having studied the division of fractions, where are our future primary teachers going to learn this? The criteria used by the Department of Education review

should be rewritten now that Liping Ma’s book has provided us with a model of what school mathematics should look like.

Another recent development that leaves me less than encouraged is the way fractions are addressed in the draft of the revised K-12 mathematics standards re- leased last year by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Principles and Standards for School Mathematics: Discussion Draft 5). Most of the work on fractions has been put in the grades 6 to 8 band. Stu- dents are to “develop a deep understanding of rational number concepts and reasonable proficiency in ratio- nal-number computation.” It is the adjective “reason- able” that bothers me. Proficiency should be the goal. It is hard to imagine the Chinese teachers that Ma interviewed settling for “reasonable” proficiency with fractions for their students. These lower expec- tations show in every international comparison.

Furthermore, the only problem used to illustrate di- vision of fractions in NCTM’s draft revision is how many pieces of ribbon ³⁄₄ yards long can be cut from 4¹⁄₂ yards of ribbon. The text continues with: “The image is of repeatedly cutting off ³⁄₄ of a yard of rib- bon. Having students work with concrete objects or drawings is helpful as students develop and deepen their understanding of operations.” It seems that we are back again to simple fractions and concrete ob- jects that students can visualize. Contrast this with what Liping Ma observed:

The concept of fractions as well as the operations with fractions taught in China and the U.S. seem dif- ferent. U.S. teachers tend to deal with “real” and “concrete” wholes (usually circular or rectangular shapes) and their fractions. Although Chinese teach- ers also use these shapes when they introduce the concept of a fraction, when they teach operations with fractions they tend to use “abstract” and “invisi- ble” wholes (e.g., the length of a particular stretch of road, the length of time it takes to complete a task...). (p. 76)

THE LAST three chapters in Liping Ma’s book deal with when the Chinese teachers acquired the

knowledge they showed, and a description of what Ma calls “Profound Understanding of Fundamental Mathe- matics,” or PUFM. Here is part of her description:

A teacher with PUFM is aware of the “simple but powerful” basic ideas of mathematics and tends to re- visit and reinforce them. He or she has a fundamental understanding of the whole elementary mathematics curriculum, thus is ready to exploit an opportunity to review concepts that students have previously studied or to lay the groundwork for a concept to be studied later. (p. 124)

From their pre-collegiate studies, the Chinese teach- ers Ma interviewed had a firm base of knowledge on which to build. However, PUFM did not come directly from their studies in school, but from the work they did as teachers. These teachers did not specialize in mathematics in “normal” school, which is what their teacher preparation schools are called. But after they started teaching, most of them taught only mathemat- ics or mathematics and one other subject. This al- lowed them to specialize in ways that few of our ele-

7 AMERICAN EDUCATOR/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS FALL 1999

Unfortunately, there are very few of our textbooks that a teacher would profit much from studying.

8 AMERICAN EDUCATOR/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS FALL 1999

mentary school teachers can. Quite a few regularly changed the level at which they taught. They might go through a cycle of three grades, then repeat the same cycle, or change and teach a different age group. This allows them to see the development of mathematics from the perspective of a teacher, something too few of our elementary school teachers are able to do.

Recently, the Learning First Alliance—an organiza- tion composed of many of the major national educa- tion organizations—recommended that beginning in the fifth grade, every student should be taught by a mathematics specialist.6 This is a hopeful develop- ment, and for many teachers it would mean unburden- ing themselves from something they now find difficult and unpleasant.

There is more we can do. Our teachers need good textbooks. They need much better teachers’ manuals. As noted before, our college math courses for future teachers at all levels need to be improved. And just ask any teacher who has sat through mindless “work- shops” whether our in-service “professional develop- ment” isn’t long overdue for major overhaul.

Teachers also need time to prepare their lessons and further their study of mathematics. Recall Ma’s com- ments that it is during their teaching careers that Chi- nese teachers perfect their knowledge of mathematics. Listen to this Shanghai teacher describe his class preparation:

I always spend more time on preparing a class than on teaching, sometimes three, even four, times the latter. I spend the time in studying the teaching mate- rials: What is it that I am going to teach in this les- son? How should I introduce the topic? What con- cepts or skills have the students learned that I should draw on? Is it a key piece on which other pieces of knowledge will build, or is it built on other knowl- edge? If it is a key piece of knowledge, how can I teach it so students can grasp it solidly enough to support their later learning? If it is not a key piece, what is the concept or the procedure it is built on? How am I going to pull out that knowledge and make sure my students are aware of it and the relation be- tween the old knowledge and the new topic? What kind of review will my students need? How should I present the topic step-by-step? How will students re- spond after I raise a certain question? Where should I explain it at length, and where should I leave it to students to learn it by themselves? What are the top- ics that the students will learn which are built di- rectly or indirectly on this topic? How can my lesson set a basis for their learning of the next topic, and for related topics that they will learn in their future? What do I expect the advanced students to learn from the lesson? What do I expect the slow students to learn? How can I reach these goals? etc. In a word, one thing is to study whom you are teaching, the other thing is to study the knowledge you are teach- ing. If you can interweave the two things together nicely, you will succeed. We think about these two things over and over in studying teaching materials. Believe me, it seems to be simple when I talk about it, but when you really do it, it is very complicated, subtle, and takes a lot of time. It is easy to be an ele- mentary school teacher, but it is difficult to be a good elementary school teacher. (p. 135)

LIPING MA’S book provides a start to what I hope will be a continuing study of fundamental mathe-

matics and the connections between different parts of it. We need many more commentaries on the teaching of mathematics like those contained in Ma’s book. We also need more detailed lesson plans, as are frequently provided in Japan.7 There are a few places where one can read comments by U.S. teachers or by mathemat- ics education researchers. However, these comments almost all deal with the initial steps of an idea, which typically means using pictures or manipulatives to try to get across the basic concept. Almost never is there elaboration of what should be done next, to help de- velop a deeper view of the subject, which will be nec- essary for later work.

And elementary school mathematics is much deeper, more profound, than almost everyone has thought it to be. As Ma comments, toward the end of her book:

In the United States, it is widely accepted that ele- mentary mathematics is “basic,” superficial, and com- monly understood. The data in this book explode this myth. Elementary mathematics is not superficial at all, and any one who teaches it has to study it hard in order to understand it in a comprehensive way. (p. 146)

But, she concludes: The factors that support Chinese teachers’ develop- ment of their mathematical knowledge are not pre- sent in the United States. Even worse, conditions in the United States militate against the development of elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge.... (p.xxv)

This must change. We cannot continue to abandon teachers at every critical stage of their development and then send them into the classroom with a mandate to “teach for understanding.” This is dishonest and irre- sponsible. As things stand now, we are asking teachers to do the impossible. They and the students they teach deserve better. l REFERENCES 1Liping Ma, Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1999. 2Deborah Ball, “Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical

pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1988 and published papers on this topic.

3H.Wu, “Preservice Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers.” Unpublished manuscript (1999). Available at www.math.berkeley.edu/~wu

4George Polya, “Ten Commandments for Teachers,” Journal of Education of the Faculty and College of Education of the University of British Columbia, (3) 1959, pp. 61-69.

5National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics: Discussion Draft, NCTM, Reston, Va., 1998.

6Learning First Alliance, An Action Plan for Changing School Mathematics, Washington, D.C., 1998.

7Alice Gill and Liz McPike, “What We Can Learn from Japanese Teachers’ Manuals,” American Educator, vol. 19, no. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 14-24.