Mathematics EducationResearchlournal, Vol.3,No.1, 1991.

CONSTRUCTING PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

FROM STUDENTS' WRITING IN SECONDARY
MATHEMATICS
L Diane Miller, Curtin University of Technology
One field of knowledge important to effective teaching is
pedagogical content knowledge. With experience, teachers
become aware of how students comprehend or typically
misconstrue mathematical concepts, skills, and generalizations.
They become aware of common misconceptions and "buggy
algorithms" constructed by students and of the stages of
understanding that students are likely to pass through in moving
from a state ofhaving little understanding of the topic to mastery
of it. It is important for mathematics educators to find ways to
expedite the development of pedagogical content knowledge.
The study reported in this paper suggests that in-class,
impromptu writing prompts are one means by which teachers can
get a clearer picture of students' understanding or
nonunderstanding of mathematics in a relatively short period of
time.
For the past decade, mathematics educators and writing specialists have
been combining their efforts and collaborating in research to examine the
cognitive and affective benefits that students may directly derive as a result of
writing in mathematics classes. Advocates have proposed various types of
writing as being beneficial to students' development of higher order thinking
skills, improving attitudes, and reducing anxieties. Journal writing
(Nahrgang & Peterson, 1986; Borasi & Rose, 1989) has been shown to
affectively benefit students by providing them an opportunity to express their
anxieties toward mathematics and the problems they encounter in the learning
process. Waywood (1989). concluded that journal writing can also cognitively
benefit students by leading them to summarise and reflect on the mathematics
they are learning. Expository writing (Bell & Bell, 1985) has proven to be an
effective and practical tool for teaching problem solving. In general, Reuille-
Irons and Irons (1989) suggest that writing activities "encourage children to
be creators of their mathematical knowledge. When they create their own
knowledge, they gradually build a picture of concepts and ideas that will be
useful in problem-solving situations" (p. 98). (For an overview of the
progress being made in a number of developmental projects on writing in
mathematics classes, see Davison and Pearce, 1990.)
Constructing Pedagogical Content Knowledge 31
But what about benefits that the teacher may directly derive as a result
of reading students' writings? Data collected by Borasi and Rose (1989)
suggest that teachers, too, may be equally affected in their teaching by reading
their students' writings. There is a dearth of literature addressing the affect
the use of writing in mathematics classes has on teachers; specifically on what
teachers learn from reading their students' writings. The purpose of this
paper is to partially fill this void by examining potential teacher benefits of
using writing in secondary mathematics classes.
Background to Current Research
Several sources in the literature suggest that the expertise involved in
cognitive aspect of teaching can be seen as the merging of at least three
of knowledge. One of these is called lesson structure knowledge
& Smith, 1985). Lesson structure knowledge includes the skills
to plan and run a lesson smoothly, to create a smooth transition from
Olue.les:son to the next, and to explain the material clearly. A second field is
<" .. 1"".0,"1" matter knowledge (Leinhardt & Smith, 1985). No one can
.if"" .,. need for a teacher to know the facts in a particular domain or the
heuristics, and principles which operate on those facts.
third field of knowledge important to effective teaching is called
content knowledge. According to Shulman (1986), teachers
possess "the understanding of how particular topics, principles,
tegJleS, and the like in specific subject areas are comprehended or typically
are learned and are likely to be forgotten" (p. 26). In
like any other subject area, effective teachers should be aware of
COflcelPtu.al and procedural knowledge that students bring to the learning of
They should be aware of common misconceptions constructed by
and of the stages of understanding that students are likely to pass
in moving from a state of having little understanding of the topic to
of it.
teachers know that pedagogical content knowledge is, in
C,QJnstructed over time through teaching experiences. For example, a
fa,jjtlY;COJnrrlOn misconception developed early in the study of algebra is that
7 plus x rather than 7 times x. Experienced teachers know this and
review the counterexample in their instructional comments to
the correct meaning of 7x. The importance of pedagogical content
to effective teaching is just beginning to arouse the interest of
education researchers. The findings of Peterson, Fennema,
and Loef (1989) suggest that teachers' pedagogical content
may be importantly linked to teachers' classroom actions and,
ultimately, to students' classroom learning in mathematics.
The pdmary focus of pre-service teacher education programs is on
subject matter knowledge and lesson structure knowledge. The beginning
teacher's first concerns in the classroom are generally behavioural
32 Miller
management and lesson preparation. Only with time does the construction of
pedagogical content knowledge begin. If we accept the premise that
pedagogical content knowledge is an important ingredient to effective
teaching, then practicing teachers, mathematics educators, and researchers
must ascertain how the construction of pedagogical content knowledge can be
beneficially expedited. The results of a study conducted in the United States
and reported in this paper, suggest that the use of in-class, impromptu writing
prompts can promote the construction of pedagogical content knowledge for
both experienced and inexperienced teachers.
The Study
In-class, impromptu writing prompts - the type of writing activity
utilised in the study - are simply-worded statements or questions directing
students' thoughts to the explanation of a single concept, skill or
generalization. For example, a teacher may give the following prompt to a
class of year nine students. "Why do we say that division by zero is
undefined?" Prompts can also encourage students to express their attitudes
and/or anxieties about mathematics or problems they encounter while learning
mathematics. For example, "Tell me (in writing) one thing you like about
learning mathematics and one thing you do not like about learning
mathematics."
Three secondary mathematics teachers from a large metropolitan high
school in the United States agreed to participate in a study to examine the
potential teacher benefits of using impromptu writing prompts in mathematics
classes. This paper will focus on two of these teachers. One teacher was
relatively inexperienced as a second year teacher; the other had more than
fifteen years experience teaching secondary mathematics. They both taught
first year algebra. Successful completion of first year algebra is a graduation
requirement of the school district participating in this study. Generally, year 9
students (fifteen years old) enrol in first year algebra. One class of students
(25-30 students per class) for each teacher participated in the study.
Students were generally asked to write at the beginning of a class
unless the prompt asked about something that occurred in class that day.
They were given five minutes to read the prompt, formulate their response
and write it on paper provided by the teacher. Initially students were asked to
write during three out of every four instructional periods. As the study
progressed, the number of writing tasks were reduced to about three per
week. Students were not rewarded for writing nor penalized for not writing.
Thus, every student did not write every day.
Approximately fifty-five prompts were used in the study. Twenty were
directed toward the affective domain; for example, attitudes toward and
anxieties about mathematics, and feelings about class and topics being
studied. Ten queried students' attitudes toward their responsibility in
learning; that is, what determined whether or not they did their homework and
how they prepared for an assessment. Twenty asked students to explain a
Constructing Pedagogical Content Knowledge 33
mathematical concept, skill or generalization. Occasionally students were
asked to write on a "fun topic" or to write anything they wanted to write on a
topic of their choice. One prompt in this category asked students to identify
their favourite single digit number and to explain why they liked it. Another
prompt said "Write about any topic you want to today. Whatever you want to
say, write it."
Teachers generally read each set of writings the day they were
collected. Once per week the teachers were asked to reflect upon what was
being learned from reading the students' writings and to write about their
predominant impressions. As the study progressed, the teachers' reflections
became more evident in oral discussions than in their writing.
The students' and teachers' writings were collected fortnightly for one
sernes:ter along with notes taken during the collaborative team meetings and
QllImg discussions with individual teachers. Since the focus of this discussion
writing prompts can expedite the development of teachers'
content knowledge, the remainder of this paper will concentrate
prompts which asked students to write about their understanding
content. .
interpretive research methodology (Erickson, 1986) was
Lerrlented in this study. Documentary materials consisted of students'
to timed, in-class impromptu writing prompts, teachers' writings
they were learning from the students' writings, and field notes
from discussions with individual teachers and during meetings of the
team. As suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1967), a thorough
/f!j:][ftityrSis of the students' writings was completed. These writings were
for recurring patterns that contributed to the identification and
<i. .... O:< .. ..."' of ways in which impromptu writing prompts enhanced the
ability to assess how well students were comprehending the
",/U,;;O;'DU they were studying. In many respects, this was an exploratory
.;; </?,';.....L$fi1(1y very little research has been undertaken to examine benefits for
>ii;;K;';.)Uj in using writing in mathematics classes. Thus, it was deemed
..... ;..... "" ...... /jJiapprclprilate to search for conclusive empirical evidence which would allow
>tt'lleilrs,eat'chers to predict teacher benefits from using impromptu writing
A;!;'i.;"t;'/.; L"r>tlomlT>ts in a mathematics class. More relevant to the research team was an
of what teachers can learn from reading their students responses
tQIIllpf()m'ptu writing prompts.
What Three Prompts Yielded
The Commutativity Prompt
Students sometimes view mathematics as isolated parcels of
information which must be memorised for "the test" and then forgotten so that
new parcels can be memorised and the cycle continue. Mathematics is a study
ofrelationships, but is often presented as independent packets of knowledge
which are not related to other mathematical concepts or "real world"
34 Miller
applications. Sometimes teachers fail to provide experiences which help
students construct mathematical relationships, other times their attempts are
not successful. Evidence of a failed attempt surfaced when the first year
algebra students in this study were asked to write about their understanding of
commutativity. When implementing an interpretive research methodology in
an educational setting, the contextual background is crucially significant to the
sense-making process of the data being examined and conclusions drawn.
The following paragraph will provide the reader with the background for this
particular prompt.
Three months into the school year, an assessment asked students to
demonstrate an understanding of the Commutative Property for Addition and
the Commutative Property for Multiplication by stating the properties in
abstract form and labeling statements that represented each property; for
example, students were asked to identify the property represented by 5 +7 =
7 + 5. A majority of the students correctly quoted the rules in their abstract
form (for example, for real numbers a and b, a +b ::: b + a and a x b = b x a)
and labeled statements as the Commutative Property for Addition and the
Commutative Property for Multiplication. During a team meeting, someone
asked if the students would be able to apply what they knew about
commutativity to operations other than addition and multiplication. The two
first year algebra teachers indicated that they had briefly commented on
division and subtraction in class and that exercises in the students' textbook
had also provided counterexamples using division and subtraction. The team
decided to ask the students to respond to the following prompt.
You have studied the Commutative Property for Addition and
Multiplication for real numbers. Not all operations are commutative.
Explain why each of the following operations are not commutative:
(1) Division (2) Subtraction (3) Raising a number to a power
The teachers were confident that not all students would produce an acceptable
response. However, they were equally confident that the majority of their
students would respond acceptably. Fifty papers were collected from two
classes. The students' responses are listed in Table 1.
Four of the fifty students (8%) produced acceptable responses to all
three operations. (Marked acceptable by the teachers, two research assistants,
and a mathematics education researcher.) Eleven (22%) acceptably responded
to division and nine (18%) demonstrated an understanding of why subtraction
is not commutative. The teachers were most disappointed in the students'
responses to division and subtraction. While the students had worked with
numbers raised to a power and had adequately demonstrated they knew what
aX meant, the teachers had not discussed the operation in terms of being
noncommutative. The query raised in the prompt asked students to relate
prior knowledge; that is, their understanding of addition and multiplication
being commutative, to an unfamiliar context, raising a number to a power.
Constructing Pedagogical Content Knowledge 35
Table 1
Responses From Students
Responses deemed acceptable by the research team
1. Division -
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
division is not cummutative because 3 + 5 is not equal to 5 + 3
because you can't switch them around because you will come out with a
wrong answer
because they don't have an order and you can't change them around
Because you can't change them around _
you cant change the numbers around 3)450 :t: 450)3
see in addition you can change the order 3 + 5 = 5 + 3 multi 3 x 5 = 5 x 3
It just wont work out.2... --.5.
3)6 but 6)3.0
Because in division you come up with a different answer
you can't reverse the numbers and come out with the same answer
isn't cummutative because you can't switch numbers around to make it easier
8 4
-:t:-
4 8
Because if you have 10 + 5 = 2 you cant say 5 + 10 because t ~ t wQ!k out
if you change the numbers around the answer will change 8)10 10)8
2. Subtraction -
(a) subtraction is not commutative because 3 - 2 is not equal to 2 - 3
(b) same for division if you swich them around and try to subtract your going to
come out with a wrong answer
(c) has to be in certain order
(d) They have to be in a certain order
(e) It doesn't work out either 6 - 3 = 3 but 3 - 6 = -3
(f) the number can only be done one way to come out with that answer
(g) when you subtract if swich the numbers you get a different number 8 - 5 = 3
5-8=-3
(h) Because if you tum a number around like 3 - 2 = 5 it won't work out as 2 - 3
(i) If you change the numbers the answer will change 5 10
- 10 -....5.
3. Raising a number to a power-
(a) raising a number to a power is not cummutative because 3
5
is not equal to 53
(b) cant example 3
2
= 9 2
3
= 8
(c) Because if you have a number like 2
3
= 8 it will be different if you had 3
2
= 9
(d) If you change the number the answer will change 53 3
5
Responses deemed unacceptable by the research team:
1. Division -
(a) a + b + c = a a + b + C just change the variable around
(b) A+B =B+A
(c) 1
7)7
1
o
Cd) commutative is not a division because the rule don't say it
(e) ~
6)6
Q
o
(f) because you divide
(g) it doesn't work L -...5.
4)8 4)2.0
36 Miller
Table 1 continued
3. Raising a number to a power -
(a) rrrrrrr =r
7
(b) the same as above (see division d. & subtraction d.)
(c) 7
7
aaaaaaa
(d) Because you don't
(e) doesn't work. I don't know how if it works
(t) +4
3
(g) It just doesn't work. I don't know why. It just wont.
(h) 2
3
(i) God made it that way
G) you use power
(k) 5
2
'2=2'5
2
I don't understand why the following operations are D.Qt commutative 48 + 6
72+8
3 + 5 =5 + 3 5
3
.i.= 5'5
3
102'100 =100102
you can't divide 4)2 and get a whole number
.2
4)8
GQd made.iUhat way
4)8 = 4)8 Because commutative property has nothing to do with division

5)3!L6)30 _
10)100 1(0)10
For division if you divide the larger number into the smaller number the
answer will not be even (ex. -2Q
10)900
2Q
o
Q
but ifit is done the other way, you have to add dismials (ex. .0111
9(0) 10.0000
1000
200
1000
-900
1
(h)
(i)
G)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(0)
(P)
2. Subtraction -
(a) a - b - c = a + b - c just change the variable around but subtract
(b) A-B =B-A
(c) 3 - 4 =1
(d) commutative is not a subtraction because the rule don't say it
(e) 2 - 1 =1
(t) Because you subtract
(g) 5 - 3 = 2 doesn't do it either maybe 5 - 3 = -2
(h) ex. 12 - 6 =6 - 12 =6 It wouldn't work out like that because you can't
subtract 12 from 6
(i) 4-3=3-4
G) 4
-2
2
(k) God made it that way
(1) 6 - 12 = 12 - 6 because you can't subtract 12 from 6
(m) Because you subtract differently than adding
(n) you subtract
(0) 7 - 2 = 2-7
(P) 7 - 2 =5 5 = 2 - 7
Constructing Pedagogical Content Knowledge 37
The students' writings to this prompt contributed to the development of
these teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. While the majority of these
students had successfully quoted rules in abstract and had recognized their use
in specific examples, they did not really understand the concept of
commutativity. The experienced teacher expressed her disappointment but
was not shocked by the results. The second year teacher was both
disappointed and surprised by the results. In one team meeting, the second
year teacher kept reiterating that she had discussed this in class and their
textbook had given them counterexamples using division and subtraction.
generally, a teacher cannot assume that because students can state rules in the
abstract that they really understand the principle or can apply it to an
l1t1familiar context. This may seem like a trivial, universally known fact in
but how often do teachers proceed with the curriculum assuming
1:P(lents know more than what they really do. Seventy-eight percent of the
fifty students returned unacceptable responses, blank papers, or papers with
know" written beside each query. Clearly a majority of these students
not relate what they knew about commutativity of addition and
rI11.l1tiplication to division, subtraction, and raising a number to a power.
. Other than being reminded that students can quote rules without
C9111prehending their content, the teachers' pedagogical content knowledge
al$qoenefited in other ways. For example, look at the students who made
about basic facts in subtraction: 5-3 = -2; 12-6 = 6-12 = 6;
3-4; 7-2 = 2-7. Once again, the inexperienced teacher was surprised by
errors. Her comments indicated that she believed her students knew that
$-3was not -2; that 6-12 was not 6; that 4-3 was not equal to 3-4; and that 7-2
equal to 2-7. But, she had no explanation why these statements
in their writing. A comment made to the mathematics education
was "It's like they're not thinking about what they're writing.
just putting down things that don't make sense." Perhaps this is an
of students manipulating symbols and not thinking about what these
mean in the process of trying to make sense out of something new to
them. Very little is known about the processes of assimilation and
.. aommodation as students are constructing new knowledge in mathematics.
.Many of the students' statements were nonsense; but was that because their
!houghts were in disarray as they were trying to relate prior knowledge to a
new context and make it meaningful? In the short term, these teachers
decided to return to commutativity, emphasizing its meaning and reillustrating
wl1Yit was applicable to some operations and not to others. In the long term,
they each commented that future lessons on this topic would be revised to
emphasize the meaning of commutativity rather than the memorization of an
abstract rule.
The Ratio Prompt
A second prompt that was beneficial to the construction of the teachers'
pedagogical content knowledge was the following:
. 38 Miller
In working the following problem, write down not only everything you
do, but everything you think about in coming up with your answer.
A painter uses four cans of paint to paint six rooms. How many rooms
can be painted with six cans of paint?
Once again, the contextual background for this prompt is helpful in
interpreting what the teachers learned from reading the students' writings.
The first year algebra classes covered ratio and proportion early in the
academic year (September). Several problems had been worked where
students had solved for an unknown term in the proportion. A few word
problems had been solved in class and assigned for homework, but the
general assessment had provided students with a structured proportion with a
missing term and the students were asked to solve for the unknown; for
example, :z =. The preceding prompt was given in late October. The
teachers were wanting to ascertain how many students would use a proportion
to solve the problem.
Forty-eight papers were collected. Ten (21 %) were returned either
blank or with "Don't know" written beneath the prompt. Twenty students
(42%) submitted unacceptable responses. Fifteen of these twenty said the
correct answer was eight. Six students submitted eight as an answer but
provided no explanation for their solution. Nine of these fifteen students
provided a rationale similar to the following response:
Because 6 is two more than 4, I will add 2 to 6 and get 8. 6 cans of paint
will do 8 rooms.
Eighteen students (37%) submitted an acceptable response. Six of
these 18 said the answer was 9 but provided no explanation for their solution.
One student wrote the following:
4 cans for 6 rooms
6 cans for 9 rooms I looked for something half way between.
8 cans for 12 rooms
Seven students answered 9 as the number of rooms and provided an
explanation similar to the following:
Half of 4 is 2. 4 cans can paint 6 rooms. 2 cans can paint 3 rooms.
If you have 6 cans, you are only adding 2 more to 4
so 3 +6 =9
Four students answered 9 with the following work submitted:
Constructing Pedagogical Content Knowledge 39

4)6
No one used a proportion to solve this problem. Rather than using a solution
process which was relatively new to the students, they had chosen to rely on
othermeans of solution which were more meaningful to them. .
... The teachers' pedagogical content knowledge benefited in two ways
from the students' writings to this prompt. First, they realized that students
to adopt new methods of solution when their prior knowledge
3ll
d
experiences work for them; and second, the writings support the
existence of a misconception or buggy algorithm which several students
a,pplied (for details on 'buggy' algorithms see Davis, 1982; Davis, Jockusch,
1978). That is, when one number is increased by two, the
number in the problem is increased by two. Once again, the
teacher was not surprised by this error while the inexperienced
was. Both teachers indicated that future lessons on solving problems
gf:thistype would include comments about the buggy algorithm.
The Variable Prompt
The third prompt presented in this paper provides additional examples
misconceptions in first year algebra. The teachers had introduced
tlle90ncept of variable early in the year and had emphasized that any letter can
lJ/llsed to represent an unknown quantity in a problem. They were satisfied
\\lith students' ability to translate simple statements into mathematical
for example: "Write a mathematical sentence for the following:
Jft9Pf times a number equals twenty-eight." The majority of the students were
writing 4x = 28 or 4n = 28, etc. The following prompt was
given in mid-November, three months into the school year:
Pretend you are trying to explain why "x" in the first and "y" in the
second equation will be the same number. Pretend you are trying to
explain this to a ten year old. Write how you would go about it.
4x=28
4y=28
Twenty-five papers were collected from the second year teacher's class. Four
blank papers were returned. Four students submitted an acceptable response.
The following response reflects the general statements made by these four
students. "If you multiply 4 by x, you get 28. If you multiply 4 by y, you
get the the same answer. Since you are multiplying by the same four, x and y
have to be the same number because you get the same answer." Four other
students attempted an answer, but submitted unacceptable responses. For
40 Miller
example, one student wrote "Because you can use any variable in an equation
as long as you keep everything else straight along in the equation." Two
students submitted responses which were classified as tautologies by the
researchers. One student wrote "x & y could stand for anything but they
stand for the same thing here." Four students wrote what the researchers
classified as nonsense; one example being, "I tell hem or her to read it."
Seven students submitted responses that proved enlightening to the
inexperienced teacher but did not surprise the experienced teacher. During a
team meeting, the experienced teacher indicated that she knew from
cumulative years of experience that students made these types of errors.
These seven responses, as written by the students, are listed below. A
discussion of their significance follows.
(a) All letters of the alfebeat are = to 1 that is why they are the same
number.
(b) Any letter is I: S is 1, A is 1, B is one, Cis 1. So x and y will
be one too. Any letter will be one.
(c) The x and yare the same because they are alpabets and all
alpabets equals the same.
~ x = 7 y = 24 Since the 4 and 28 are the same you divide to
fmd x and subtract to find y because x comes before y.
(e) 4x = 28 x is the ungiven number so you subtract 28-4
x=24
(f) If 4x = 28 x = 24 and 4y = 28 y = 24 Both of the
problem is the same just y and x will = the same
(g) I would say that you have to find out what x and y is.
The first two students clearly have the misconception that any letter of the
alphabet is equal to one. These students did not sit near one another so the
teacher concluded that they arrived at this misunderstanding independent of
each other; that is, they did not copy prompt responses in class. The next
example (c) is interesting because it alone suggested that the student believed
all letters in the alphabet were equal or represented the same number. One
interpretation of this response is that x and yare the same in these two
equations: 5x = 30 and 3y = 9. This turned out to be an incorrect
interpretation. The teacher talked to this student during seatwork one day and
learned that the student was trying to explain that when everything else is the
same, then any letter in the alphabet can be used to represent the unknown
number. At this stage, the student was much better able to communicate
mathematical knowledge verbally than in writing. However the teacher's
discussion with the student was initiated by the student's writing, thus giving
credit for the growth in pedagogical content knowledge to the writing
experience.
The responses of the next three students suggest that they think the
relationship between a coefficient and the variable is additive/subtractive.
Example (d) reflects an attempt at justifying the interpretation, although not
Constructing Pedagogical Content Knowledge 41
Discussion
is provided to attempt an analysis of the student's thoughts. The
student submitting (D is consistent with the misconception. The last example
suggests that the student is not ready to accept that x and yare the same. The
provided is to find out what they are, but no attempt is made to
solve the equations.
The inexperienced teacher found these misconceptions surprising. On
her traditional types of assessments when students were asked to solve for x
pry in an expression like 4x =28, she had assumed an answer of 24 had been
.. a."careless error." Her own writings summarized her feelings: "The writings
gave me an opportunity to look at each students' work individually. 1learned
that the words "yes" and "I understand" are not precise answers. Students
thought they understood but their writing indicated that they did
.t10tunderstand."
..... .... . The experienced teacher was not surprised at the misconceptions which
SMrfaced in the students' writings. The writings were beneficial to the
teacher because they helped her to assess which individual
held what misconceptions more quickly than using traditional whole
discussions. An excerpt from the experienced teacher's writings amply
this assertion: "For me as an experienced teacher, I found that I got
picture much sooner of how the students were thinking
I was able to locate specific problem areas and make
corrections that I may not have been aware of had we just solved
Fieldnotes from several team meetings indicated that the
teacher was having some of her pedagogical content knowledge
by the students' writings while the inexperienced teacher was
using students' writings to help construct her pedagogical content knowledge.
.............. Of the twenty prompts designed to assess individual students'
of mathematical concepts, only one proved nonbeneficial to the
of the teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. It asked
StP:gents to copy a problem worked in class during seatwork or at home and
"step by step in your own words" what was done to arrive at a final
Inevitably, students copied problems "step by step" using only
mbols with no explanation in words about the process they used or the
thoughts they had while working the problem. The inexperienced teacher
qyd this prompt six times until one student wrote: "To be fully/totally
absolutely honest w/you. 1m sick of this [prompt]." The teacher stopped
u.sing the prompt.
Space does not permit a detailed analysis of all the prompts used in the
study. The results of other prompts are detailled in Miller (1990), Miller (in
.press) and Miller and England (1939).
42 Miller
Much of what was learned by the teachers from reading the students'
writings served to reconfirm pedagogical content knowledge previously
constructed by the experienced teacher while supporting the development of
new pedagogical content knowledge for the inexperienced teacher. For both
teachers, the writings helped to identify individual students' misconceptions
and nonunderstanding much more quickly than through the traditional whole
class discussion process.
Questions raised by critics of the study have been "What's so unique
about impromptu writing prompts? Can't teachers learn the same things by
asking students questions in class and by putting prompts of this type on
assessments?" While teachers can ask open-ended, thought provoking
questions in class or pose them in a context of small group activities, the
general scenario is that only a few students become involved in these
discussions. Allowing sufficient wait-time for students to formulate and
respond to open-ended questions orally can create a lull during which other
students can become off-task mentally if not physically, too. Within the time
allotted for teacher-student interaction in class, a teacher cannot usually engage
every student in a class of 25-30 students. A unique feature about impromptu
writing prompts is that each student has the opportunity to express
themselves, in writing, to the teacher during every class in which a prompt is
used. Writing also allows them the opportunity to examine their thoughts and
make changes in their statements prior to submitting their paper. Students
answering orally generally do not have the chance to say something, reflect
upon what they said and then make changes to those statements. The teachers
in this study, found that five minutes was sufficient time for students' reading
and responding to a prompt, but was not disruptive to the continuation of their
other instructional practices.
Because their classes had a range of academic abilities including
students who were being mainstreamed from special education classes as well
as those intending to go to college, the teachers did not want to reward
students for writing or punish them for not writing. Some students had great
difficulty expressing themselves in writing, particularly at the beginning of the
study. While one might argue that students should be able to communicate
their understanding of mathematics orally and in writing, the teachers in this
study did not want to handicap or embarrass students by using writing
prompts as official assessment tasks. It should also be noted that this strategy
of feedback is not the panacea for assessment that some look for, but an
effective additional strategy to other proven procedures. But it too has its
limitations. As noted in the results section, on a few occasions some students
gave inadequate or ambiguous written statements which needed verbal
clarification by the teacher. However the subsequent verbal discourse, guided
by the student's written response, zeroed onto particular difficulties much
more quickly than would have been the case without this guidance.
As previously stated, this study serves as a beginning to the
examination of teacher benefits to the use of writing in mathematics classes.
For the second year teacher in the study, the benefits were more pronounced
Constructing Pedagogical Content Knowledge 43
than for the experienced teacher. Both continued using writing prompts
during the second semester of the school year even though the study officially
ended with the first semester.
Teachers and mathematics education researchers should begin to
investigate further the understudied phenomenon of benefits gained by the
teachers who use writing activities in the mathematics class. The
reconfinnation and construction of pedagogical content knowledge is only one
potential benefit. Other benefits worthy of investigation are the influence
reading students' writings can have on instructional practices, both short- and
long-term; and, the influence reading students writings can have on teacher-
student interaction patterns. The results of this study suggest a relatively
simple, easily implemented, and fairly robust method for assessing students'
understanding of mathematics at very little cost to either teachers or students.
There is a need for a more controlled study measuring and documenting the
teacher benefits suggested in this paper. The results could be very significant
and influential to the professional development of novice and expert teachers.
References
Bell, E. S. & Bell, R. N. (1985). Writing and mathematical problem
solving: Arguments in favor of synthesis. School Science and
Mathematics, 85(3), 210-221.
Borasi, R. & Rose, B. J. (1989). Journal writing and mathematics
instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20,347-65.
Davis, R. B. (1982). The diversity of errors in mathematics. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 3(2), 73-77.
Davis, R. B., Jockusch, E., & McKnight, C. (1978). Cognitive processes in
learning algebra. Journal ofChildren's Mathematical Behavior, 2(1), 10-
230.
Davison, D., & Pearce, D. (1990). Perspectives on writing activities in the
mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2 (1),
15-22.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.e.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New
York: Macmillan.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing
Company.
Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D.A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction:
Subject matter knowledge. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 77, 247-
271.
Miller, L. D. (1990). When students write in algebra class. The Australian
Mathematics Teacher, 46 (2), 4-7.
Miller, L. D. (in press). Writing to learn mathematics. Mathematics Teacher.
44 Miller
Miller, L. D., & England, D. A. (1989). Writing to learn algebra. School
Science and Mathematics, 89 (4), 299-312.
Nahrang, C. L., & Peterson, B. T. (1986). Using writing to learn
mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 79, 461-465.
Peterson, P.L., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T.P. (1989). Teachers'
pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6
(1), 1-40.
Reuille-Irons, R., & Irons, C.J. (1989). Language experiences: A base for
problem solving. In P.R. Trafton & A.P. Schulte (Eds.), New directions
in elementary school mathematics (pp. 85-98). Reston: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of
teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M.e. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook ofresearch on teaching (pp.3-36). New York: Macmillan.
Waywood, A. (1989). Mathematics and language: Reflections on students
using mathematics journals. In R. P. Hunting (Ed.), Language issues in
learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 123-139). Bundoora: La Trobe
University School of Education.