Jurnal Sip

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]
On: 09 August 2013, At: 08:32

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Mathematical Thinking and Learning

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmtl20
Mathematics Teachers' Reasoning About

Fractions and Decimals Using Drawn
Representations
a
Soo Jin Lee , Rachael Eriksen Brown & Chandra Hawley Orrill
a
Montclair State University
Knowles Science Teaching Foundation
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

Published online: 13 Jul 2011.
To cite this article: Soo Jin Lee , Rachael Eriksen Brown & Chandra Hawley Orrill (2011) Mathematics
Teachers' Reasoning About Fractions and Decimals Using Drawn Representations, Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 13:3, 198-220
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2011.564993
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13: 198220, 2011

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1098-6065 print / 1532-7833 online
DOI: 10.1080/10986065.2011.564993
Mathematics Teachers Reasoning About Fractions

and Decimals Using Drawn Representations
Soo Jin Lee
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013
Montclair State University
Rachael Eriksen Brown

Knowles Science Teaching Foundation
Chandra Hawley Orrill

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
This qualitative study considers middle grades mathematics teachers reasoning about drawn representations of fractions and decimals. We analyzed teachers strategies based on their response
to multiple-choice tasks that required analysis of drawn representations. We found that teachers
flexibility with referent units played a significant role in understanding drawn representations with
fractions and decimals. Teachers who could correctly identify or flexibly use the referent unit could
better adapt their mathematical knowledge of fractions validating their choice, whereas teachers who
did not attend to the referent unit demonstrated four problem-solving strategies for making sense of
the tasks. These four approaches all proved to be limited in their generalizability, leading teachers to
make incorrect assumptions about and choices on the tasks.
In traditional mathematics classrooms, an emphasis on the use of abstract and symbolic representations (e.g., the long division algorithm, invert-and-multiply) has dominated. In contrast,
standards-based classrooms provide students with opportunities to create and use a variety of representations (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000). In fact, the NCTM
(2000) and others (e.g., Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001) have suggested that engaging students in mathematics through multiple representationssuch as diagrams, graphical displays,
and symbolic expressionsis powerful, and flexibility in utilizing representations is considered
a primary characteristic of a competent problem solver (e.g., Dreyfus & Eisenberg, 1996). For
teachers, having this flexibility is critical for opening up conversation with students about their
learning (NCTM, 2000; Goldin, 2002), and provides gateways to abstraction and generalization
as their students develop the ability to mathematize situations (Smith, 2003, p. 264). Despite
widespread agreement that using multiple representations to support student learning is critical,
teachers frequently still rely on one type of representation in their classrooms: symbolic notation.
Too often, when teachers use other representations, they only use them to illustrate solutions as
Correspondence should be sent to Soo Jin Lee, PhD, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montclair State
University, NJ, 07043, USA. E-mail: leesoo@montclair.edu
TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS
199
opposed to adapting the representation to support the development of student understanding of

rational numbers (Izsk, 2008). Few teachers use representations to model concepts or actively
problem solve despite the research that shows that drawn representations can be used to facilitate
moving from concrete to abstract understandings of mathematical concepts (Post, Wachsmuth,
Lesh, & Behr, 1985).
The limited use of drawings may be linked to teachers beliefs that models might confuse
their students. This argument is somewhat substantiated by research indicating that students have
lower success rates on assessment items with drawn representations than those without (Lesh,
Behr, & Post, 1987). However, we assert that the underutilization of drawn representations suggests a gap in teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008).
That is, teachers either lack their own understanding of these representations, thereby limiting
their ability to interact with them, or they lack the pedagogical knowledge necessary to support students in learning with them. Teachers must understand their content, have strategies for
working with students and content, and understand the connections among ideas as well as the
representations for and the common student difficulties with particular ideas (Ball, Lubienski,
& Mewborn, 2001, p. 448). To better understand teacher knowledge and to explore our assertion about the lack of use of representations, in this study we examined teachers strategies for
interpreting drawn representations of fraction and decimal operations by addressing the following question: How does attention to referent units shape teachers problem-solving approaches
in multiple choice tasks that require analysis of representations?
The data reported in this study were gathered as part of a larger study of teacher professional development for which an assessment of middle grades teachers abilities to reason
with rational numbers was developed. Items on the assessment were all multiple choice and
included items taken, with permission, from the University of Michigans Learning Mathematics
for Teaching measures of mathematical knowledge for teaching (Study of Instructional
Improvement/Learning Mathematics for Teaching [SII/LMT], 2004) as well as several items
created by the project team (see Izsk, Orrill, Cohen, & Brown, 2010 for a description of the
instrument). As part of the instrument validation effort, the assessment was administered to a
nationwide convenience sample of 201 teachers. Additionally, 25 interviews were conducted on
select items from the assessment as a means for understanding how teachers were determining
their answers on the assessment.
In this study, we analyzed a subset of 12 middle school teachers interview responses to
assessment items that required them to make sense of area models and number lines for various operations with fractions and decimals. Our goal was to address two gaps in the literature
around representations and fraction operations. First, most research done on representations has
focused on graphs and verbal representations (e.g., Gagatsis & Shiakalli, 2004) rather than on
drawn representations such as area and number line models. Second, while researchers have provided considerable insight into student conceptual understanding of rational numbers (e.g., Behr,
Harel, Post, & Lesh, 1994; Behr, Wachsmuth, Post, & Lesh, 1984; DAmbrosio & Mewborn,
1994; Freudenthal, 1983; Moss & Case, 1999; Olive, 1999, 2001; Olive & Steffe, 2002; Steffe,
2002; Steffe & Olive, 2010), the literature has yet to provide an equivalent insight into teachers
knowledge of these concepts. As assessment developers and professional developers, we found
the lack of research in this area to be problematic for guiding our development of both the assessment and the professional development. The lack of prior research became particularly noticeable
in the intersection of teachers conceptual understandings and their abilities to interpret a range
of drawn representations modeling fraction operations.
200
LEE, BROWN, AND ORRILL
LITERATURE REVIEW
As a way of understanding what is known about teachers abilities to interpret drawn representations, we provide an overview of two areas of the literature: mathematical knowledge for teaching
rational numbers and teacher knowledge of representations and problem-solving strategies.
Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Rational Numbers

Teacher knowledge related to student learning was conceptualized by Shulman (1986) as being
comprised of a series of interconnected knowledge types. Important for the current study,
Shulman described pedagogical content knowledge as knowing about students thinking about
particular topics, anticipating typical difficulties that students have, and having available a repertoire of representations that make mathematical ideas accessible to students. Since its proposal,
pedagogical content knowledge has been the basis for a plethora of research in mathematics
teaching (cf., Borko et al., 1992; Borko & Putnam, 1996). For instance, Borko and colleagues
examined prospective teachers knowledge in a case study of a middle school teacher, Ms.
Daniels. When she was asked by a child to explain why the invert-and-multiply algorithm works
for dividing fractions, Ms. Daniels could not clearly represent fraction division. Instead, she
modeled fraction multiplication despite having taken several undergraduate mathematics courses
where she demonstrated the ability to represent fraction division. The case of Ms. Daniels suggests that simply developing enough mathematical knowledge to solve problems is insufficient
for supporting student learning.
In a similar line of research, Ball and colleagues (2008) have conceptualized the mathematical knowledge teachers need to support student learning. Their work has identified this body of
knowledge as mathematical knowledge for teaching. While differentiating between pedagogical
content knowledge and mathematical knowledge for teaching is outside the scope of the current
study, we draw from both frameworks in our thinking about what teachers need to know and
be able to do to support their students in learning mathematics. For ease of reading we refer to
this construct as specialized knowledge for teaching throughout this article. A teacher with
stronger specialized knowledge is not only able to introduce content but also interpret student
work and support students in moving from their current mathematical understandings to new
understandings. From our perspective, specialized knowledge for teaching is critical for interpreting students non-standard approaches to tasks to determine their viability and to support
students in developing richer understanding.
For our work, the specialized knowledge for teaching construct frames the assessment development efforts underway for measuring teacher knowledge. Because we are interested in both the
development of instruments and the use of those instruments to drive professional development,
the mathematical knowledge for teaching work (e.g., Ball et al., 2008) is particularly relevant.
We build from the belief that there is knowledge critical for teachers that is unique to their profession. Because of this belief, the assessment used in the present study focused on specialized
knowledge for teaching. We began building from the Learning Mathematics for Teaching assessments of mathematical knowledge for teaching (SII/LMT, 2004) because they are currently the
most widely used instruments of their kind. Further, studies with the instruments indicate mathematical knowledge for teaching is both measurable and matters for student achievement. For
201
example, one recent study showed third-grade teacher performance on the Learning Mathematics
for Teaching assessment of mathematical knowledge for teaching was as strongly correlated to
student achievement as was student socioeconomic status level (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005).
These findings suggest that understanding the nature of mathematical knowledge for teaching
and better defining its components could impact student learning in important ways.
In both the Learning Mathematics for Teaching assessment of mathematical knowledge for
teaching and our instrument, all the items attempted to address the specialized knowledge for
teaching operations with fractions and decimals rather than just capturing whether teachers had a
way of solving the items. To this end, many assessment items asked teachers to analyze hypothetical student approaches to particular items or to determine appropriate approaches for classroom
instruction rather than simply asking for solutions to mathematics problems.
Referent Units and Drawn Representations

Exploring the role of the mathematics of quantity has been one strand of research on the development of rational numbers concepts for children (Kaput, 1985; Schwartz, 1988). This perspective
emphasizes the strong relationship between numbers and their referent unitsthat is the linkage of units of measurements and the magnitude of quantitiesfor understanding relations and
operations. For example, knowing that 2/3 1/5 can be conceived of as having 1/5 of a unit and
wanting to identify 2/3 of that 1/5. The resulting product, 2/15, refers back to the same whole
to which the 1/5 referred. As children encounter the domain of rational numbers, changes in
the nature of the unit largely account for the cognitive complexity entailed in linking meaning,
symbols, and operations (Behr, Harel, Post, & Lesh, 1992; Harel & Confrey, 1994; Hiebert &
Behr, 1988). In short, reasoning with referent units is both difficult and necessary for childrens
mathematical development.
Despite the literature indicating the importance of referent units for students operations with
fractions, few studies have investigated the role of referent units in teachers understanding
of rational numbers. One study examined two middle school teachers knowledge of fraction
multiplication as they interpreted students work with drawn representations and used drawn
representations to teach fraction operations in the classroom (Izsk, 2008). Izsk found that a
teachers attention to units was a necessary component of effective instruction for incorporating linear or area representations into teaching. Even though one teacher could attend to units
in working with fraction multiplication tasks, she did not apply that reasoning as she interpreted
students representations, thereby missing an opportunity to make adequate sense of the students
thinking. Izsk concluded that the teachers perspective about students learning and drawn representations all played significant roles in forming her mathematical knowledge for teaching. Based
on this study, it is clear that while insufficient for teaching fraction concepts, having a meaningful understanding of referent units is one requisite component of teachers specialized knowledge
for teaching. Teachers need to have such knowledge both to engage students in developing their
own understandings and to interpret their students reasoning about fractions.
In another study, Izsk, Tillema, and Tun-Pekkan (2008) explored fraction addition using
number lines in one classroom. Based on analysis of interactions between the teacher and one
student, the researchers asserted that drawings could lead to miscommunication between teachers
and students. Differences between the teachers and students perspectives on fractions led to
202
them confounding each others understanding of fractions. Together Izsks studies (Izsk, 2008;
Izsk et al., 2008) suggest teaching fraction addition and multiplication with representations
requires teachers to have the ability to attend to the appropriate referent unit and flexibly use
drawn representations for solving problems. The studies also suggest that teachers need to know
when and why representations should be used as well as how students might use them.
Building from the premise that referent-unit knowledge is a necessary component of specialized knowledge for teaching and noting that teachers struggle with representations, we sought
to understand how our sample of teachers used referent-unit reasoning in items that use drawn
representations. We also identified strategies used in place of referent-unit reasoning across a
variety of multiple-choice items. Our study contributes to the field by providing an initial presentation of teacher knowledge related to referent-unit reasoning and, more specifically, in providing
an analysis of how teachers make sense of fraction concepts using drawn representations. The
underlying motivation behind this research is to inform the professional development of teachers. By understanding how teachers used their knowledge to interpret a series of representations,
mathematics educators are better able to develop quality professional learning.
Teachers Problem-Solving Strategies with Rational Numbers
Our search of the rational numbers literature yielded three studies of the strategies teachers
employed in solving rational number problems. The first two focused on teachers interpreting
fractional quantities from drawn representations (Behr, Helen, Harel, Post, & Lesh, 1997; Harel
& Behr, 1995) whereas the third study considered teachers responses to word problems (Seaman
& Szydlik, 2007).
Of the two studies from the Rational Numbers Project (Behr et al., 1997; Harel & Behr,
1995), one focused on practicing teachers, while the other considered preservice teachers who,
by definition, have not yet developed high levels of specialized knowledge for teaching because
they lack the experience needed for developing and refining that knowledge. Behr and associates
(1997) provided an analysis of preservice teachers problem-solving strategies in answering the
question How many piles of sticks are in three-fourths of eight bundles of four sticks? Behr
and colleagues found that the successful preservice teachers commonly used two strategies to
solve the problem. However, in one strategy, teachers operated on the number of units in a
unit of units, whereas the other strategy seemed more focused on the sizes of the units in a
unit of units (see Behr et al., 1997 for more detail). This emphasizes a strong knowledge of
units as a fundamental factor in successfully using representations of fraction multiplication
situations. Like our research, this research focused on representations (e.g., bundles of sticks)
and used conceptual analysis to make sense of the strategies used. However, we investigated
inservice teachers problem-solving strategies in responding to multiple-choice items and also
looked across teachers strategies in the various drawn representations and operations. Moreover,
the Rational Numbers Project study focused only on strategies that provided correct answers,
whereas we accounted for strategies that were unsuccessful.
In the second study, Harel and Behr (1995) interviewed 32 inservice (grade 46) teachers to
identify and classify their strategies in solving rational number multiplication and division problems, looking for violations of basic intuitive models (Fischbein, Deri, Nello, & Marino, 1985).
For example, in multiplication, one basic intuitive model is that multiplication always makes
numbers bigger. The researchers found that teachers intuitive models influenced their problem
203
solving just as they influenced childrens and preservice teachers problem solving. Interestingly,
Harel and Behr found that only teachers who incorporated the concepts of ratio and proportion
solved the problems relationally and correctly without having constraints from intuitive models.
Like our study, Harel and Behr (1995) identified teachers unsophisticated strategies for solving
problems. In their study, these strategies included trying the four symbolic operations to find a
correct operation or using the keywords (e.g., give away for subtraction, of for multiplication,
share for division, etc.) to identify the operation.
More recently, Seaman and Szydlik (2007) suggested that the problem-solving strategies or
mathematical reasoning displayed by the participant elementary teachers differ from that of practicing mathematicians in that the teachers reasoning was mathematically unsophisticated and
impoverished. In the study, 11 preservice elementary teachers were asked to interpret a fraction multiplication problem. Six participants misapplied keyword strategies to interpret the item
as being a subtraction problem. Finding keywords was not sophisticated enough to use in this
situation. In contrast, the researchers found that the three teachers who successfully identified
the problem as fraction multiplication used approaches similar to practicing mathematicians:
they attended to the language, drew a model of the situation, and determined the answer was
reasonable given the context.
To summarize, existing research highlights teachers failures to invoke necessary knowledge
when interpreting problem situationswhether from drawn representations, from word problems, or from students questions. Further, as shown in Izsks work (Izsk, 2008; Izsk et al,
2008), teachers struggle to use representations in clear ways for classroom instruction. We build
on these earlier studies by considering teachers approaches to interpreting a variety of fraction
operation items that use drawn representations. We consider teachers approaches to each item
to provide an analysis of the problem-solving strategies used. Our goal is to provide insight into
the knowledge the teachers rely on for interpreting these problems and representations.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Our work is grounded in the emerging line of thinking about specialized knowledge for teaching as well as in the work on knowledge in pieces (diSessa, 1988; Izsk, 2005, 2008; Smith,
1995; Smith, diSessa, & Roschelle, 1993). Specifically, we draw on key ideas that inform our
thinking about how teachers understand the mathematics and what specialized knowledge for
teaching should be in this domain. We agree with the position that for each person, knowledge
is distributed across a series of interrelated general and context specific components (Smith
et al., 1993, p. 145) that manifest themselves in different ways in different situations. The implication of this is that a teacher may draw on a variety of small components of understandings
in any given situation and that failure to invoke expected components of knowledge does not
necessarily imply their absence.
Building from knowledge in pieces, we propose that expertise may be about having greater
flexibility in approaches to solving problems rather than in having more elegant ways of using
a single approach. This is consistent with Smith and colleagues (1993) who showed while there
were three algorithms that might be applied to an entire problem set to produce correct responses
efficiently, experts in their study relied on a range of approaches that did not include the three
algorithms. Instead, the expert participants relied on perceptions of ease of use and elegance
204
(e.g., working with nicer numbers) rather than on quick calculation in choosing their strategies.
In other words, people with more expertise could essentially flip through a mental catalog of
options for working each problem, analyze the fit of each option, and apply an effective tool
to the situation. For the experts in the study, this analysis and fitting of approaches was done
problem-by-problem. In contrast, novices did not exhibit such flexibility.
We assert that specialized knowledge for teaching, as defined previously, necessarily requires
this kind of ability. Teachers need to know and understand components of knowledge such
as identifying referent units, applying area conceptions to drawings, and applying keyword
strategies. In fact, we assert that one important component of knowledge for our study is the
ability to demonstrate flexibility with units. By flexibility, we refer to a teachers ability to keep
track of the unit to which a fraction refers (e.g., in a problem such as 1/5 1/4 = 1/20, the 1/4
and 1/20 refer to a whole, but the 1/5 refers to a portion of the 1/4) and to shift their relative
understanding of the quantities as the referent unit changes. This ability, combined with the
ability to norm (i.e., identify the standard unit from which to measure; Lamon, 1994), seems to
be a critical component for teachers to use to interpret a variety of student solutions. However,
we assert that knowing how to do this and knowing when to do it need to be coordinated in
some deeper understanding that connects these individual units of knowledge together (diSessa,
1988). This study rises out of the recognition that the research community currently lacks the
depth of understanding of how teachers think about mathematics that would allow professional
development and teacher preparation programs to support the development of not only the
individual components of knowledge but, more importantly, the theoretical foundation to
connect them into the flexible library that experts exhibit.
Our interest in the use of drawings as a means of reasoning about fractional quantities creates
an interesting testing ground for considering teacher knowledge because interpreting representations requires teachers to make connections between and among various knowledge components
that may not be coordinated in algorithmic approaches. After all, a single drawing requires the
teacher to be able to interpret both the mathematics that is supposed to be represented and the
mathematics that is being represented and to consider whether those are the same. We suggest
that this is difficult for teachers. In fact, in our own observations, consistent with Izsk (2008), we
rarely see teachers using drawn representations for purposes other than illustrating answers. From
a knowledge in pieces perspective, the use of representations provides a particular challenge for
teachers, who were typically taught using memorized algorithms, to apply those algorithms and
other approaches to drawings that rely on a coherent understanding of mathematics. After all,
for teachers to support students in using representations, they need ways of coordinating their
own mathematical understandings that allow them to interpret various representations of mathematical ideas that may be idiosyncratic. The teachers role is to help students build bridges from
idiosyncratic to conventional representations (Smith, 2003).
We posit that knowledge in pieces provides insight into the specialized knowledge for teaching
because it considers not just the knowledge that teachers have but also how the components of
understanding are connected. Our interest, ultimately, is in understanding what teachers need
to know to support student learning rather than simply assessing what teachers do or do not
know. Indeed, all our participants were capable of generating correct answers to the underlying
mathematical situation in each task. However, they were challenged by having to reason with
different components of knowledge to make sense out of others reasoning. We assert that this is
important because it is the task of teaching.
205
METHODS
The dataset for this study includes interviews with 12 middle grades teachers who had completed
a written multiple-choice assessment of rational numbers. The assessment was comprised of
items from the Learning Mathematics for Teaching measures of mathematical knowledge for
teaching (SII/LMT, 2004) as well as items developed by our research team. Once the teachers
had completed the written assessment, they were invited to participate in a one-hour validation
interview that was intended to inform the development of the assessment items. In this interview,
we asked the teachers to discuss how they understood each item and why they did or did not
select each of the given answer options.
For this study, we relied on a subset of eight assessment items (see Table 1 for the list of operations and representation type of each item), with the eighth item, the fraction division number
line item, only being discussed by four participants because of time constraints in the interviews.
Each item provided teachers with one or more drawings of a fraction or decimal operation and
asked the teacher to interpret different aspects of the number line or area model representations.
For example, some of the questions simply asked the teachers about what the drawing was showing them while others provided sample student drawings and asked the teacher to determine their
correctness. The assessment was administered to a national convenience sample of 201 teachers
and the teachers in this study were from a convenience sample of those teachers who had taken
the assessment and were geographically near the researchers. The 12 interviewees for this study
represented three school districts (one rural and two urban) and comprised the entire population
of the first round of interviews for the instrument. The sample of teachers included one special education teacher. The participants ranged in experience from second-year teachers to those
with 20 or more years of experience and included teachers with traditional certificates as well
as those who had completed alternative certification programs. Several of the teachers had masters degrees and some had completed educational specialist degrees. The sample included seven
urban and five rural teachers. Some of the teachers had experience teaching with standards-based
curriculum such as Connected Mathematics Program (Lappan, Fey, Fitzgerald, Friel, & Phillips,
2002) that promotes the use of representations (as laid out by NCTM, 2000).
The interviews were videotaped using two camerasone focused on the participants written
work and hand gestures, the other on the interviewees face. These videos were mixed into one
file to create a restored view (Hall, 2000) and transcribed verbatim. Our initial analysis focused
on identifying emergent themes in the data. Each transcript was analyzed by at least two members of the research team using emergent codes to find pools of meaning in the participants
discussions (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). Each researcher noted the trends that were emerging
using memoing techniques in concert with the coding scheme (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). As the
findings began to emerge, further analysis was used to make sense of the emerging trends and
strengthen our definitions of codes. To this end, each researcher focused on a subset of items
within each video.
Once most of the key strategies had been identified, two researchers analyzed all the videos
again to explain each teachers responses for all the items included in this analysis. In addition
to coding for key strategies, we also made notes whenever the teachers expressed discomfort in
using the drawn representations or described his or her experience with drawn representations.
The researchers compared their notes and reanalyzed any responses until there was 100% interrater agreement. In analyzing the data, we concentrated not only on their verbal interpretations
206
Fraction
Addition
Fraction
Multiplication
(Figure 2)
Fraction
Division I
Fraction
Division II
(Figure 3)
Decimal
Multiplication
(Figure 5)
Fraction
Subtraction
Fraction
Multiplication
(Figure 1)
Fraction
Division
(Figure 4)
0
Inflexibility
With Referent
Units
Identifying
Requisite
Features
Looking for a
Diagram that
Matches a
Solution
Using a
Process of
Solving to
Select
Solutions
Measuring to
Find a
Solution
Other
Note that the percentages reported in this study for the named strategies are the percentages based only on the total number of classified strategies observed. The instances in the
Other category were not considered.
Number Line
Area Model
Attending to
Referent
Units with
Flexibility
Strategies Used by Teachers
TABLE 1
Teacher Strategy Frequency for Each Item
207
of the work but also on the nonverbal cues such as tick marks and hand gestures. The data were
triangulated both between researchers and across participants (Denzin, 1989) to ensure that a
trustworthy picture of teachers problem-solving strategies emerged.
FINDINGS
In our analysis of middle school teachers sense-making of drawn representations for fraction
operations, we found that teachers who demonstrated flexibility in their understanding of the referent unit could adapt their mathematical knowledge of fractions to select reasonable responses.
However, most of the teachers demonstrated one or more limitations in their ability to renorm
or work with a changing referent unit within the items. In these cases, teachers either applied
an inflexible approach to referent units or one (or more) of four strategies that did not rely on
referent units at all: identifying requisite features, looking for a diagram that matches a solution,
using the process of solving to select solutions, and measuring to find a solution.
As shown in Table 1, of the 88 tasks analyzed (seven questions each for eight teachers and
eight questions each for four teachers), 18 explanations (20%) could not be classified into our
categories because teachers used anomalous approaches that were not seen across teachers or
across tasks. Of these 18, three were cases in which the participant either guessed or was unable
to make sense of the item. The remaining 15 were either instances of the participant not remembering how they reasoned through the item (3 out of 15) or the strategy used did not fit into our
categories and was deemed to be an outlier. Such responses included disliking the representations
provided to the point of distraction or misreading the item in such a way that the solution did not
fit with the stem (e.g., solving for length rather than area).
The presentation of our data focuses on the 80% of responses that did fit into the classification
categories. In this section, we share data demonstrating the various strategies teachers used in
order to explain their choice of solutions (see Table 2 for strategy use by participant).
Attending to Referent Units
Teachers applied reasoning with referent unitscorrectly or incorrectlyin 30 of the 88 explanations analyzed (34%). Broadly, we classified these teachers into two groups: identifying
referent units and inflexibility with referent units. Each item in which participants focused on
the referent unit as part of their strategy for making sense of the model was coded as identifying
referent units. For situations where teachers focused on the referent unit as a fixed and inflexible value rather than considering various possible wholes, we used the inflexibility with referent
units code. Both of these categories are described further next.
Identifying Referent Units
Identifying the referent unit was observed in 22 of the 30 cases in which referent unit was
explicitly discussed (73%). The label was given only to those items in which teachers clearly
discussed the whole (referent unit) and its relationship to the parts of the item. As shown in
Table 2, only two of the participants failed to exhibit referent-unit reasoning at some point in the
208
TABLE 2
Strategies Used by Participants
Attending to Referent Units
Name
Alicia
Casey
Edison
Ellen
Jaelyn
Kendall
Lydia
Malcolm
Nina
Pamela
Rick
Sarah
Identifying
Referent
Units
Inflexibility
with Referent
Units
2
3
2
0
0
2
3
1
2
3
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
1
2
Not Attending to Referent Units
Requisite
Features
Diagram that
Matches a
Solution
Process of
Solving to
Select
Solutions
Measuring to
Find a
Solution
1
0
1
2
5
0
0
1
3
2
2
1
1
0
2
4
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
interviews. Each of the other 10 participants used referent-unit reasoning in at least two items.
Nine chose the correct answer for at least one item on which they attended to referent units. The
tenth participant selected incorrect responses when taking the test, but during the interview he
began to reason with referent units to correct his responses and explain how his original responses
were incorrect. None of the participants relied on the referent-unit reasoning strategy more than
half of the time across the seven or eight items on which they were interviewed; however 15 of
the 30 instances were with the area multiplication and area addition problems (see Table 1). In
fact, participants were able to reason with referent units over 25% of the time with the fraction
area problems and less than 20% of the time with the fraction number line problems.
In the number line fraction multiplication problem1 (see Figure 1), we asked teachers to identify the number line that correctly modeled 1/5 1/4. Even though the portion of the bolded lines
for each choice represented one-twentieth, drawing 1a shows 1/51/4 = 1/20 while drawing 1b
shows 1/5 1/4 = 1/20. Four of the 12 teachers attended to the referent unit correctly and identified that number line 1a in Figure 1 was an incorrect representation because the unit to which
one-fifth referred in the drawing was the whole rather than the one-fourth. For instance, Edison,2
who commented throughout the interview about his lack of familiarity with any drawn representations, rejected choice 1a with the rationale, I dont know if I am wrong or right. But I did not
choose [1a] because it [pointing to the one-fifth line] wasnt one-fifth of this one-fourth piece.
It was one-fifth to the entire line, and I thought that I wanted one-fifth of just the one-fourth.3
1 Because the assessment items are secure, the items reported here have been modified with the intent of maintaining
the mathematical ideas and the complexity of the original items.
2 All names are pseudonyms.
3 In all the transcripts reported in this manuscript, italics have been used to emphasize the statement or phrase that
aided us in classifying the strategy used.
209
FIGURE 1 a. Number-line model of 1/4 1/5 = 1/20; b. Number-line

model of 1/4 1/5 = 1/20.
FIGURE 2 Two area models of 1/3 of 3/4.
Unlike teachers who made their selection based on locating the correct amount (length) of the
line shaded,4 Edison applied his understanding of referent units and his knowledge that fraction
multiplication acts to segment a part of a part of a whole. His correct attention to the referent unit
of one-fifth in Figure 1a guided him toward correctly eliminating this answer choice.
Similarly in the area multiplication item (see Figures 2a and 2b), teachers attending to referent
units referred to the relationship of the parts to each other and to the whole. For example, Sarah
noted on the drawing like 2a:
The first thing I saw, well the first thing I thought was are they all accurate? And then I said, okay
well this [indicating the whole square divided] is four fourths. Heres three fourths [indicating the
three lightly shaded segments]. And he took one of the three. So in my head he was thinking, heres
my three fourths, theres three of them, I need one third of the three fourths so I take this one.
In this response, Sarah indicated that she was thinking about taking a 1/3 part from the 3/4
of the whole, which is consistent with our definition of reasoning with referent units. In this
case, the referent unit for the 3/4 was one whole and the referent unit for the 1/3 was the 3/4 of
one-whole.
Attending to the referent unit emerged as important in our efforts to understand how the teachers were interpreting the drawn representations. Reasoning flexibly with referent units required
4 This
solution.
is discussed later under teachers inefficient problem solving strategy, Looking for a diagram that matches a
210
teachers to apply knowledge about fractions and operations to a representational situation in

mathematically sound ways.
Inflexibility with Referent Units

We defined inflexibility with referent units as focusing on the referent unit as a fixed and
inflexible value throughout the task rather than considering there may be a number of wholes
embodied in the task. In the data set, this was most commonly evidenced when teachers attempted
to reason with referent units, but arrived at incorrect conclusions because they were unable to
renorm, that is, shift their understanding of what the whole in the situation was, or they failed to
identify the correct referent unit as part of their reasoning. Because our assessment tasks focused
on fractions and decimals, teachers who lacked flexibility with referent units struggled to make
sense of the representations. Inflexibility with referent units was identified eight times (9% of the
88 total tasks).
Five of the eight instances of limited flexibility occurred with the two area division problems
(see Table 1). In one division task using an area model, the teachers were asked whether a drawing such as that in Figure 3 could be interpreted as modeling 3/2 as the quotient for 12/3. In
the interview, we specifically asked the teachers to discuss whether they interpreted the diagram
as showing 2/3 of one whole shaded, 1/2 of 2/3 shaded, and/or the quotient 3/2 shaded because
we wanted to understand whether these teachers recognized that the quotient refers to a different
whole than the divisor and dividend. Four of the twelve teachers demonstrated inflexibility in
FIGURE 3 Area model that can be interpreted as showing 2/3 shaded;

1/2 of 2/3 unshaded; or 3/2 in all.
211
their interpretation of this drawing. All of those teachers explained that only the first interpretation, 2/3 of the whole is shaded, was correct. Sarah explained her reasoning for selecting this
interpretation:
To show three halves, I would think, one, you need more than one picture because you would need
to show the unit of two halves or one whole. So that you have a comparison so that you understand
that if this is one whole [she draws a unit square] or two halves [she partitions the unit square into
two pieces]. You need to be able to see that thats three halves. So that you can see that its bigger
than one unit [she draws a representation of the answer with a drawing bigger than the unit square].
So, for me this picture wasnt explaining what I needed it to explain cause I dont see one whole.
Sarah knew that looking for the whole was important but determined that the whole square
could only represent one whole. She wanted there to be two wholes, each divided in halves, to
model 3/2. She either did not know or did not rely on knowledge of the referent whole changing
in a division situation in her interpretation of this item. For this teacher, the answer was 3/2
without flexibly realizing the whole could be the shaded parts.
Likewise, Kendall demonstrated either successful or limited flexibility with referent units for
all five of the area model items (see Table 2). For example, on the same division item described
previously (Figure 3), Kendall indicated that the drawing could show 2/3 or it could show 2. She
explained, Its not 3/2 because its either wholesthree separate wholes or its 2/3. Thats what
we have. While she showed more flexibility than Sarah, she was unable to reason flexibly about
a variety of interpretations for the whole. Thus, this item was classified as limited flexibility.
Teachers Who Did Not Attend to Referent Units

The four key strategies in which teachers did not attend to referent units at all were used
to categorize 40 of the 88 responses analyzed (45%). Five of these include instances in
which teachers used two strategies in a single item. In these cases, the item was classified
for each. This resulted in 45 strategies being used across the 40 instances. While the four
non-referent unit strategies were used in nearly half of the instances, each proved to have significant limitations in its applicability. However, the teachers never indicated recognition of these
limitations.
Identifying Requisite Features
This was the most common of the four non-referent unit approaches (45%, 18 of 40 instances)
and was used by 9 of the 12 teachers at least once. In the requisite features approach, teachers
invoked knowledge about perceptual features (e.g., symbols or numbers on a given numerical
expression) in choosing the correct drawing rather than using conceptual operations or quantitative reasoning. To be more specific, when applying this strategy, the teachers focused on
connecting parts of the diagram to their corresponding parts in the numerical problem (e.g.,
locating both factors and the product in a multiplication item).
The area model for fraction multiplication task (see Figure 2) led to this solution strategy the most with 4 of the 12 participants relying on requisite features in their explanation
212
(see Table 1). We asked teachers to determine whether area models drawn by four hypothetical students accurately represented a quantity such as 1/3 of 3/4. Despite all four choices
modeling 1/3 of 3/4 using a part-of-part model, distributive reasoning, or equivalent fractions, teachers using the requisite features strategy accepted only the drawing like Figure 2b.
The typical explanation for this preference was that the factors, one-third and three-fourths,
were clearly presented and the overlapping part was the answer. This explanation implied
that the representations somehow contained specific stepwise elements that determined their
correctness. Teachers who attended to requisite features were less likely to accept representations with slight modifications as being correct. We posit that this conception may be a
by-product of the ways textbooks introduce these models and that the knowledge teachers
relied on may have been knowledge of their curricular materials rather than mathematical
understanding.
Jaelyn was one teacher who relied on this approach. She used the strategy in five of eight
items and was the only teacher to apply the strategy to both area model fraction division items.
In responding to the multiplication item described previously, Jaelyn explained her reasoning:
I looked at this [she indicates the choice like Figure 2b], the reason why I only picked [2b] was cause
that was the only one that looked right to me. [She laughs.] Because this was saying you had 1/3
going this way once. [She runs her index finger through the shaded third in the first row.] And then
one three-fourths. The fourths are going this way [she runs the same index finger along the three
vertically shaded regions] . . . so the answer of two fractions multiplication is the double shaded part,
which is three . . . um [pauses for about 5 seconds] twelfths. You see what Im saying?
Jaelyns explanation highlights that she located each factor and noted that the double-shaded
region was the product. She made her choice based on looking for requisite features in the
diagrams because she saw the one-third, the three-fourths, and the double-shaded product. It
seemed in the interview that she already had a numerical answer, one-fourth, in her mind as she
considered the choices.
Nina also rejected the representation like 2a but favored the drawing like 2b by thinking
only of requisite features. She explained, I was clear on [this task]. 1/3 of 3/4. [2a] was obviously wrong because there was nothing broken into thirds. 2b . . . this one was, if you had
to pick one, I would have said I like that one the best because it most obviously shows thirds
and fourths. It is clear in Ninas explanation that, for her, the representation needed to have
something divided into thirds and not just have one of the three-fourths shaded in order to be
correct.
This approach seemed favored by teachers who were either trying to link the algorithm to
the drawn representation or who were drawing on their past textbook experience with area
models. Teachers who used the requisite features approach did not include more meaningful
conceptual discussion of multiplication and how it works in their discussion of these items.
We note that while the requisite features approach was problematic because it led teachers
to reject drawings that were correct when aspects of the formula were not readily apparent.
However, this approach did consistently lead teachers to work in the problem context by attending to all parts of the situation including the operation. As will be discussed elsewhere in this
article and as discussed elsewhere (e.g., Orrill, Sexton, Lee, & Gerde, 2008), teachers solving
the assessment items often lost track of the operation involved in an item as they discussed it.
Therefore, using a requisite features approach did have benefits for supporting mathematical
sense making.
213
Looking for a Diagram that Matches a Solution

This was the second most popular strategy (40%, 16 of 40 tasks) and was used on at least
one item by 9 of the 12 teachers in our analysis. Responses coded as looking for a diagram that
matches a solution were those in which the teacher not only calculated the solution before selecting but also relied on that solution to select the representation that best modeled the solution.
This was evidenced both in the teachers scratch work and in their discussion during the interviews. Because we anticipated this strategy, we designed the responses on the assessment in ways
that uncovered the approach. In fact, the assessment provided the solution as part of the stem in
most cases because we were interested in understanding how teachers interpreted the situation
rather than their ability to solve the task. Despite this, many teachers calculated the solution for
themselves.
When teachers used the matching a solution strategy, their criteria for selection was whether
the correct quantity was shown in the drawing, regardless of the operation being modeled within
the diagram. The implication of this was that they did not invoke knowledge other than calculational ability. For example, the drawing like Figure 1a was selected as correct by teachers using
the matching a solution strategy because the correct quantity was shaded even though the representation did not model multiplication. Ellens explanation of why she accepted both drawings
on the item like Figure 1 (1/5 1/4) highlights this approach.
Ellen: I just said all of them [referring to the number line drawings given in the item]. Why?
Cause I was looking at these. [She points at bolded portions of a and b.] I was thinking
20 parts. I dont know. I missed; I didnt understand it to tell you the truth.
I: You didnt understand it?
Ellen: You didnt understand it?
I: Im not sure about multiplying with number lines, but then . . .
I: Ok. Were there some of these diagrams that you felt more comfortable with than others?
Ellen: Sure.
I: Which one did you feel the most comfortable with?
Ellen: I felt comfortable with [1a] with the 1/5 times 1/4 equals 1/20. One-fifth times 1/4 equals
this. I dont know, I guess this cause its got the numbers there. I dont know.
I: Okay. What about the [other choices]? Theres no [labels] on those.
Ellen: I know there are no numbers, but I was looking at the portion. Thats 1/20, thats 1/20,
thats 1/20. [She points to the bold line segments in each of the number line drawings.]
While her explanation for preferring 1a included aspects of the requisite features strategy,
Ellens insecurity and her repeated highlighting of the shaded product for all the given number
lines led us to determine that she was more concerned with the solution quantity than with the
requisite parts. On the other number lines provided, Ellen explicitly stated that she looked for the
solution, 1/20, without regard to the presence of labels. In fact, the third and fourth choices (not
drawn in Figure 1) simply showed a segment 1/20 long placed in different parts of the number
line with no labeling at all.
Combined, our teachers relied on identifying requisite features or matching a solution for 85%
of the non-referent unit strategies (34 of 40 tasks). This suggests that teachers may approach
drawn representations by applying superficial or answer-oriented understandings rather than
relying on conceptual knowledge of operations. This is significant because relying on these
214
approaches led the teachers to frequently select incorrect responses as they were not focused
on particular aspects of the mathematics in the situation.
Using the Process of Solving to Select Solutions

Using the process of solving a problem was identified when the teacher used reasoning
through the solution process to inform the choice. This strategy differed from the matching a
solution strategy in that teachers using the process of solving looked for elements of the algorithm in the representation, not just the solution. Interestingly, this strategy was not invoked for
any fraction multiplication items. We conjecture that the division models and the number line
models may have been less familiar to the teachers, therefore they lacked preconceived ideas
of how of interpret them. Thus, they drew on the mathematics they knew (e.g., algorithms) and
tried to use that knowledge to make sense of the drawings. We observed 5 of the 12 teachers use
this strategy in 7 of the 40 instances in which referent unit reasoning was not used (17.5%). In
all seven instances of using the process of solving strategy, the teachers relied on algorithms to
make sense of the drawn models. For example, three teachers looked for a common denominator
between the two given fractions when identifying the correct number line model in the fraction
subtraction problem. Similarly, three of the four teachers interviewed about the number line fraction division problem (see Figure 4) changed the problem into a fraction multiplication situation
by using the invert-and-multiply algorithm and chose the number line that showed the process of
the algorithm. As shown in Figure 4, the number line division problem provided teachers with a
model that showed a partitive (sharing) division interpretation of 2/31/4. The intention behind
this item was to see if teachers would use a partitive interpretation of division, which asks, How
much is the share of one?
Teachers relying on the process of solving knew that when they used the invert-and-multiply
algorithm, they would have four groups of 2/3 because multiplication was interpreted as groups
of. The following two teachersRick and Kendallexplanations highlight this strategy.
Rick: Okay [35 second silence]. One, two, three, four. [He points at each of the four arcs with his
pencil.] I was happy with that partthe fact that there are four bumps. [He laughs.] Now,
how did I get 2/3 here? [After a pause, he explains that he began with the 2/3 on the number
line. He then points to each of the arcs over the 2/3 segments in Figure 4.] . . . Four twothirds is that it? Yeah four two-thirds thats what that was. Because it matched the algorithm
after I yeah that is what it did it matched the algorithm that I depend on foryeah that is
what it did.
Kendall: If you want them to show that the answer as being it is two and two-thirds when you put
it as a mixed number. That [she points at the number line in Figure 4] does show two and
two-thirds. And if he didlets see when you do, when youre doing division of fractions
FIGURE 4 One choice for the number-line fraction division problem.
215
then youre going to flip. Its going to be 2/3 times 4/1. [She writes the numerical expression
2/3 4/1.] So this [she points at the two-thirds] is 2/3 of a whole and he did it four, you
know, times four. One, two, three, four. Four. [She indicates the four arcs.] And thats where
he ended up. [She indicates the solution point.]
Rick explicitly stated that he applied his algorithmic knowledge in making his selection. While
Kendall also clearly considered the invert-and-multiply algorithm, she also attended to whether
the diagram matched a solution. However, we identified this as process of solving because more
than one diagram showed the correct quantity (e.g., one had two groups of 4/3), but only the
chosen diagram included four groups of 2/3 and the four groups seemed to be important to her
strategy. Therefore, we classified her approach as process of solving.
Among the four non-referent unit strategies, this one was arguably the most sophisticated
in that it required an application of understanding of the problem situations to make a correct
selection. However, it allowed teachers to focus on aspects of the context that were perhaps
secondary to the intended foci. For example, in the division task, the teachers using process of
solving applied multiplication as their interpretation lens for a division situation. While this lens
allowed the selection of a correct response, focusing on the inverted divisor maintains a connection to the algorithm that does not require conceptual understanding of division and overlooks the
fundamental question that the division problem is trying to model, What number is two-thirds
one-fourth of? In terms of specialized knowledge for teaching, this has significant implications in that the use of this strategy suggests a challenge in supporting students in developing a
conceptual understanding of partitive division.
Measuring to Find a Solution
This category was less prevalent than the others with only 4 of the 40 instances (10%) using
this strategy. In fact, two teachers used this strategy one time in the interviews while one teacher
implemented it twice. The measuring to find a solution strategy was only used with the fraction
subtraction number line problem, fraction multiplication area problem, and the decimal multiplication area problem (see Table 1). Measuring instances included all cases in which a teacher
turned to linear measurement, typically with an improvised measuring instrument such as a line
segment drawn on a sheet of paper or with fingers. This strategy invoked teachers understandings of measurement and demonstrated some connection between teachers number sense and
their geometric knowledge. While limited in its effectiveness, this strategy did place explicit
focus on the quantities of interest in the representations and not just numeric answers. For example, when Edison was asked to explain how the area of an entire figure such as that shown in
Figure 5 represented the final answer of the computation 0.3 1.2, he stated that he knew the
representation needed to be divided into 36 equal pieces in order to show the answer and that
each of those pieces needed to be one-hundredth of a unit of area. Then he said, I was going
to try splitting [the shaded part] up so that I can get [the 36 pieces] but I couldnt so I drew
. . . Then he folded the bottom of the page toward the figure (see Figure 6) so he could lay the
width side under the 1.2 units, then he continued to say, I just knew that that [he refers to the
six-hundredths that is unshaded] was six pieces. So I said thats 6 [he marks a line segment the
width of the white columns on the back of the page and begins to count as he moves the line
216
FIGURE 5 Decimal multiplication area model showing 0.3 1.2 (color

figure available online).
FIGURE 6 Edison measuring to find the solution (color figure available

online).
segment along the base of the rectangle], 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, so I figured that the statement was
correct.
As shown in this analysis, measuring did not require the teachers to have any particular understanding of the operations but did rely on their ability to correctly calculate the answer to use as
the basis for comparing their measurements. One of the most significant shortcomings of this
method was the lack of precision used in measuring and the lack of recognition of this as a
limitation by the teachers.
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In the introduction to this article we suggested that teachers may lack either the pedagogical
knowledge or the mathematical knowledge to make sense of drawn representations. Through
this investigation of 12 teachers reasoning across eight items, we noted that there were certainly
some components of knowledge (e.g., diSessa, 1988) that these teachers were either unable to
apply to the drawings or were missing. We note that there were no instances of teachers blindly
217
guessing without some basis for their decisioneven in the unclassifiable strategies, suggesting
that the teachers were relying on components of their knowledge in their analysis of the items.
Based on these findings, we assert that the teachers were flexible in the strategies that they used
and that they invoked different criteria for solving different items. This was similar to the experts
in the knowledge in pieces work (Smith et al., 1993). However, unlike those experts, our participating teachers were unable to flexibly and effectively apply different strategies across the
problem types (operation and drawn representation).
In response to our primary research question for this study, we had hoped to see these teachers
reason with the representations in place of algorithms. Reasoning with units was also highlighted
as desirable in the work done by the Rational Numbers Project (Behr et al., 1997; Harel & Behr,
1995). We view the 22 successful instances of reasoning with referent units as demonstrating a
desirable and effective strategy. However, correct referent-unit reasoning accounted for only 25%
of the 88 cases analyzed. The most common strategies used by teachers who did not attend to the
referent unit were requisite features and matching a solution. These strategies led to the correct
answer only 20.5% of the time (7 of the 34 instances) they were used. Thus, these strategies are
ineffective for reaching the correct solution.
The purpose of understanding teachers reasoning about these representations is to understand how teachers reason about mathematical situations and to provide guidance for effective
professional development opportunities. Our analysis raises questions about the reasonable
expectations for using drawn representations in classrooms as suggested by NCTM (2000) and
suggests professional development is needed to support teachers in thinking about representations in different waysparticularly in learning to reason with representations rather than trying
to interpret them as drawings of solutions (e.g., Izsk, 2008). We further assert that professional
development needs to support the broadening of teachers abilities to reason with representations
beyond just area models in multiplication situations. In this sample, the teachers struggled more
with number lines than area models, but also struggled with area model representations that were
not focused on multiplication in ways consistent with Figure 2b. In short, to address the NCTM
standards, teachers need to be able to make sense of student workwhich is neither predictable
nor prescribedin the classroom, and teachers who are not relying on conceptual understandings of mathematics (e.g., not relying on referent units) may incorrectly discourage a students
mathematical ideas. This is consistent with the limited literature base on teachers interactions
with students in fraction operation instruction (e.g., Borko et al., 1992; Izsk, 2008).
Our study points to particular needs for professional development. These teachers exhibited
certain expert-like qualities (Seaman & Szydlik, 2007) in their approaches to these items, which
suggests that professional development needs to capitalize on the knowledge and strategies the
teachers have while problematizing a variety of situations to support teachers in making connections among their uncoordinated ideas about fraction operations. Specifically, professional
development needs to support the teachers in developing a theoretical foundation to invoke
knowledge they have about the operations and move them from relying on applications of
algorithms or searches for correct answers as criteria for accepting drawings as models of mathematical problem solving. This is consistent with the idea of supporting teachers to reason as
mathematicians by looking for reasonable answers and attending to language, as was seen in
Seaman and Szydliks study.
Simply focusing professional development on practice with representations is insufficient. All
the teachers in this sample had previous knowledge of at least one representation used on this
218
assessment, yet the items with the most familiar representations (e.g., area model for fraction
multiplication) often led to the highest instances of rote applications supported by little more than
algorithmic knowledge rather than conceptual understandings of the operations. For example, the
drawings most common in textbooks (e.g., Figure 2b) seemed to elicit matching a solution and
requisite features approaches. In contrast, those that were less common (e.g., distributing 1/3
into each of three segments that was 1/4 of the whole) elicited more mathematically complex
reasoning from some teachers. Specifically, some teachers elicited their understandings of the
distributive property as they interpreted the representation rather than simply identifying whether
the correct pieces were shown. We propose, therefore, that teachers should be encouraged to
engage with representations that are non-standard and that lend themselves to mathematically
rich conversations. By making their thinking explicit, teachers can identify places in which their
own knowledge may be faulty and engage with other teachers around the mathematics upon
which representations build. For example, an item such as that shown in Figure 4 opens up
multiple opportunities to explore division as being richer than repeated subtraction (a common
whole-number conception) and more knowable than simply invert-and-multiply, which was the
overwhelming explanation for division we heard from these teachers (note that this is analogous
to the findings of Harel & Behr, 1995). These kinds of opportunities can support the development
of quantitative mathematical understandings as well as the development of a theoretical foundation to connect those ideas consistent with the development of expertise (e.g., Smith et al., 1993).
Clearly, supporting teachers in linking the mathematics they know to a wider array of representations (not just drawn) is a vital role for professional developers interested in the specialized
knowledge teachers need. By shifting the focus to modeling the problem-solving process rather
than representing the answer and by supporting teachers in developing ways of interpreting
representations, professional learning can lay the groundwork for teachers to engage their own
students in mathematically meaningful uses of drawings for reasoning about quantities. This will
help realize the Standards (NCTM, 2000) and is something that cannot happen if teachers lack
the understandings of representations necessary to link symbolic representations of mathematics
to drawn representations of the same mathematics.
While this study presents a starting point for considering the knowledge teachers have and
the need to make sense of representations of fraction operations, it falls short of presenting a
coherent theory of teacher knowledge or its development. Future research should focus on how
to develop reasonable learning opportunities for teachers that simultaneously acknowledge the
expertise they have while also supporting them in making new connections among and adding to
their knowledge pieces.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported here is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DRL0633975. The results reported here are the opinions of the authors and may not reflect those of
NSF. The authors wish to thank the Does it Work team for their support and particularly Danie
Brink, Andrew Izsk, and Susan Sexton for help in conducting the interviews analyzed for this
report. The authors also wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtfuland
thought-provokingcomments. Earlier versions of this report were presented at the Research
Presession of the 87th Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the
219
2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, and the International
Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008.
REFERENCES
Ball, D., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers
mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433456). New
York, NY: MacMillan.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(5), 389407.
Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T. R., & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 296333). New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing.
Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T. R., & Lesh, R. (1994). Units of quantity: A conceptual basis common to additive and
multiplicative structures. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning
of mathematics (pp. 121176). Albany, NY: State University Press of New York.
Behr, M., Helen, K., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1997). Conceptual units analysis of preservice elementary school
teachers strategies on a rational-number-as-operator task. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1),
4869.
Behr, M. J., Wachsmuth, I., Post, T. R., & Lesh, R. (1984). Order and equivalence of rational numbers: A clinical teaching
experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(5), 323341.
Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard
mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 23, 194222.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 673708). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DAmbrosio, B. S., & Mewborn, D. S. (1994). Childrens constructions of fractions and their implications for classroom
instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8(2), 150161.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp.
4970). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1996). On different facets of mathematical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev
(Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 253284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Nello, M. S., & Marino, M. S. (1985). The role of implicit models in solving verbal problems in
multiplication and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 317.
Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Boston, MA: D. Reidel.
Gagatsis, A., & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Ability to translate from one representation of the concept of function to another
and mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 645657.
Goldin, G. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of
international research in mathematics education (pp. 197218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hall, R. (2000). Videorecording as theory. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in
mathematics and science education (pp. 647664). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harel, G., & Behr, M. (1995). Teachers solutions for multiplicative problems. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics
Education, 3, 3151.
Harel, G., & Confrey, J. (1994). The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. Albany,
NY: SUNY Press.
Hiebert, J., & Behr, M. (1988). Number concepts and operations in the middle grades. Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching on student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371406.
220
Izsk, A. (2005). You have to count the squares: Applying knowledge in pieces to learning rectangular area. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 361403.
Izsk, A. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching fraction multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 95143.
Izsk, A., Orrill, C. H., Cohen, A., & Brown, R. E. (2010). Measuring middle grades teachers understanding of rational
numbers with the mixture Rasch model. Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 279300.
Izsk, A., Tillema, E., & Tun-Pekkan, Z. (2008). Teaching and learning fraction addition on number lines. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 39(1), 3362.
Kaput, J. J. (1985). Multiplicative word problems and intensive quantities: An integrated software response. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, Educational Technology Center.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Lamon, S. (1994). Ratio and proportion: Cognitive foundations in unitizing and norming. In G. Harel & J. Confrey
(Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 89120). Albany, NY: State
University Press of New York.
Lappan, G., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S. N., Phillips, E. D. (2002). Connected mathematics program. Glenview,
IL: Prentice Hall.
Lesh, R., Behr, M., & Post, T. (1987). Rational number relations and proportions. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of
representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 4158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moss, J. & Case, R. (1999). Developing childrens understanding of the rational numbers: A new model and an
experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 122147.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Olive, J. (1999). From fractions to rational numbers of arithmetic: a reorganization hypothesis. Mathematical Thinking
and Learning, 1(4), 279314.
Olive, J. (2001). Childrens number sequences: An explanation of Steffes constructs and an extrapolation to rational
numbers of arithmetic. The Mathematics Educator, 11(1), 49.
Olive, J., & Steffe, L. P. (2002). The construction of an iterative fractional scheme: The case of Joe. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 20, 413437.
Orrill, C.H., Sexton, S., Lee, S.-J., & Gerde, C. (2008). Mathematics teachers abilities to use and make sense of drawn
representations. In The International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008: Proceedings of ICLS 2008. Mahwah,
NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Post, T. R., Wachsmuth, I., Lesh, R., & Behr, M. J. (1985). Order and equivalence of rational number: A cognitive
analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 1836.
Schwartz, J. (1988). Intensive quantity and referent transforming arithmetic operations. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.),
Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 119140). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Seaman, C. E., & Szydlik, J. E. (2007). Mathematical sophistication among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(3), 167182.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414.
SII/LMT (Study of Instructional Improvement/Learning Mathematics for Teaching) (2004). Learning mathematics for
teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Smith, J. P. (1995). Competent reasoning with rational numbers. Cognition and Instruction, 13(1), 350.
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge
in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115163.
Smith, S. (2003). Representation in school mathematics: Childrens representations of problems. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G.
Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Steffe, L. P. (2002). A new hypothesis concerning childrens fractional knowledge. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
102, 141.
Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2010). Childrens fractional knowledge. New York, NY: Springer.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jurnal Sip

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Jurnal Sip

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]

On: 09 August 2013, At: 08:32

Mathematical Thinking and Learning

Mathematics Teachers' Reasoning About

Montclair State University

Knowles Science Teaching Foundation

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13: 198220, 2011

Mathematics Teachers Reasoning About Fractions

Montclair State University

Rachael Eriksen Brown

Chandra Hawley Orrill

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS

opposed to adapting the representation to support the development of student understanding of

LEE, BROWN, AND ORRILL

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Rational Numbers

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS

Referent Units and Drawn Representations

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

LEE, BROWN, AND ORRILL

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

LEE, BROWN, AND ORRILL

TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

Strategies Used by Teachers

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

LEE, BROWN, AND ORRILL

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

Not Attending to Referent Units

TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

FIGURE 1 a. Number-line model of 1/4 1/5 = 1/20; b. Number-line

FIGURE 2 Two area models of 1/3 of 3/4.

LEE, BROWN, AND ORRILL

teachers to apply knowledge about fractions and operations to a representational situation in

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

Inflexibility with Referent Units

FIGURE 3 Area model that can be interpreted as showing 2/3 shaded;

TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

Teachers Who Did Not Attend to Referent Units

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

LEE, BROWN, AND ORRILL

TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

Looking for a Diagram that Matches a Solution

LEE, BROWN, AND ORRILL

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

Using the Process of Solving to Select Solutions

FIGURE 4 One choice for the number-line fraction division problem.

TEACHERS REASONING ABOUT DRAWN REPRESENTATIONS

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

LEE, BROWN, AND ORRILL

Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 08:32 09 August 2013

FIGURE 5 Decimal multiplication area model showing 0.3 1.2 (color

FIGURE 6 Edison measuring to find the solution (color figure available