FLM Publishing Association

Supporting the Participation of English Language Learners in Mathematical Discussions

Author(s): Judit Moschkovich
Reviewed work(s):
Source: For the Learning of Mathematics, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 11-19
Published by: FLM Publishing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248284 .
Accessed: 14/01/2013 17:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

FLM Publishing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to For the
Learning of Mathematics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of English
Supportingthe Participation
in Mathematical Discussions
Language Learners
JUDIT MOSCHKOVICH

The aim of this paper is to explore how teachers can supportEnglishlanguagelearnersin learningmathematicsand
not only English. The focus of the analysis will be on one
importantaspect of learningmathematics:participationin
mathematicaldiscussions. I use a discourse perspective
(Gee, 1996) on learningmathematicsto address two pairs
of questionscentralto mathematicsinstructionfor students
who are learning English (as well as for students who are
nativeEnglishspeakers):
Whatcan a teacherdo to facilitate studentparticipation in a mathematicaldiscussion?How can a teacher
supportstudentsin speakingmathematically?
Whatare the varietyof ways that studentstalk about
mathematicalobjects?What are the different points
of view studentsbringto mathematicalsituations?
I examinea lesson froma thirdgrademathematicsdiscussion
of the geometricshapes from a tangrampuzzle to illustrate
how one teacher supportedmathematical discussion and
describehow studentsparticipatedby talking about mathematicalsituationsin differentways. I use excerpts from the
transcriptof this lesson to exemplify supportive teaching
strategiesanddescribethe varietyof ways thatstudentscommunicatemathematically.In particular,the teacher did not
focus primarilyon vocabularydevelopmentbut instead on
mathematicalcontent and arguments, as he interpreted,
clarifiedandrephrasedwhatstudentswere saying.
Duringthis lesson, the teacher's instructionalstrategies
included:1) using severalexpressionsfor the same concept;
2) using gesturesand objects to clarify meaning;3) accepting and building on student responses; 4) revoicing
(O'Connorand Michaels, 1993) student statements using
more technicalterms;and 5) focusing not only on vocabulary development but also on mathematical content and
argumentationpractices.My analysis of student participation in the discussion shows that students brought several
different ways of talking about mathematical objects and
points of view of mathematicalsituations to the classroom
discussion. Two importantfunctions of productive classroom discussions are uncoveringthe mathematicalcontent
in studentcontributionsandbringingdifferentways of talking andpointsof view intocontact(Ballenger,1997;Warren
and Rosebery,1996).

Frameworks for examining mathematical

discussions
One view of learningmathematicsis that English language
learnersneed to focus primarilyon learning how to solve
wordproblems,understandindividualvocabularytermsand
translate from English to mathematical symbols (e.g.
Mestre, 1988; Spanos, Rhodes, Dale, and Crandall,1988).
This view is reflectedin many currentrecommendationsfor
mathematicsinstructionfor English language learnersthat
emphasize vocabularyand comprehensionskills (Olivares,
1996; Rubenstein, 1996; MacGregor and Moore, 1992).
These recommendationsprovide a limited view of learning
mathematicsand do not addressa currentincreasedemphasis on mathematicalcommunication.
In contrast,in manymathematicsclassrooms,studentsare
no longer primarily grappling with acquiring technical
vocabulary, developing comprehension skills to read and
understandmathematicstextbooksor solving standardword
problems.Instead,studentsare now expected to participate
in both verbalandwrittenpractices,such as explainingsolution processes, describingconjectures,provingconclusions
and presentingarguments.
I use a discourse perspective on what it means to learn
mathematics to consider the participation of English
language learners in mathematical discussions, and take
a view of discourse as more than sequential speech or
writing,using Gee's definitionof 'Discourses'[1]:
Discoursesare ways of being in the world, or forms of
life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, social identities, as well as gestures, glances,
body positions and clothes. (Gee, 1996, p. 127)
Participatingin classroommathematicaldiscoursepractices
can be understood in general as talking and acting in the
ways that mathematically competent people talk and act
when talking about mathematics in a classroom, and
involves muchmorethanthe use of technicallanguage.Gee
uses the example of a biker barto illustratethis. In orderto
look and act like one belongs in a bikerbar,one has to learn
much more thana vocabulary.While knowingthe names of
motorcyclepartsor models may be helpful, it is clearly not
enough to participatein a bikerbar community.In the same
way, knowing a list of technical mathematicalterms is not
sufficient for participatingin mathematicaldiscourse.
Beyond technicalterms,mathematicaldiscourseincludes
constructionsused to proveor explainstatementssuch as "If
x, then y", "Let x be the case", "Assume ...", "This is the

For the Learning of Mathematics 19, 1 (March, 1999)

FLM Publishing Association, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

11

case because ...", "tomake comparisons,such as 'the higher

..., the smaller ...'" and to describespatial situations.There
are also valued discursivepractices,such as abstractingand
generalizing, making precise statements and ensuring
certainty,and the need to acquirecontrolover the accompanying formswhich reflectthem(see Halliday,1978 for some
instances).
One important aspect of classroom mathematical discourse practices is participating in mathematical
discussions, either as a whole class or with a group of students. For the purposes of this analysis, a mathematical
discussionwill be takento be:
purposeful talk on a mathematical subject in which
thereare genuine pupil contributionsand interactions.
(Pirie, 1991, p. 143)
While duringa classroommathematicaldiscussion the conversation might involve some aspects of standard or
canonicalmathematicaldiscourse,discussionin a classroom
is not the same as the discourseof researchmathematicians.
Studentsin mathematicsclassroomsshould not be expected
to talk and act in the same ways that research mathematicians do. Nevertheless, in general, students participatein
mathematicaldiscussions or communicatemathematically
by makingconjectures,presentingexplanations,constructing arguments, etc. about mathematical objects, with
mathematicalcontent, and towards a mathematical point
(Brenner,1994).
We can use several lenses to examine how English
language learners(or other students) participatein mathematical discussions and how teachers support student
participationin these discussions. Below I summarizethe
instructionalstrategiesthe US NCTM standards(1989) and
certainmathematicseducationclassroomresearch(e.g. Ball,
1991; Cobb et ai, 1993; Silver and Smith, 1996) suggest
for orchestratingand supportingmathematicaldiscussions:
model desired participationand talk; support these
when displayedby students;
encouragestudentconjecturesand explanations;
call for explanationsand evidence for students'statements;
focus on the process not only the product;
comparemethods,solutions, explanations;
engage students in argumentsfor or
against a statement (move beyond "agree"or "disagree");
encouragestudent-to-studenttalk;
ask studentsto paraphraseeach other's statements;
structureactivitiesso thatstudentshave to understand
each other's methods.
A comparisonof this discourse approachto mathematical
discussions with recommended language development
strategies for teaching mathematics to students who are
learning English yields some reassuring similarities and
some disturbingdifferences. Below is a brief summaryof
some commonly recommended language development
strategies:

use realia, pictures, models, diagrams, gestures,

charts,labels, dramatization,etc;
provide different forms of participation (orally, in
writing,graphically)and interaction(with the teacher,
with peers,alone);
adjustspeech (speed, enunciating,vocabulary);
check for comprehension;
providefeedback,appropriateresponseand adequate
wait time;
provideresourceswheneverpossible and useful (dictionaries,translations,interpreters).
I find these language development strategies disturbingin
that there is little guidance on how to concentrate on
the mathematical content of discussions. In general, the
considerationof mathematicalcontentfor English language
learners is apparently limited to providing exposure to
content vocabulary and identifying differences in mathematicalconventions(such as the use of a comma or a period
for decimals or the differentplacementof the long division
sign).
Another drawback of some language development
approachesto mathematicsteaching is a focus on correction of vocabularyor grammaticalerrors(Moschkovich,in
press), obscuringthe mathematicalcontentin what students
say and the variety of ways that students who are learning
English do, in fact, communicatemathematically.Instead,
by focusing on mathematicaldiscourse,teacherscan move
beyond focusing on errorsin English vocabularyor grammar to hear and supportthe mathematicalcontent of what
studentsaresaying.
Althoughthe strategiessummarizedabove can be helpful
in orchestrating discussions, they are, however, only a
beginning.These guidelines have some serious limitations.
First, both the NCTM standardsand the language development strategies can be interpreted as presenting
manipulatives and pictures as 'extra-linguistic clues',
assuming that the meaning of an object can be communicated withoutusing language.Instructioncannotdependon
using manipulatives as a way to deal with either comprehension or conceptual problems. Students need to use
languagein context,participatein conversationsand clarify
the meaning of the objects they are manipulating,looking
at or pointing to. Second, neither set of recommendations
provides enough guidance for how to listen to and understand the differentways that students talk mathematically
or for how to bringtogetherthese differentways of talking
in classroomdiscussions.
The lesson excerpts presented below provide examples
of strategies for supporting a mathematical discussion
among English language learners and contrast the variety
of ways that students talk about mathematical situations.
They come from a third grade bilingual classroom in an
urbanCaliforniaschool. In this classroom,there are thirtythreestudentswho have been identifiedas Limited English
Proficiency. In general, this teacher introducesstudents to
concepts and terms in Spanishfirst and then later conducts
lessons in English. Studentsare surroundedby materialsin

12

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

both Spanishand Englishanddesks arearrangedin tablesof

fourso thatstudentscan work together.
The studentshave been workingon a unit on two-dimensional geometricfigures. For several weeks, instructionhas
includedtechnicalvocabularysuch as 'radius', 'diameter',
'congruent','hypotenuse'andthe namesof differentquadrilaterals in both Spanish and English. Students have been
talking about shapes and have also been asked to point to,
touchandidentifydifferentinstances.This lesson was identified by the teacher as an ESL mathematics lesson, one
where students would be using English in the context of
folding and cutting exercises to form tangrampieces (see
Figure1). It also illustrateshow, when the goal is supporting
studentparticipationin a mathematicaldiscussion,listening
to the natureandqualityof students'mathematicaldiscourse
is as importantas (if not moreso than)focusing on students'
Englishlanguageproficiency.

How is the teacher supporting participation in

a mathematical discussion?
Excerpt1: Describinga rectangle
1. Teacher:Today we are going to have a very special
lesson in which you really gonna have to listen. You're
going to put on your best, best listening ears because
I'm only going to speak in English. Nothingelse. Only
English. Let's see how much we remembered from
Monday.Hold up your rectangles. ... high as you can.
[students hold up rectangles] Good, now. Who can
describe a rectangle?Eric, can you describe it? [a rectangle] Can you tell me about it?
2. Eric: A rectangle has ... two ... short sides, and two
... long sides.
3. T: Two short sides and two long sides. Can somebody tell me something else about this rectangle? If
somebody didn't know what it looked like, what, what
... how would you say it?
4. Julian:Parallel(o).[holding up a rectangle]
5. T: It's parallel.Veryinterestingword.Parallel,wow!
Pretty interesting word, isn't it? Parallel. Can you
describewhat thatis?
6. Julian:Never get together.They never get together,
[runshis finger over the top length of the rectangle]
7. T: Whatnever gets together?
8. Julian:The parallela... the ... when they go, they go
higher [runs two fingers parallel to each other first
along the top and base of the rectangle and then continues along those lines] they never get together.
9. Antonio:Yeah!

Figure1 A tangrampuzzle
The goal of my analysis of this lesson was two-fold. One
was to identify teaching strategies during an actual classroom lesson in orderto providegenuineillustrations,while
the other was to identify examples of the different ways
Englishlanguagelearnerscommunicatemathematicallyand
the different points of view they bring to a discussion, in
orderto providea basis for hearingandunderstandingthese
studentsbetterduringclassroomdiscussions.
I presenta partialtranscriptof this lesson in fourexcerpts.
The first segment involves descriptionsof a rectangle.The
secondconcernscomparinga rectangleanda triangle,while
the third involves comparisons of a parallelogram and a
trapezoidin a small group and the fourthdetails a wholeclass discussion of whether a trapezoid is or is not a
parallelogram.I have numbered conversational turns for
ease of reference, and [] indicates non-verbalinformation
to help with deictic references, such as 'this' or 'that'. In
excerpt 3, () indicates an English translation of student
remarksin Spanish.T is the teacherand Ss students.

10. T:Veryinteresting.The rectanglethenhas sides that

will never meet. Those sides will be parallel. Good
work. Excellent work. Anybody else have a different
idea thatthey could tell me aboutrectangles?
11. Student:Anotherdifferent[unclear]parallelogram.
12. T: It's called a parallelogram, can you say that
word?
13. Ss: Parallelogram.
14. T: Whatwere you going to say, Betsy?
15. Betsy: Also a parallelogramit calls a rectangle.
16. T: A parallelogramis also a rectangle?They can be
both?
17. Betsy: Yeah.
13

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

18. T:Wow,very interesting.Canyou convince me that

they can be both?
19. Betsy: Because a rectangle has four sides and a
parallelogramhas foursides.
20. T: [unclear]
21. Eric:[unclear]a parallelogram.
22. T: You want to borrow one? [a tangram piece] I
really wantto remindyou thatyou reallyhave to listen
while your classmateis talking...
23. Eric:Becausethese sides [runshis fingersalong the
widths of the rectangle] will never meet even though
they get bigger,and these sides [runshis fingers along
the lengths of the rectangle] will never meet even
though they get bigger. And these sides [picks up a
square]will never meet [runshis hand along two parallel sides] and these sides will never meet, [runs his
handalong the othertwo parallelsides]
24. T: When you say get bigger you mean if we kept
going with the line? [gesturesto the rightwith his hand]
25. Eric:Yeah.
26. T: Veryinteresting.
During this lesson, the teacher employed some important
strategiesto orchestrateand supportstudents'mathematical
talk. [2] In general, he established and maintainednorms
for discussions,askingstudentsto listen to otherstudents,to
agree or disagree, to explain why they believed something
and to convince the teacherof theirstatements.The teacher
also used gestures and objects, such as the cardboardgeometric shapes, to clarify what he meant. For example, he
pointed to vertices and sides when speaking about these
partsof a figure.
Although using objects to clarify meanings is an importantESL instructionalstrategy,it is crucialto understandthat
these objects do not provide 'extra-linguistic clues'. The
objects and their meaningsare not separatefrom language,
but ratheracquiremeaningthroughbeing talked about and
these meanings are negotiated throughtalk. Although the
teacherandthe studentshad the geometricfiguresin frontof
them, and it seemed helpful to use the objects and gestures
for clarification,studentsstill needed to sort out what 'parallelogram' and 'parallel' meant by using language and
negotiatingcommonmeanings.
The teacherfocused not only on vocabularydevelopment
but also on supportingstudents'participationin mathematical argumentsby using three other instructionalstrategies
that focus more specifically on mathematical discourse.
First, the teacher promptedthe students for clarification:
for example, in turn 16 the teacherasked a studentto clarify the relationshipbetween two geometric figures, and in
turn7 the teacherasked Julianto clarify what he meant by
"they". Second, the teacher accepted and built on student
responses,as can be seen in the above exchanges.In another

example (turns4-5), the teacheraccepted Julian'sresponse

and probedwhat he meantby "parallel".
Last, the teacher revoked student statements, by interpretingandrephrasingwhatstudentssaid (turn10 in relation
to turn 8). Julian's "the parallela, they" becomes the
teacher's "sides" and Julian's "they never get together"
becomes "will nevermeet".The teachermoved pastJulian's
unclear utterance and use of the term "parallela" and
attempted to uncover the mathematical content in what
Julian had said. He did not correct Julian's English, but
insteadasked questionsto probewhat the studentmeant.
Julian's utterance in turn 8 is difficult both to hear and
interpret.He utteredthe word 'parallela'in a haltingmanner,
sounding unsureof the choice of word or of its pronunciation. His voice trailedoff, so it is difficult to tell whetherhe
said 'parallelo' or 'parallela'. His pronunciationcould be
interpretedas a mixture of English and Spanish; the "11"
sound being pronouncedin English and the additionof the
"o" or "a"being pronouncedin Spanish. The grammatical
structureis also intriguing.The apparentlysingular"parallela" is followed by a "the..." and then with a plural"when
they go higher".[3] In any case, it seems clear thatthis was
a difficult contributionfor Julian to make and that he was
strugglingto communicatein a meaningfulway.
Excerpt2: Comparinga rectangleand a triangle
Students were folding the rectangle and cutting it into a
folded triangle and a small rectangle. Holding these two
pieces, the teacherasked the studentsto tell him how a triangle differs from a rectangle.
56. T: Anybodyelse can tell me somethingabouta rectangle that is different from a ... a triangle that's
differentfrom a rectangle?Okay.Julian?
57. Julian: The rectangle has para ... parallelogram
[runninghis fingersalong the lengths of the rectangle],
and the triangledoes not have parallelogram.
58. T: He says that this [a triangle] is not a parallelogram.How do we know this is not a parallelogram?
59. Julian: Because when this gets ... When they get,
when they go straight,they get together,[runshis fingers along the two sides of the triangle]
60. T: So, he's saying that if these two sides were to
continuestraightout [runshis fingersalong the sides of
the triangle],they would actually intersect,they would
go througheach other.Very interesting.So, this is not
a parallelogramand it is not a rectangle.OK.
Duringthis shortexchange,the teacheronce againrevoked
a studentstatement.In turn58, the teacherrestatedJulian's
claim that"thetriangledoes not have parallelogram"
as "this
is not a parallelogram",and in turn60, the teacherrestated
Julian'sclaim that"whenthey go straight,they get together"
as "if these two sides were to continue straight out, they
would actuallyintersect,they would go througheach other".
Thereare at least two ways thata teacher'srevoking can
supportstudentparticipationin a mathematicaldiscussion.
The first is that it can facilitatestudentparticipationin gen-

14

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

eral, by accepting the student's response, using it to make

an inference and allowing the student the right to evaluate
the correctnessof the teacher'sinterpretationof the student
contribution.This move maintainsa space open for further
studentcontributionsin a way that the standardclassroom
initiation-response-evaluation(IRE) patterndoes not.
The second way is thata revoking move serves to make
and keep the discussion mathematical. In revoicing, a
student statement is often reformulated in terms that are
closer to the standarddiscourse practices of the discipline.
For example, in the first excerpt the teacher uses the term
"sides", which is more specific than Julian's phrase "the
parallela",because it refers to the sides of a quadrilateral,
ratherthan any two parallellines. This revoicing seems to
have an impact on Julianwho later uses the term uside(s)"
twice when talkingwith anotherstudent(see excerpt 3, turn
79). In the second excerpt,the teacherchanges Julian'scolloquial phrase "get together" to "meet", which is more
formal and therefore more aligned with standard school
mathematicaldiscourse.These two reformulationsserve to
maintainthe mathematicalnatureof the discussion.
Revoicingis not, however,as simple as I have presentedit
so far. It is not always easy to understandwhat a student
means.Sometimes,a teacherand a studentspeak from very
different points of view about a mathematical situation.
Even though in the second excerpt the teacher once again
revoiced student statements, this time there seems to be
more going on thanjust interpretingand re-stating what a
studentsaid. To understandthis excerpt,it is importantfirst
to considerJulian'suse of the phrases"has parallelogram"
and "does not have parallelogram" and the teacher's
responsesto Julian.It is not clearfrom this excerptwhether
Julianwas using the expression"hasparallelogram"to mean
'hasparallelsides', as in "therectanglehas parallelsides"or
to refer to the geometric figure "parallelogram",as in "the
rectangle is a parallelogram"(i.e. has the parallelogram
property).(Duringa laterconversationwith anotherstudent
Julian (turn 85) seems to use the phrase "it's a parallelogram"to mean 'the lines areparallel'.)
At one point (turn 58), the teacher interpretedJulian's
utterance"does not have parallelogram"as "is not a parallelogram".However,in turn59, Julianseems to be referring
to parallellines. By turn60, the teacherseems to be on the
same trackas Julianwithouthaving focused directlyon the
specific meaning of the phrase "does not have parallelogram"or having correctedJulian'sturn57 contribution.
One way to comparethe teacher's and Julian'scontributions during the second excerpt is to consider the ways of
talking and points of view each brings to the discussion.
Julianseemed to be telling a story about the lines, saying
"whenthey go higher, they never get together"and enacting the story by runninghis fingers along the parallellines.
In contrast, the teacher was using the future tense, which
sounds more predictive or hypothetical, saying for example, "willnever meet"and "willbe parallel".
The teacherand Julianwere also talking aboutparallelogramsfrom differentpoints of view. While the teacherfirst
referredto a categoryat turn58, in response Juliannarrated
the situation once again, describing a property of the
parallelogram(turn59). The teacherthen rephrasedJulian's

response in a more hypotheticalway using the subjunctive

"if ... were ..., they would ...". He also explicitly markedboth
revoicings,by using the tag "So, he's saying that ..." (in turn
60) and "Hesays that ..." (in turn58).
While it is not completely clear what Julian originally
meant in turn57 or what the consequencesof the revoicing
in turn58 were, it does seem thatthe teacherand Julianwere
bringingdifferentpointsof view to the discussion. This difference in the points of view of the situation (which
reappearsin a laterdiscussion abouta trapezoidand a parallelogram in excerpt 4) may have contributed to the
difficultyin interpretingand revoicingJulian'sstatement.
There is one more way that this teacher supported student participation.Duringthe discussion in both excerpts 1
and 2, we see instantiated the teacher's general stance
towards student contributions. The teacher moved past
Julian'sconfusinguses of the term 'parallela'or the phrase
"has parallelogram"to focus on the mathematicalcontent
of Julian'scontribution.He did not correctJulian'sEnglish,
but insteadaskedquestionsto probewhatthe studentmeant.
This response is significant in that it represents a stance
towards studentcontributionswhich can facilitate student
participationin a mathematicaldiscussion:listen to students
and try to figure out what they are saying. When teaching
English language learners,this may mean moving beyond
vocabulary or grammaticalerrorsto listen for the mathematicalcontentin studentcontributions.(Fora discussionof
the tensionsbetween these two, see Adler, 1998.)

What is the mathematical content of this

discussion?
As studentsparticipatedin this discussion, they were grappling not only with the meaning of individual words and
phrases, but also with some importantideas about quadrilaterals and lines. It may be easier to see the mathematical
contentin this discussionby referringto the textbook'sdefinitions for some of the concepts invoked during the
discussion. The definitionof parallellines is "straightlines
in a plane which have no common point no matterhow far
they are extended".The definition of a parallelogramis "a
quadrilateralwith two pairsof parallelsides".
One importantidea that studentsseemed to be grappling
with was class inclusion, for example when students
described a square (which is also a rectangle, a parallelogram and a trapezoid), a rectangle (which is also a
parallelogramand a trapezoid)or a parallelogram(which
can also be a trapezoid, depending on which definition is
used [4]). Studentsalso seemed to be sorting out whether
they were talking about a propertyof the figure, as in the
phrase"ithas parallelsides", or a categoryfor the figure, as
in the phrase "it is a parallelogram".These two points
of view, one focusing on a propertyand the otheron a category, may be especially importantto sort out when talking
about parallelograms, since the word "parallel", which
describes a propertyof parallelograms,is partof the word
"parallelogram",which describes a category of geometric
figures.
Studentswere also grapplingwith the concept of parallel
lines. One importantaspect of parallelismis that one needs
to imagine, hypothesize or predictwhat will happento the
15

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

two lines segments if they are extended indefinitely.

Although two line segments may not meet here and now,
what matterswhen deciding if two lines are parallelor not
is whetherthe imaginedlines would ever meet.
Different ways of talking about a mathematical
situation
Excerpt3: Comparinga parallelogram and a trapezoid in
small groups
78. T [to whole class]: Whatdo we know abouta trapezoid. Is this a parallelogramor not? I wantyou to take a
minute, and I want you at your tables, right at your
tables. I want you to talk with each other and tell me
when I call on you, tell me what your group decided.
Is this a parallelogramor not?
79. Julian:[Julianand Andres have several shapes on
theirtable:a rectangle,a trapezoidanda parallelogram]
Porque si. Noms estas (Because ... Just these) sides
get together[runshis fingersalong the two non-parallel
sides of the trapezoid,see Figure2] pero de este (buton
this side only), [runshis fingers along the base and top
parallelsides of the trapezoid]

Figure2 Julian describinga trapezoid(turns79, 82, 85)

The students in this classroom broughta varietyof ways
of talking about mathematicalsituations to this discussion.
In the three excerptspresentedabove, we have examples of
students talking about mathematical objects in narrative,
predictiveandargumentativeways. Forexample,Julian(see
Figures 2 and 3) seemed to be telling a story aboutthe parallel lines and using his fingers to enact the story, an
example of a narrativeapproach.

80. Mario:Yeste lado no. (And not this side)

81. Andres:No porque mira, aqui tiene un lado chico
(No because, look, here it has a small side) [points to
the two non-parallelsides of the trapezoid]y un lado
grande y tiene cuatro esquinas (and a large side and it
has fourcorners).
82. Julian: See? They get together, pero acd no (but
not here), [runshis fingers along the base and top parallel sides of the trapezoid]
83. Andres:Ac no. (Not here)
85. Julian:It's a parallelogram.Only this side, but this
side meet, [runshis fingers along the non-parallelsides
of the trapezoid][5]

Figure3 Julian describinga rectangle(turn8)

Eric,in turn23 (see Figure4), was also telling a story.His
use of the futuretense "will"and the phrase"even though"
makes this story sound more predictive and hypothetical.
His way of talking can be described as a combinationof a
narrativeand a predictiveapproach.

86. T: [joins group]They would meet?

87. Julian:Yeah,but these sides, they won't, [runshis
fingers along the base and top or parallel sides of the
trapezoid]
88. T: OK. So one pairof sides meets, the otherdon't.
So it is not, or it is?
89. Andres:No. It is.
Figure4 Eric describinga rectangle(turn23)

90. T: It is?
91. Andres:Yeah.
92. T: Think about it now. I want you to talk about it.
Remember,a parallelogramfrom what you said was,
two sides, two pairsof sides.

In contrast,in turn81, Andres employed certain linguistic elements of the form of an argument,such as his use of
"because"and "look",but neitherthe mathematicalcontent
nor the mathematicalpoint of his argumentwere clear.

16

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Narrativeandpredictiveways of talkingarenot presented

as a dichotomy.Notice that Eric's contributionwas a combinationof these two ways of talking.Althoughit may seem
easy to identify hypotheticalways of talkingas mathematical, imagining and narratingcan also be a partof standard
mathematicaldiscourse practices:for example, mathematical conversationsabout objects in four dimensions involve
imaginingand narratinga situation.
One way to thinkaboutthe relationshipbetweennarrative
and formal mathematicalways of talking is that a mathematicaltext can be embeddedwithin a narrative.Solomon
and O'Neill (1998) claim one of the characteristics of a
mathematicaltext is thatthe mathematicalargumentis:
atemporal[... and] achieves cohesion throughlogical
ratherthantemporalorder,(p. 216)
Seen in this manner,elements of both Julian'sand Eric's
contributionsare similar to mathematicaltexts in that both
contributionsare atemporalstatementsthat will always be
true("thelines will never get together"or "thesesides will
nevermeet")andare cohesive becauseof theirlogical rather
thantemporalstructuring.
The pointof the comparisonsabove is not to privilegeone
way of talkingover anothernorto decide which way of talking is moremathematical.In a classroomdiscussion,various
ways of talkingcan contributein theirown way to the mathematicaldiscussionandbringresourcesto the conversation.
The point of these comparisonsis to diversify our view of
the different ways that students talk about mathematical
objectsand situations,to uncoverthe mathematicalaspects
of whatstudentsare saying and to be able to hearbetterthe
varietyof ways in which studentscan communicatemathematically.
Different points of view of a mathematical situation
The final excerptshows the differentpoints of view thatthe
teacherandthe studentsbroughtto defininga parallelogram
anda trapezoid.It also providesanotherexampleof how this
teacher, ratherthan emphasizing language development,
expectedthe studentsto focus on mathematicalcontent.
Excerpt4: Deciding whethera trapezoidis a parallelogram
or not
92. T: [to the whole class] OK. Raise your hand.I want
one of the groupsto tell us whatthey do think.Is this a
parallelogramor not, andtell us why. I'm going to take
this grouprighthere.
93. Vincent:These two sides will never meet, but these
two will.
94. T: How many agree with that.So, is this a parallelogramor not?
95. Ss: Half.
96. T: OK. If it is half, it is, or it isn't?
97.Ss:Is.
98. T Can we have a half of a parallelogram?
99. Ss: Yes.

100. T: Yes, but then, could we call it a parallelogram?

101. Ss: Yes.
102. T: What do you think? If we remember what
Julian said. Would you repeat what you said at the
beginning,a parallelogramis what?
103. Julian: It's a parallelogram's [meet] they never
meet.
104. T: How many pairsof sides never meet?
105. Andres:Five.
106. Julian:Two. They have two sides .. to .. that .. a
square has ... [takes a rectangle] these sides [runshis
fingers along the lengths of the rectangle], they not
meet, and these sides [runshis fingersalong the widths
of the rectangle],never meet. That'sa parallelogram.
107. T: Did everybodyhear whathe said?
108. Ss: Yeah.
109. T: There have to be two pairsof sides that never
meet. Let's see if this is or not. Wouldthese sides ever
meet? [holdingup the trapezoid]
110. Ss: Yeah.
111. T: Wouldthey ever meet?
112.Ss:No.
113. T: No. Would these sides if we extend them up,
would they ever meet?
114. Ss: Yeah.
115. T: OK. That'swhat you were saying. So, is this a
parallelogram?
116.Ss:No.
During this excerpt, the students and the teacher brought
togethertwo points of view concerningdefining a parallelogram.They differ in termsof what types of definitionsare
acceptable. While for the students "half a parallelogram"
was an acceptable specification, this was not acceptableto
the teacher. Rather than reflecting an error in students'
reasoningor theirlack of Englishproficiency,this exchange
uncovers two fundamentallydifferentviews of this mathematicalsituation.
The standard definition of a trapezoid is "a quadrilateral with one pair of parallelsides" [6] and the standard
definition of a parallelogramis "a quadrilateralwith two
pairs of parallel sides". The teacher's initial question "Is
this a parallelogramor not, and tell us why?"assumedthat
this is an either/orsituation.The teacher'spoint of view was
dichotomous: a given figure either is or is not a parallelogram.
17

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

In contrast, some students seemed to have a dynamic

pointof view of this situation.Theirresponseto the question
"Is this a parallelogramor not?"was "Half, implying that
a trapezoidis half of a parallelogram.This is a reasonable
definition if it is understoodto mean thatsince a parallelogramhas two pairsof parallelsides, and a trapezoidhas one
pairof parallelsides, then a trapezoidis a half of a parallelogram because a trapezoidhas half as many parallel sides
as a parallelogram (see Figure 5). The students' point of
view is also differentin that they are focusing on whether
and how these two figures possess the property of having
pairs of parallel lines, ratherthan on whether the figures
belong to one of two categories: "figureswith two pairs of
parallel lines" or "figures with one or no pair of parallel
lines".

as this teacherdid when saying that for a figureto be a parallelogram "therehave to be two pairs of sides that never
meet".
Anotherstrategymightbe to talk explicitlyaboutdifferent
ways of talking, asking studentsto considerdifferentways
of describing parallel lines and defining a trapezoid by
contrastingthe teacher'scontributionsand the descriptions
proposedby students.The teachercould explicitly compare
descriptions focusing on the properties of a figure with
descriptionsfocusing on the categoriesa figure belongs to,
contrastingsaying "a figure has parallelsides" with saying
"a figure is a parallelogram".The discussion could also
focus on explicitly comparingdescriptionsof a trapezoidas
"being a half a parallelogram"with "havinghalf as many
parallel sides as a parallelogram", thereby working on
grammaticalconstructions from within a content-focused
discussion.
A thirdway to talk explicitly abouttalk is to comparestudent ways of talking with textbook definitions,helping the
studentto see theirdescriptionsin relationto the more regimented discourse of mathematics texts. During such a
discussion, the teacher could explicitly compare student
descriptions such as "the lines never get together" or "a
trapezoidis half a parallelogram"with textbookdefinitions
of parallellines, parallelogramsand trapezoids.

Figure5 A trapezoidis half a parallelogram

The excerptspresentedabove illustrateseveral instructional

strategiesthatcan be useful in supportingstudentparticipation in mathematicaldiscussions, such as establishing and
modeling consistent norms for discussions, revoking
student contributions, building on what students say and
probingwhat studentsmean. The teacherdid not focus primarily on vocabulary development but instead on
mathematicalcontentand argumentsas he interpreted,clarified and rephrasedwhat studentswere saying.
What does it mean to say that mathematicaldiscourseis
more than vocabulary and technical terms? A discourse
approachto learning mathematics means considering the
different ways of talking about mathematicalobjects and
pointsof view of mathematicalsituationsthatstudentsbring
to classroom discussions. There are a variety of ways in
which studentsargue,provideevidence or presentan argument. Sometimesthey predict,imagineor hypothesizewhat
will happen to an object. Sometimes they focus on categories of objects and othertimes on the propertiesof these
objects. Studentsmay have differentpoints of view of what
an acceptable description or definition of a mathematical
object is.
A discourse approachto learning mathematicscan also
help to shift the focus of mathematicsinstructionfor English
language learners from language development to mathematical content. The lesson presented here shows that
English language learnerscan and do participatein discussions where they grapple with important mathematical
content. It is certainly difficult to consider carefully the
mathematical content of student contributions in the
moment.However, it is possible to take time after a discussion to reflect on the mathematical content of student
contributionsand design subsequentlessons to addressthis

This interpretationof "a half parallelogram"would be

consistentwith Julian'searlierusage of the phrase"is a parallelogram" to mean "has parallel sides". If "is a
parallelogram"means "hasparallelsides", then a trapezoid
has one half as many pairs of parallel sides as a parallelogram.
Anotherway to see the students'pointof view as dynamic
is to considera trapezoidas a parallelogramin transformation. We can take a trapezoid and transform it into a
parallelogram.

Figure6 A dynamicpoint of view

There are many possibilities for where this lesson might
go next in a way that honors both mathematicaldiscourse
and the mathematicalcontentof studentcontributions.One
possibilityis to encouragemorestudent-to-student
talk, asking students to consider and address each other's
contributions.Anotherpossibility is for.theteacherto continuebuildingon studentcontributionswhile using ways of
talkingwhich arecloser to standardmathematicaldiscourse,

Conclusions

18

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

content. But, it is only possible to uncover the mathematical content in what students say if students have the
opportunity to participate in a discussion and if this discussion is a mathematical one.
This teacher provided this opportunity by moving past
student grammatical or vocabulary errors, listening to
students and trying to understand what students said. He
kept the discussion mathematical by focusing on the mathematical content of student contributions, asking students for
clarification, accepting and building on student responses
and revoking student statements.
Revoking can be difficult to carry out, perhaps especially
when working with students who are learning English. It
may not be easy or even possible to sort out what aspects of
a student's utterance are a result of the student's conceptual
understanding or of a student's English language proficiency. However, the analysis of this lesson suggests that, if
the goal is to support student participation in a mathematical discussion, determining the origin of an error is not
as important as listening to the students and uncovering the
mathematical content in what they are saying.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant from the US National
Science Foundation (grant #REC-9896129). I would like to
thank my colleagues at the Chche Konnen Center at TERC
for their contributions to the analysis of this lesson: several
of the ideas in this article were developed in conversations
with them and through my participation in the work of
the Center. The videotape material came from the Math
Discourse Project at Arizona State University (NSF grant #
ESI-9454328).

Notes
[1] While Gee distinguishesbetween'discourse'and 'Discourse',I will use
lowercase 'discourse'hereto referto whatGee labelsuppercase 'Discourse*.
[2] Although there are many valued instructionalstrategies focusing on
eitherlanguagedevelopmentor mathematicalcontentthatthe teacherdid
not use in this lesson (such as keeping track of student conjectures and
conclusionson the blackboardor supportingmore talk between students),
the goal of this analysis is not to focus on what the teacherdid not do, but
ratheron how he did, in fact, supportparticipationin a mathematicaldiscussion.
[3] Thereis a differencebetweenEnglishand Spanishin termsof how "parallel"is used as an adjective.While in English "parallel"can usually only
be singular(one Uneis parallelto another;two Unesare parallel),in Spanish, "paralelo/d"can be singularor plural(estas dos lineas son paralelas;
una linea esparalela a otra).This utteranceof Julian'smay be furthercomplicatedby the fact that sometimes Spanish speakersdo not pronouncea
final us"sound, so that it may be difficult to tell whetherthis utterance
was in fact singularor plural.While it may be interestingto considerthese
differences,it seems unreasonableto jump to any simple conclusionsabout
Julian'sdifficultieswith this word.
[4] I have run into two definitions of a trapezoid. One is ua quadrilateral
with exactly one pairof parallelsides", while the other is "a quadrilateral
with at least one pairof parallelsides".
[5] As mentionedearlier,in this line Julian seems to be usmg parallelogram"to mean 'parallel'.
with no sides
[6] The definitionsof trapeziumandtrapezoid(a quadrilateral
parallel) are often interchanged. In Spanish, "... the word trapezoid is
reservedfor a quadrilateral
withoutany parallelsides, whereastrapeziumis
used when thereis one pairof parallelsides. (This is oppositeto American
Englishusage.)"(Hirigoyen,1997, p. 167).

References
Adler, J. (1998) 'A language of teaching dilemmas: unlocking the complex multilingualsecondarymathematicsclassroom', For the Learning
of Mathematics18(1), 24-33.
Ball, D. L. (1991) 'What's all this talk about "Discourse"?', TheArithmetic Teacher39(3), 44-47.
Ballenger, C. (1997) 'Social identities, moral narratives,scientific argumentation: science talk in a bilingual classroom', Language and
Education11(1), 1-14.
Brenner,M. (1994) 'A communicationframeworkfor mathematics:exemplary instructionfor culturally and linguistically diverse students', in
McLeod, B. (ed), Language and Learning: Educating Linguistically
Diverse Students,Albany,NY, SUNY Press,pp. 233-268.
Cobb,P.,Wood,T. andYackel,E. (1993) 'Discourse,mathematicalthinking,
andclassroompractice',in Forman,E., Minick,N. andStone,C. A. (eds),
Contextsfor Learning:SocioculturalDynamicsin Childrens Development,New York,NY, OxfordUniversityPress, do. 91-1 19.
Gee, J. (1996, 2nd edn) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in
Discourses, Bristol, PA, Taylorand Francis.
Halliday, M. (1978) 'Some aspects of sociolinguistics', in Interactions
Between Linguistics and Mathematics Education, Copenhagen,
UNESCO,pp. 64-73.
Hingoyen,H. (1997) 'Dialecticalvariationsm the languageof mathematics:
a sourceof multiculturalexperiences',in Trentacosta,J. andKenney,M J.
(eds),Multiculturaland GenderEquityin theMathematicsClassroom:the
Giftof Diversity- 1997 Yearbook,Reston,VA,NationalCouncilof Teachers of Mathematics,pp. 164-168.
MacGregor,M. and Moore, R. (1992) TeachingMathematicsin the Multicultural Classroom, Melbourne, Instituteof Education,University of
Melbourne.
Mestre, J. (1988) 'The role of language comprehension in mathematics
andproblemsolving', in Cocking,R. andMestre,J. (eds), Linguisticand
CulturalInfluenceson LearningMathematics,Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates, pp. 201-220.
Moschkovich,J. N. (in press)'Learningmathematicsin two languages:moving from obstaclesto resources',in Secada,W. (ed), ChangingFaces of
Mathematics (Vol. 1): Perspectives on Multiculturalismand Gender
Equity,Reston,VA, NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics.
NCTM (1989) Curriculumand EvaluationStandardsfor School Mathematics, Reston, VA, NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics.
O'Connor,C. and Michaels, S. (1993) 'Aligning academictask andparticipation status through revoicing: analysis of a classroom discourse
strategy',Anthropologyand EducationQuarterly24(4), 318-335.
Olivares, R. A. (1996) 'Communicationin mathematicsfor studentswith
limited English proficiency', in ElUott,P. C. and Kenney, M. J. (eds),
Communicationin Mathematics:K-12 And Beyond - 1996 Yearbook,
Reston,VA, NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics,pp. 219-230.
Pirie, S. (1991) 'Peer discussion in the context of mathematicalproblem
solving', in Durkin,K. and Shire, B. (eds), Languagein Mathematical
Education:Researchand Practice, Philadelphia,PA, Open University
Press,pp. 143-161.
Rubenstein,R. N. (1996) 'Strategiesto supportthe learningof the language
of mathematics',in Elliott, P. C. and Kenney,M. J. (eds), Communication in Mathematics:K-12 and Beyond - 1996 Yearbook,Reston, VA,
NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics,do. 214-218.
Silver, E. and Smith, M. (1996) 'Buildingdiscoursecommunitiesin mathematics classrooms: a worthwhilebut challengingjourney', in Elliott,
P.C. and Kenney,M. J. (eds), Communicationin Mathematics:K-12and
Beyond- 1996 Yearbook,Reston,VA, NationalCouncil of Teachersof
Mathematics,pp. 20-28.
Solomon,Y. and O'Neill, J. (1998) 'Mathematicsand narrative',Language
and Education12(3), 210-221.
Spanos,G., Rhodes, N. C, Dale, T. C. and Crandall,J. (1988) 'Linguistic
featuresof mathematicalproblemsolving: insightsand applications',in
Cocking, R. and Mestre,J. (eds), Linguisticand CulturalInfluenceson
LearningMathematics,Hillsdale,NJ, LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,pp.
221-240.
Warren,B. and Rosebery,A. (1996) 'This questionis just too, too easy', in
Schauble,L. and Glazer,R. (eds), Innovationsin Learning:New Environmentsfor Education,Hillsdale, NJ, LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,
pp. 97-125.

19

This content downloaded on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:20:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions