J Math Teacher Educ

DOI 10.1007/s10857-009-9131-2

Using comparison to develop flexibility for teaching

algebra

Christopher Yakes • Jon R. Star

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract In this paper, we describe a one-day professional development activity for

mathematics teachers that promoted the use of comparison as an instructional tool to
develop students’ flexibility in algebra. Effective use of comparison in mathematics
instruction involves using side-by-side presentation of problems and solution methods and
subsequent student discussion of these multiple solution methods to highlight the simi-
larities and differences among problem-solving techniques. The goals of the professional
development activity were to make teachers aware of how to use comparison effectively in
their instruction, as well as to impact teachers’ own flexibility in algebra by using com-
parison instructionally during the professional development. Our analysis of teachers’
experiences in the professional development activity suggests that when teachers were
presented with techniques for effective use of comparison, their own understanding of
multiple solution methods was reinforced. In addition, teachers began to question why they
relied exclusively on one familiar method over others that are equally effective and perhaps
more efficient and started to draw new connections between problem-solving methods.
Finally, as a result of experiencing instructional use of comparison, teachers began to see
value in teaching for flexibility and reported changing their own teaching practices.

Keywords Comparison
Flexibility
Mathematics teacher professional development

Multiple solution methods
Algebra

Recently, Star (2005, 2007) proposed a new conceptualization of procedural knowledge,

highlighting the critical importance of strategic flexibility as an instructional outcome for

C. Yakes
Department of Mathematics & Statistics, California State University Chico, Holt 202, Chico,
CA 95929-0525, USA
e-mail: cyakes@csuchico.edu

J. R. Star (&)
Harvard Graduate School of Education, 442 Gutman Library, 6 Appian Way, Cambridge,
MA 02138, USA
e-mail: jon_star@harvard.edu

123
 C. Yakes, J. R. Star

school mathematics. Star (Star and Rittle-Johnson 2008; see also Verschaffel et al. 2009)
defines strategic flexibility as knowledge of multiple approaches for solving mathematics
problems and the ability to select the most appropriate strategy for a given problem. As
Star notes, when faced with an unfamiliar problem-solving situation:
Someone with only superficial [e.g., not flexible] knowledge of procedures likely has
no recourse but to use a standard technique, which may lead to less efficient solu-
tions… But a more flexible solver—one with a deep knowledge of procedures—can
navigate his or her way through the procedural domain, using techniques other than
ones that are overpracticed, to produce solutions that best match problem conditions
or solving goals. (2005, p. 409)
Consider the domain of linear equation solving. What does it mean to be a flexible
solver within this domain? A standard algorithm exists for solving linear equations; this
algorithm is often explicitly taught as the optimal approach. For an equation such as
3ðx þ 1Þ ¼ 9, the standard algorithm would involve first distributing the 3, then collecting
and isolating like variable and constant terms to opposite sides of the equation, and finally
dividing both sides by 3 to solve for x. However, this is not the only strategy for solving
linear equations; for this particular equation, it may in fact be more efficient to divide both
sides by 3 as a first step. A flexible solver not only knows both strategies but also chooses
to use the more efficient approach on this problem. This choice reflects expanding
knowledge of when the divide step is appropriate to use. In addition, if the problem were
altered slightly to 3ðx þ 1Þ ¼ 10, a flexible solver (particularly a middle school student)
might realize that dividing by 3 on both sides, though possible, might not be the optimal
solution method, since 10 is not evenly divisible by 3. Flexible strategy knowledge reflects
better conditionalized knowledge of when to use strategies.
Flexibility as an important outcome is alluded to in several recent policy documents. In
its Adding It Up report, the National Research Council [NRC] (2001) identifies procedural
fluency as one critical component of mathematical proficiency; procedural fluency involves
‘‘knowledge of procedures, knowledge of when and how to use them appropriately, and
skill in performing them flexibly, accurately, and efficiently’’ (p. 121). Similarly, the
Curriculum Focal Points from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]
(2006) call for students to ‘‘make strategic choices of procedures for solving equations in
one variable and implement them efficiently’’ (p. 19). Also, the importance of flexibility as
a critical student learning outcome can be found in the recently issued report from the
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008).
In addition, flexibility also appears to have a strong metacognitive component. Meta-
cognition has been identified as one of three key findings for improving student learning in
the influential report from the NRC entitled How People Learn (NRC 2000). The features
of metacognition include the ability ‘‘to predict outcomes, explain to oneself in order to
improve understanding, note failures to comprehend, activate background knowledge, plan
ahead, and apportion time and memory’’ (NRC 2000, p. 18). Flexible solvers engage in
metacognition when they think critically about a problem and choose to use a more
efficient or effective solution strategy to solve it, when they compare multiple solution
methods to problems and note why one seems better than another, when they tap into their
repertoire of multiple solution procedures, and when they even realize an opportunity or
need for efficiency.

123
Using comparison to develop flexibility for teaching algebra

The development of flexibility

Drawing on the literature in cognitive science and mathematics education, Star and
colleagues have identified comparison as a particularly effective means for promoting the
development of flexibility. Rittle-Johnson and Star (2007) found that middle school stu-
dents who learn to solve equations by studying multiple worked examples, presented side
by side, become more flexible than students who see the same examples presented one per
page. Similarly, Star and Seifert (2006) found that students who were asked to solve
previously completed equations using a different ordering of solving steps become more
flexible in their knowledge of equation-solving strategies. These results from Star and
colleagues on the benefits of comparison can be summarized by the following three
instructional practices that have been found to positively impact students’ strategy flexi-
bility in mathematics.
First, research on comparison indicates that it is helpful when to-be-compared solution
strategies are presented to students side-by-side, rather than sequentially. Side-by-side
placement allows for more direct comparison of solution strategies and facilitates the
identification of similarities and differences between strategies. A side-by-side comparison
helps students notice and remember the features that are important to each or both solution
strategies (Rittle-Johnson and Star 2007).
The second practice is for teachers to engage students in comparison conversations.
Discussion of and comparison of multiple strategies helps students justify why a particular
solution strategy or solution step is acceptable and helps students make sense of why
certain strategies are more efficient than others for particular problems (Silver et al. 2005).
Teachers can help guide comparison conversations to ensure that students are able to make
connections among strategies that they would not always be able to make on their own. In
addition, Rittle-Johnson and Star (2007) showed that high-learning student discussion pairs
were able to work together to identify problem features, and evaluate and compare the
accuracy and efficiency of different solution strategies. Engaging in discussions seemed to
enable them to more readily accept nonstandard strategies.
The final recommended practice is to provide students with the opportunity to generate
multiple solution methods to the same problem, either by investigating multiple solution
methods of the same equation or by creating new equations to solve by a given method. In
general, knowledge of multiple solution strategies seems to help students more readily
consider efficiency and accuracy when solving problems. Additionally, by generating
multiple solution methods, students are encouraged to move away from using a single
strategy and, rather, other, possibly better strategies that work for the problem (Star and
Seifert 2006; Star and Rittle-Johnson 2008).

Flexibility and teacher professional development

Research on interventions that promote the development of students’ flexibility is begin-

ning to accrue. However, less is known about how to help teachers support students’
flexibility. What knowledge, beliefs, or skills do teachers need to teach for flexibility?
What kinds of professional development experiences help teachers develop these knowl-
edge, beliefs, or skills? We were able to locate only two studies that begin to address these
questions, both of which focus on prospective elementary teachers.
Note that in both of these studies, researchers/educators engage teachers in the explo-
ration of mathematical activities that are quite similar to those given to students. This form

123
 C. Yakes, J. R. Star

of mathematics teacher professional development has become quite common (e.g.,

Fennema et al. 1996; Zaslavsky and Leikin 2004). However, in only these two studies did
we find this type of activity used with an explicit goal of improving teachers’ flexibility.
In the first, Newton (2008) describes the results of a semester-long class with 104
prospective elementary teachers. The course aimed to improve teachers’ knowledge of
fractions, including their flexible use of multiple solution methods for solving problems
with fractions. Newton found that the prospective teachers did not show improvement in
their flexibility at the end of the course. Despite a focus on comparing, contrasting, and
discussing multiple approaches for solving fraction computation problems, most teachers
did not shift strategies toward the use of more efficient methods as a result of the course.
Newton suggests that the course may have been more effective at promoting flexibility
with a much more explicit focus not merely on multiple strategies but also on strategy
efficiency.
Consistent with this recommendation, Berk et al. (2009) worked with 148 prospective
elementary teachers in an attempt to improve their flexibility. As part of a semester-long
course, Berk and colleagues designed four 75-min lessons that were intended to give
teachers opportunities to compare and contrast various solution methods for solving pro-
portion problems. Despite the fact that the flexibility intervention was much shorter than in
Newton (2008), Berk and colleagues found that their intervention did lead to significant
gains in prospective teachers’ flexibility that persisted 6 months after instruction.
The Berk et al. (2009) study suggests that short targeted interventions can be effective
for improving teachers’ flexibility. However, both of these studies focused on prospective
elementary school teachers; whether this approach can work with inservice secondary
teachers remains untested. Indeed, experienced teachers may have developed practices and
attitudes that adversely impact the effectiveness of interventions targeting flexibility, such
as negative views on the value of providing instruction in multiple solution strategies and
on the importance of student discussion in mathematics classrooms. Thus, studies
exploring the effectiveness of professional development for improving inservice teachers’
flexibility are particularly important.

The present study

The goal of the present study was to design and pilot a professional development activity
for inservice secondary mathematics teachers, focusing on improving teachers’ flexibility
via the three comparison practices described above. Our professional development activity
had two goals.
First, we sought to make teachers aware of the three comparison practices described
above. Research has linked these practices to students’ flexibility, so our primary goal was
for participating teachers to learn how to implement comparison in their own classrooms.
However, the success of our efforts to change teachers’ practices would clearly be
dependent on the flexibility of the teachers themselves. For example, teachers attempting to
orchestrate a comparison conversation with a group of students would be better able to
direct the conversation along a fruitful path if they understood the nuances of different
solution methods and problems, for example, if they were flexible. The flexible teacher can
carefully choose appropriate problems that are more amenable to one solution method over
another, thereby planting the seeds for interesting and thoughtful comparison conversa-
tions. Furthermore, a flexible teacher has the ability to spot a potentially interesting and
innovative approach to a problem during a class, and will offer it for classroom discussion

123
Using comparison to develop flexibility for teaching algebra

to highlight the specific aspects of this unique approach. Conversely, less flexible teachers,
those with only a superficial knowledge of procedures, may have the tendency to teach
only one method for solving particular problems, and disregard students’ innovative
solution methods as unimportant digressions.
Thus, a secondary goal of our professional development activity was to impact par-
ticipating teachers’ flexibility, by implementing the comparison practices in the profes-
sional development. Teachers must themselves see value in flexibility before they will
regard it as an important instructional outcome for their students—and in order for flexi-
bility to be valued, teacher participants must be consistently presented with problem-
solving situations in which they can develop and exercise their own flexibility. In
our professional development activity, teachers engaged in problem-solving activities
involving side-by-side presentation of strategies took part in comparison conversations and
had opportunities to solve problems in multiple ways. Our hope was that these activities
would increase teachers’ strategic flexibility, make them more aware of and appreciative of
flexibility, and experience first-hand the power of these instructional practices.
In this article, we investigate the impact of a one-day professional development activity
focusing on comparison and flexibility on 24 middle school and high school mathematics
teachers, with particular emphasis on teachers’ own flexibility and their self-reports of
subsequent classroom practices. We are particularly interested in how comparison can be
used in mathematics teacher professional development, both as a way to impact teachers’
flexibility as well as change teachers’ practices so as to impact their students’ flexibility.
Will teachers report incorporating comparison into their teaching? If so, then what do
teachers report as the potential benefits and pitfalls of using comparison?

Method

In June 2007, a 2-week professional development institute for 24 middle and high school
algebra teachers was held at California State University, Chico. The teachers were par-
ticipants in a 5-year project that involved summer professional development as well as
academic-year follow-up consisting of face-to-face meetings and an online community
environment. The results reported here are from the first year of the project. The focus of
the professional development institute was algebraic reasoning and pedagogical strategies
for use in algebra classrooms. The professional development activity focusing on com-
parison was implemented in the second week of the institute, during one 8-h day.
Each of the 24 participants was a single-subject credentialed mathematics teacher,
having either passed the CSET (California Subject Examination for Teachers) or com-
pleted a state-approved credentialing program. The grant project was designed to support
teachers new to the profession; therefore, a large number of participants (20) had been
teaching for fewer than 5 years. Of the 24 teachers, 18 taught in high schools and 6 in
middle schools. All of the teachers had taught either algebra or pre-algebra courses in their
schools, and a small number taught geometry and more advanced mathematics classes
including statistics, algebra II/trigonometry, pre-calculus and calculus. The range of stu-
dents varied widely, from low-income and underrepresented groups to middle class and
relatively affluent students. The greater Northern Sacramento Valley area in which all the
teachers worked also includes non-native English speakers from Central and Latin
American and Southeast Asian immigrant populations.
The comparison practices were introduced to the teachers by giving a brief presentation
on the notion of flexibility and the comparison practices. This introduction was followed by

123
 C. Yakes, J. R. Star

a series of problem-solving activities where groups of 3–4 teachers were given two similar
mathematics problems (P1, P2) and two suggested strategies (S1, S2) for solving the
problems and asked to solve both problems using both strategies. Teachers were then asked
to create a poster with all four combinations of problem and strategy (P1S1, P1S2, P2S1,
P2S2) that they would then present to the remaining participants. The purpose of the
presentations was to model the first two comparison practices—that is, to present different
solution methods side-by-side and to facilitate comparison conversations among the other
participants. This activity format was used several times over the course of the 2-week
institute. Figure 1 shows the various problems and strategies that groups of teachers were
asked to present. They are referred to hereafter as Topics 1–7.
The data reported below were collected in four ways. First, the facilitators of the
professional development institute took detailed field notes during the comparison activity
and discussion. Second, teachers’ impressions of the professional development activity

1. Systems of Equations: Solve the following systems by (S1) substitution, and (S2) linear
combinations:
(P1) 4x − 3y = 2 (P2) y = 3x − 2
2x + 5y = 8 5x + 2y = 8

2. Linear Inequalities: Find the solution sets for the inequalities by (S1) moving the variable
to the right-hand side of the inequality and (S2) moving the variable to the left-hand side
of the inequality:
(P1) 3− 5x >10 (P2) x ≥ 3x − 2

3. Solving Proportions 1: Solve for x by (S1) using cross multiplication, and (S2)
multiplying both sides of the equation by a single value:
(P1) 2 = 16 (P2) x = 5
x 5 6 9

4. Solving Proportions 2: Solve for x by (S1) using cross multiplication, and (S2) comparing
the ratio of the numerator to the denominator:
x 16 x 3
(P1) = (P2) =
14 8 14 8

5. Finding Linear Equations: Determine the equation of the line passing through the two
points by (S1) using the slope-intercept form of the linear equation, and (S2) using the
point-slope form of the linear equation:
(P1) (0, 4) and (5, –2) (P2) (–2, –2) and (6,1)

6. Simplifying Fractions: Simplify the expressions by (S1) dividing numerator and

denominator by successive common divisors, and (S2) writing out the prime factorization
of the numerator and denominator:
2
(P1) 38 (P2) 2a b3
98 6ab

7. Finding the Least Common Multiple: Find the LCM by (S1) generating a table of
multiples, and (S2) writing out and using the prime factorization:
(P1) 18, 30 (P2) 4x 2 , x 2 + x

Fig. 1 Problems and strategies given to participants

123
Using comparison to develop flexibility for teaching algebra

were assessed using a written open-ended survey administered at the conclusion of the
comparison activity and discussion. This survey contained two prompts: ‘‘Reflect on the
comparison activity in regards to your teaching’’ and ‘‘Reflect on the comparison activity
in regards to your own mathematical ability and understandings.’’ Third, as part of an
online professional community for institute attendees, teachers were asked in October
(4 months after the summer professional development) to reflect again on the comparison
activity, particularly on whether and how teachers may have used any of the comparison
practices in their teaching. Finally, during a professional development day held in March
(9 months after the summer professional development), participants were again asked
about their experiences with the comparison practices; a 30-min group conversation
ensued, which was recorded and subsequently transcribed for further analysis.

Results

The organization of results is as follows. We first describe the discussions that took place
during the professional development institute comparison activities in order to illustrate
that using comparison with teachers gave insight into teachers’ own flexibility, and
moreover helped to develop an appreciation for flexibility as an instructional outcome. As
we point out, these discussions were both mathematical and pedagogical in nature. Next we
turn to indicators of teachers’ willingness to include comparison in their classrooms and
some teacher-reported benefits and pitfalls of using comparison in the classroom. Partic-
ipant responses to surveys and comments from discussions are included.

Observing the activity

The following observations of the activity serve to highlight the comparison discussions
and the lessons learned during the activity about both the use of the comparison practices
and teachers’ own flexibility in problem solving.

Topic 1: systems of equations

This topic was chosen since it is a familiar topic within which teachers would see value in
using comparison techniques to teach flexibility. Many indicated they had already used
modified comparison techniques when teaching solution methods for systems of equations,
noting that the typical textbook teaches solution methods as totally separate, rarely indi-
cating a connection between any two. However, many teachers noted while they present
different solution methods, they do not allow their students to have conversations about the
solution methods, nor do they let them have a choice as to which method to use to solve a
given problem.
In this specific example, teachers found that the set of equations that featured an
equation in slope–intercept form is easier to solve by substitution than is the other system,
and more cumbersome to use for elimination due to the re-arranging of the equation that
had to come first. Many remarked that this example addressed a difficulty for students; if a
student does not properly rearrange an equation for setting up the elimination method (i.e.,
having all variables to one side and lined up in order of x terms and y terms, for example),
or for setting up the substituting (placing the equation into slope–intercept form), then they
will incorrectly solve the problem. Many teachers noted that literally having side-by-side
comparisons of solution methods might help students see that elimination is often more

123
 C. Yakes, J. R. Star

efficient when the least common multiple of either the coefficients of the x terms (or the y
terms respectively) is easy to find.

Topic 2: linear inequalities

One of the most fruitful of the comparison discussions concerned solution methods for
solving linear inequalities. The intent of the two problems and the two solution methods in
Topic 2 was to emphasize that problems involving inequalities can be solved by moving
the variables to either side of the inequality, as opposed to the more common way students
are taught to solve equations, which involves isolating the variable on the left side. We had
hoped to show that the potential for error when dividing by a negative in working with
inequalities and of forgetting to ‘flip’ the inequality could be taken care of by being flexible
in working with inequalities. Indeed, this is what the discussions indicated, and more.
During the discussion of the solution methods in Topic 2, several teachers commented
on the fact that they always ask students to move the variable to the left side of the
inequality. In fact, many of the same teachers admitted their own difficulties in trying to
solve the problems by moving the variable to the right side first. Such comments clearly
showed that throughout the activity our teachers were forced to consider their own flexi-
bility in solving problems. A significant portion of this discussion was focused on the
difficulty with the negative sign depending on which side of the inequality the variable was
on. For instance, when solving the inequality, 3  5x  10, by moving the variable to the
right, 3  5x  10 ) 3  5x þ 10, the coefficient of the variable is positive, and so there is
no need to worry about making mistakes in dividing by negatives and forgetting to flip the
inequality. Of course, the ability to do this requires flexibility in understanding how to read
inequalities in both directions.
We note that this discussion naturally led to participants generating multiple solution
paths, which follows the second comparison instructional practice of engaging in com-
parison conversations. For example, participants noted that when solving both Problems 1
and 2 in Topic 2 using each method, a student would see a contradiction arise if they made
a mistake when dividing by the negative. This error is illustrated in Table 1; the solver has
forgotten to switch the inequality when dividing by a negative coefficient. The student who
forgets to switch the inequality in the final step of S2P2 will find two differing answers to
the same problem. Pushing teachers to move beyond the solution method that they typi-
cally used and taught seemed quite productive, in that teachers began to realize that
alternative solution methods, might helps students understand and avoid making a common
error. We took this as a positive indicator that teachers might see value in the use of the
comparison instructional practices.
Furthermore, this discussion invited our teachers to think about what the inequality sign
really signifies in algebra. Some commented on how they teach their students to make a
connection between the arrow in the inequality statement and the arrow on a number line
indicating the corresponding solution set as illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Teacher’s advice: ‘‘Find x≤2

the number on the number line;
the arrow on the number line
goes the same direction as the
inequality sign’’

0 2

123
Using comparison to develop flexibility for teaching algebra

Table 1 Two strategies for

S1P2 S2P2 (with mistake)
solving a linear inequality
i. x  3x  2 i. x  3x  2
ii. x  x  3x  2  x ii. x  3x  3x  2  3x
iii. 0  2x  2 iii. 2x   2
iv. 0 þ 2  2x  2 þ 2 iv. 2x  2   2  2
v. 2  2x v. x  1
vi. 1  x

In addition, the discussion brought up the fact that students often ask teachers whether
the variable is ‘allowed’ to be on the right side or not. This indicated to our teachers a lack
of flexibility among their own students, even in reading the inequality symbol.

Topics 3 and 4: solving proportions 1 and 2

Our intent in Topics 3 and 4 was to allow our teachers to discuss the strategy of cross-
multiplication for solving proportions and to compare it with other strategies. Many
teachers report that cross-multiplication, although a useful strategy for solving proportion
problems, is often incorrectly used by students who lack an understanding of why it is a
valid strategy. Moreover, the overreliance of students on this strategy indicates a lack of
flexibility in their understanding of what a proportion can represent, and subsequently of
the lack of tools for solving such problems. In California, instruction on cross-multipli-
cation is a required mathematical standard in several grades. Hence, we wanted to
emphasize the mathematical validity of the method with these topics. We first focus on the
discussion of Topic 3, which involved comparing solving proportions by cross-multipli-
cation and by multiplying both sides by a single expression.
One possible strategy for solving Topic 3 Problem 1 2x ¼ 16 5 by multiplying both sides of
the equation by a single value would be to multiply both sides of the equation by ð5x=16Þ.
Our teachers needed some instruction in this solution strategy, which they indicated was
not intuitive for them. In fact, teachers reacted negatively to this strategy, both in terms of
how students might view this approach (‘‘We don’t expect our students to be able to do
that’’), and also in terms of their own comfort with and willingness to use this strategy
(‘‘that seems like too much work’’). More generally, in the discussions of both Topics 3
and 4, our participants revealed their own reliance on cross-multiplication as the ‘best’
strategy to use when solving proportion problems, and perhaps a little reluctance for
investigating other means of solving them. It gave us, the facilitators of the professional
development, insight into our participants’ understanding of the mathematics. Fortunately,
there were also comments that focused on the differences between the strategies and the
usefulness of one or the other. For example, one teacher remarked that the ‘‘single value
strategy is obviously less steps,’’ and that ‘‘cross-multiplying is drill and kill though—you
almost don’t have to think.’’
Exploring these solution methods with our teachers resulted in an investigation of the
mathematics itself, and allowed the group to understand something new about the math-
ematics at hand. For instance, in discussing Topic 4, one participant was curious as to how
x
solving the proportion 14 ¼ 38 by considering the ratio of the numerator to the denominator
actually was different from cross-multiplying. The group first came up with an interpre-
tation of the problem as ‘‘the ratio of x to 14 must be 3/8.’’ This can be translated to ‘‘3/8 of

123
 C. Yakes, J. R. Star

14 is x,’’ which can then be solved by solving ‘‘x ¼ 38
14.’’ What this discussion seemed to
uncover was a careful conceptual description of a series of steps that lead to the cross-
multiplication strategy as being feasible. But the unfolding of this new idea for many of the
teachers only came about through a comparison of the two methods and the discussion that
followed.

Topic 5: finding linear equations

In presenting this topic, we wanted to learn about our participants’ flexibility in finding
linear equations. In particular, finding the equation in P1 (see Fig. 1) is perhaps easiest by
using the slope–intercept form (S1), since one of the given points is the y-intercept. Our
teachers picked up on this and indicated so in the discussions. Many of our teachers seemed
more in favor of using the slope–intercept form to solve either case, by first finding the
slope, then substituting the coordinates of one of the points for x and y, and lastly solving
for b.
In using the point–slope formula strategy (S2: using y  y1 ¼ mðx  x1 Þ) to solve P1
and P2 of Topic 5, many teachers commented that it takes just as much work and just as
many steps to use it to solve Problems 1 and 2. In other words, in their view, the fact that
the point ð0; 4Þ is given in P1 does not offer any advantages when using the point–slope
formula. But perhaps surprisingly, some participants were more in favor of the point–slope
formula in both cases. For example, one person remarked, ‘‘Many students like the point-
slope form because there’s no y-intercept. They don’t need to solve an equation [referring
to solving for b]. It takes less steps. [Students often wonder,] ‘What does it really mean that
I’m solving for b?’’’ This comment suggests that teachers feel that students can use the
slope–intercept form of the equation of a line without understanding what solving for the
variable b means in the context of the problem.
Lastly, interesting connections were drawn between the two equations and the familiar
slope formula. The opportunity arose to discuss the connection between the point–slope
form of the equation of a line:
y  y1 ¼ mðx  x1 Þ
and the slope formula itself:
y2  y1
m¼ :
x2  x1
Also, the relationship between the point–slope form and the slope–intercept form, in the
case of one of the points being the y-intercept, was explored:
y  b ¼ mðx  0Þ , y ¼ mx þ b:
Many of our teachers had not explored these fundamental relationships between the var-
ious forms of linear equations until now. Having comparison conversations made such
explorations possible.

Topic 6: simplifying fractions

The discussion of Topic 6 served as an exemplar of how solving problems side-by-side

and directly comparing the solution methods can lead to a better understanding of the
mathematics involved and when different methods are appropriate. In this topic, the

123
Using comparison to develop flexibility for teaching algebra

relationship between factoring and then cancelling common factors in the numerator and
denominator, and ‘‘successively dividing’’ numerator and denominator by the same values
are examined as two different methods for simplifying fractions. The impetus for such an
exploration comes from seeing the ‘cancelling factors’ strategy appear in the text when
solving fraction simplification problems, with no real explanation as to why it is a valid
solution strategy.
In the case of simplifying the fraction found in P1, 38
98, it was more or less obvious to
teachers that each number is even, so a common factor of 2 may be ‘divided out’ from
2a2 b
numerator and denominator. However, in the case of P2, 6ab 3 , it is not nearly as obvious

what common factors of the numerator and denominator share. When participants saw the
differing solution methods to P1 side-by-side,

19
38 19 38 2 . 19 2 . 19 19 19
= and = = = 1. = ,
98 49 .
98 2 49 2 49 49 49
49

they were better able to draw the connection between ‘‘canceling out’’ common factors
and factoring. The observation was made that the process of canceling out a common
factor is covering up several steps involving factoring and division. But when shown side-
by-side, connections can be drawn between the two. If armed with the flexibility to rewrite
the expression in P2 as
2
a
a
b
;
2
3
a
b
b
b
and then to divide out common factors, a student may have better success in solving such a
problem. In this example, teachers saw the importance of teaching multiple methods and
drawing connections between the two. Again, the connection between factoring and
dividing common factors and ‘‘canceling out’’ common factors was more readily seen
when solution methods were presented side-by-side.
On the pedagogy side of the discussion, the presenting teacher’s reference to the
solution by cancelling common factors as ‘‘cross-cancelling’’ became a source of interest.
What exactly does the word ‘‘cross’’ refer to in this method? Is it the misuse of a word? A
conflation of meanings? Does ‘‘cross’’ refer to the ‘‘crossing-out’’ procedure used once the
numerator and denominator are factored? One person remarked that in general, ‘‘cancelling
out kind of ‘sounds like’ you should get zero.’’ Here, teachers were trying to rectify the
language commonly used with the mathematical steps involved in the problem-solving
method. Such pedagogical talks sparked specifically by comparison discussions were
common.

Topic 7: finding the least common multiple

The final topic was chosen as an illustration of the potential disconnect between a common
method for finding the least common multiple (LCM) of integers and the method later
commonly taught for variable expressions. In particular, many students first construct lists
of the multiples of the two integers and then find the first number that appears on both lists
as the LCM. However, this method has its limitations when applied to finding the LCM of
two variable expressions such as 4x2 and x2 þ x. Consequently, a method involving prime

123
 C. Yakes, J. R. Star

factorization and then finding common factors must be introduced as students progress to
such expressions.
The participants saw that when they tried to apply the ‘‘listing’’ method to the variable
expressions, it was not clear how they would actually do so. For instance, participants
started by writing a list such as 4x2 ; 8x2 ; 12x2 ; . . . , 
and quickly realized
that they would
need to include more multiples of x as well, as in 4x2 ; 4x3 ; 4x4 ; . . . . Eventually, par-
ticipants saw that it would be nearly impossible to write an exhaustive list of all the varying
multiples of 4x2 , and furthermore they were uncertain how to organize their lists to obtain
the LCM of 4x2 ðx þ 1Þ. This example illustrated the need to understand the connection
between the procedure of listing multiples, used primarily with numbers, and the prime
factorization method that is taught for finding the LCM of variable expressions. Once
more, when teachers had a chance to explore the content they teach and the methods they
know in the context of comparison, they were able to challenge their own understanding of
concepts and procedures in new ways.

Teachers’ comments on the post-activity survey

Recall that participants were asked to complete a written survey following the professional
development activity. Teachers’ responses generally indicated an increasing appreciation
of the potential of comparison for improving students’ flexibility. One teacher noted,
‘‘If students look at several ways of doing the same problem, they can start to generalize
what’s really going on.’’ Similarly, another teacher noted the potential power of the
comparison conversation, noting, ‘‘[The discussion] is a great tool to get students to defend
their ideas and explain their reasoning.’’ One teacher began to see how comparison could
be used to help students review and consolidate material at the end of a unit: ‘‘If I were to
use this comparison as a review or a recap of the concepts, the students would then be able
to engage in fruitful conversation about the various methods.’’ In addition, another teacher
noted how comparison could be used for students to check their work: ‘‘Comparison would
also be a way for students to check their own work, because they should get the same
answer for both methods.’’
However, other teachers noted the challenges of implementing comparison effectively
in their own teaching. As one teacher noted, ‘‘Comparison is a tool I have already used in
various lessons, but I do not question my students successfully. I tend to want to lecture
and give them my comparisons instead of asking them what they notice.’’ More generally,
teachers seemed especially daunted by the difficulties of facilitating a classroom discussion
where students would be allowed to share their own thoughts when comparing multiple
strategies. Several teachers noted their own tendency to do most of the talking in their
classrooms and their trouble with allowing students to discuss ideas. Another concern
noted by teachers was whether students might be confused by seeing multiple methods; as
one teacher noted, ‘‘My worry is that some students will be confused if I introduce more
than one way to solve a problem on the same day.’’
In addition to commenting on the potential impact that comparison can have on stu-
dents’ knowledge, teachers also commented on the ways that the professional development
activity influenced their thinking about their own teaching and learning of mathematics.
One teacher noted, ‘‘I learned that in my own thinking and strategic competence that I
already have a mental map of comparison strategies which helps me quickly decide upon a
certain strategy to solve a particular problem…[The discussion] allows students to take
ownership of their own learning.’’ Similarly, another teacher noted, ‘‘In all of the text-
books, there is the sequential set of examples and students often become confused… I know

123
Using comparison to develop flexibility for teaching algebra

that when I was learning math, I often fell back on one way of solving a problem. I think
this did not allow for a better understanding of the topic because I was so focused on one
solution method. This one-way method put up a sort of roadblock in my understanding.’’
Similarly, another teacher noted, ‘‘I realize that intuitively I choose a method that is best/
most efficient/easiest for me when I work on the board, but I have never taken the time to
express why or even let the students suggest why.’’

Uses of comparison in the classroom

In the academic year discussions, which included online posts in the fall and the follow-up
discussion in March, participants reported a number of instances of using comparison in
their classrooms. In this section, we describe some of the content areas in which teachers
reported that they used comparison. In addition, we describe the comparison instructional
practices that teachers reported using in the classroom, teachers’ reports of benefits to
students and themselves from using comparison, and some concerns and difficulties
reported by teachers when using comparison.

Multiplying binomials

One teacher reported presenting up to four different methods for multiplying binomials.
Students solved the same problem on a twice-folded piece of paper, with each solution
method in a different quadrant of the page.

Solving for an unknown side

In a geometry lesson on using trigonometric functions to solve for the unknown side in a
right triangle, a participating teacher reported that she encouraged students to solve
problems in a different way than she did, and invited students to present their different
solution on the board alongside hers. The teacher remarked that comparison was partic-
ularly useful in this case, as students would be challenged to consider more than one
relationship between the sides of a given triangle, especially when drawn with a particular
orientation. For instance, given a problem such as that in Fig. 3, in which the orientation of
the triangle suggests using the sine function to solve for x, the teacher reported that
students were challenged to see how they might use cosine in the same situation to solve
the problem. Doing so may require reorienting the triangle in one’s head or redrawing the
triangle, or at least the ability to notice that side x is in an adjacent position with respect to
the top angle.

Solving quadratic equations

One teacher remarked on how well her students responded to seeing the same quadratic
equation solved using both the quadratic formula and by factoring, and then noticing that
the solutions are the same. Here, using comparison serves as a way to connect formerly

Fig. 3 Find the value of x

12 cm
x
28°

123
 C. Yakes, J. R. Star

unrelated solution methods in the students’ procedural domains by explicitly illustrating

that the resulting solutions are equivalent.

Solving systems of equations

Several teachers reported using comparison to teach different solution methods for solving
systems of equations. At least one teacher reported using two different solution methods to
check one another, as a way of checking for the correct solution, and having discussions with
the class about when and why one should get the same answers using different methods.

Solving linear equations

At least one teacher reported solving linear equations with rational coefficients in three
different ways, but did not explicitly describe the methods they used.
The following two examples can be considered extensions of comparison to areas
outside the procedural domain, but are certainly noteworthy for their creativity. Such
examples may perhaps be an indication of a teacher’s own flexibility.

Relating 1-D and 2-D inequalities

One teacher’s innovative use of comparison concerned developing the connection between
two different representations of the same concept. In particular, this teacher reported
comparing 1-D linear inequalities with their 2-D counterparts. Specifically, the teacher
reported comparing a graph of y\2x þ 3 in the Cartesian plane with number line graphs of
c\2x þ 3 for various values of c. The emphasis was on the connection between the 1-D
number line representations for various values of c and the shaded area of the Cartesian
plane that represents the solution set of y\2x þ 3.

Finding the slope in standard form

Another teacher reported using comparison to help students see that the slope of a line
given in standard form, Ax þ By þ C ¼ 0 is actually A=B. She did this by carefully
solving for the slope in examples with numerical coefficients, and then drawing the con-
nection between the examples and the standard form equation with the parameter coeffi-
cients A, B and C.

Benefits and concerns for using comparison

Overall, teachers expressed the opinion that comparison was a valuable tool to utilize in the
classroom. Their self-reports indicated that they saw that comparison could have many
uses in their classrooms, not only to highlight multiple solution methods, but also as a
culminating activity for review, and as a way to see connections to mathematical ideas. For
example, the geometry teacher who used comparison with special triangles noted that she
learned from her students when they derived a new way to solve the problems during a
comparison discussion.
Yet at the same time, other teachers commented on the challenges of using comparison.
For example, one teacher who used discussions in class commented on the difficulties in
allowing students to try to explain their thinking. The teacher pointed out that students’

123
Using comparison to develop flexibility for teaching algebra

explanations were at times unclear and difficult to comprehend, especially for other
students, which presented an obstacle to using comparison subsequently in class.
Perhaps related, a main concern expressed about using comparison in the classroom was
in regards to how students would react to being presented with several solution methods.
Such concerns were raised in the June workshop and were reiterated in comments during
the March 2008 discussion. One teacher related that her students enjoyed seeing solution
methods side-by-side, but later became confused about when to use a given solution
method. Another remarked that after seeing the algebraic method for multiplying binomials
and then an area-model method, his students wondered why they had to see both. It would
be informative in future work to identify the factors that contribute to some students’ lack
of value for seeing multiple solution methods.

Discussion

The results of this small study suggest that using comparison in a professional development
institute can provide teachers with an adaptable instructional tool as well as a chance to
examine their own flexibility as problem solving. First, survey results suggest that intro-
ducing comparison techniques to teachers increased awareness of student flexibility. As a
result, teachers began to see that flexibility is a valuable instructional goal that can be
incorporated into their curriculum. Online discussions and a follow-up meeting indicated
that teachers reported using comparison as an instructional tool for a wide range of algebra
topics. Second, teacher discussions during the professional development indicated that
teachers expanded their own flexibility. Teachers reported that they were challenged to see
the connections between different solution methods, and subsequently questioned why they
taught a certain solution method over another.
The current study suggests that the three recommended instructional practices described
above might represent a practical way to begin to teach for flexibility in the algebra
classroom. Teachers reported little difficulty in implementing the first practice, side-
by-side placement of problems, in their own teaching and also noted creative ways that
they had adapted this practice to their own teaching styles. For instance, teachers reported
using a paper folded twice into quadrants, and solving two problems in two different ways,
with one problem/solution combination per box. Another reported cutting overhead
transparencies in half lengthwise, giving two students one of the halves, asking them to use
one solution on their piece, and then putting the pieces back together on the overhead for
the subsequent discussion. Based on teachers’ self-reports, it appears that the first
instructional recommendation can easily be incorporated into the classroom.
The second recommended practice, having comparison conversations, appeared to be
more difficult to implement in the classroom. Initially, teachers expressed excitement at the
opportunity to have discussions with their students. However, it is less clear whether
teachers were able to facilitate the kinds of comparison conversations that were modeled in
the professional development activity. Teachers’ self-reports suggest that many teachers
were leading the discussions in the direction they thought they should go, rather than
conducting more open-ended conversations and letting students share responsibility for the
discussion.
Finally, the third recommendation, allowing students to generate their own solution
methods or problems for comparison, seemed to occur spontaneously as a result of the
other two. Several teachers reported students drawing their own connections between
solution methods, and subsequently asking intelligent questions about why a solution

123
 C. Yakes, J. R. Star

method is used in a given situation over another. In addition, one teacher recommended
using the comparison format on assessments. He reported giving his students the option of
using whatever method they are most comfortable with to solve a system of equations on
his unit tests.
It should be noted that strategic flexibility has only recently gained prominence as an
instructional outcome for school mathematics; as a result, the definition and operational-
ization of this construct varies somewhat among researchers. Here we have adopted the
definition proposed by Star (Star and Seifert 2006), who defines flexibility as knowledge of
multiple approaches for solving mathematics problems and the ability to select the most
appropriate strategy for a given problem, where the most appropriate strategies are those
that are most efficient. As an example of a slightly different conceptualization, Verschaffel
et al. (2009) have a more nuanced view of the appropriateness of strategies, recognizing
not only efficiency but also features of the problem solver, the environment, and the task
(see Verschaffel et al. 2009 for a more in-depth discussion of a variety of other, related
conceptualizations of flexibility). It stands to reason that the content and structure of
professional development designed to impact flexibility would certainly differ based on the
particular definition and operationalization of flexibility that one holds. The professional
development activity used here is similar to what was used in the two above-mentioned
studies of interventions for improving prospective teachers’ flexibility (Berk et al. 2009;
Newton 2008), in that all build on work by Star (e.g., 2005, 2007).
Lastly, our own experience implies that future professional development activities
focusing on comparison could be improved in several ways. As a preliminary activity,
participants might spend more time discussing their own conceptions of what flexibility
means for both them and their students. Furthermore, when participants are given problems
to solve, it seems important that teachers are encouraged to construct their own solution
methods and problems in accordance with the third recommended practice. Finally, the
results suggest that significantly more time should be spent on questioning and discourse
strategies in the classroom, to both encourage teachers to have comparison discussions, and
to provide them with pedagogical tools to do so.
Future studies on the use of comparison with teachers should focus on long-term effects of
teachers’ use of comparison in their classrooms, including direct observations of teachers’
practices to determine when and how teachers are implementing the practices described here,
as well as the use of quantitative measures to more definitively assess teachers’ flexibility and
attitudes about flexibility. In addition, a more detailed study of the correlation between
mathematics teachers’ knowledge of multiple strategies and the effectiveness of their use of
comparison in the classroom would be educative. Furthermore, the work of Star and col-
leagues (e.g., Rittle-Johnson and Star 2007) suggests that simply changing the method of
presentation to side-by-side is not enough; students must have the opportunity to engage in
comparison conversations and to try to derive their own problem situations for comparison to
be effective. Hence, a comparative study on the impact of comparison in the classroom both
with and without the discussion and student engagement component would more strongly
inform teacher best practice for developing flexibility using comparison.

References

Berk, D., Taber, S., Gorowara, C., & Poetzl, C. (2009). Developing prospective elementary teachers’
flexibility in the domain of proportional reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11,
113–135.

123
Using comparison to develop flexibility for teaching algebra

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longi-
tudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum Focal Points for prekindergarten through
grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National
Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Newton, K. J. (2008). An extensive analysis of elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge of fractions.
American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1080–1110.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and pro-
cedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(3), 561–574.
Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Strawhun, B. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to
praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the
mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 287–301.
Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Edu-
cation, 36(5), 404–411.
Star, J. R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
38(2), 132–135.
Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2008). Flexibility in problem solving: The case of equation solving.
Learning and Instruction, 18, 565–579.
Star, J. R., & Seifert, C. (2006). The development of flexibility in equation solving. Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, 31, 280–300.
Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and
enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 24(3), 335–359.
Zaslavsky, O., & Leikin, R. (2004). Professional development of mathematics teacher educators: Growth
through practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(1), 5–32.

123