Educ Stud Math (2010) 74:207222

DOI 10.1007/s10649-010-9234-9

What mathematics do teachers with contrasting teaching

approaches address in probability lessons?

Ruhama Even & Tova Kvatinsky

Published online: 24 March 2010

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract This paper (1) presents a conceptual framework for analyzing the mathematics
addressed in probability lessons and (2) uses the framework to compare the mathematics
that two teachers with contrasting teaching approaches addressed in class when teaching the
topic of probability. One teaching approach aimed to develop understanding; the other
emphasized mechanistic answer finding. Class work on 193 problems was analyzed
qualitatively and quantitatively, showing some similarities and some differences in the
mathematics that the two teachers offered to students. The differences found seemed to be
linked to the teachers teaching approaches. The findings suggest that teachers who adopt
different teaching approaches, to some extent, make available to learn different mathematics
even when they use the same textbooks.

Keywords Teaching probability . Offering probability to learners . Probability lessons .

Conceptual framework . Mathematics made available to learn . Mathematics addressed in
class . Teaching approaches . Developing understanding . Mechanistic answer finding

Obviously, teachers with different teaching approaches address didactic and pedagogical
issues of teaching mathematics differently. For example, when introducing new content,
teachers who adopt a direct instruction approach tend to start by clearly presenting the new
materials, whereas teachers who adopt a problem-solving approach tend to start by having
their students work on solving a problem that is related to the new materials. However, little
is known about possible links between teaching approaches (how mathematics is taught)
and the mathematics addressed in class (what mathematics is taught). This study centers on
this issue. The overarching questions guiding this study are: What mathematics do teachers
with different teaching approaches address in mathematics lessons? Are there differences?
Are there links between the mathematics that teachers address in mathematics lessons and

R. Even (*)
Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
e-mail: Ruhama.even@weizmann.ac.il

T. Kvatinsky
Talpiot College of Education, Tel Aviv, Israel
208 R. Even, T. Kvatinsky

their teaching approaches? This article, which is comprised of cases of two teachers,
explores these questions in the context of teaching the topic of probability. More
specifically, it compares the mathematics two teachers with contrasting teaching approaches
addressed in class when teaching this topic. It also aims to examine possible links between
differences in the mathematics offered to students and the teachers teaching approaches.
The two paradigmatic teachers participating in this study were chosen intentionally
because they represent rather distinctly two contrasting teaching approaches that are frequently
discussed in the mathematics education literature. Below, we provide background information
on these teaching approaches and present the conceptual framework we developed for
analyzing the mathematics addressed in the probability lessons of the two teachers.

1 Conceptual frameworks

1.1 Teaching approaches

Two contrasting teaching approaches are the focus of this study. One is often associated in the
literature with the aim of developing understanding. This approach is characterized by
devoting considerable class time to solving problems, proposing and justifying alternative
solutions, critically evaluating alternative courses of action, leading to different methods of
solving problems, not necessarily anticipated by the teacher ahead of time (e.g., Cobb,
Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer, 2001; Even & Lappan, 1994; National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Students are expected and encouraged to make conjectures,
explain their reasoning, validate their assertions, discuss and question their own thinking and
the thinking of others, and argue about what is mathematically true (Collins, Brown, &
Newman, 1990; Even & Tirosh, 2002; Wood, Williams, & McNeal, 2006). A prevalent
discourse pattern typical of this teaching approach is the focusing pattern (Wood, 1994),
where the teachers questions are aimed at helping students focus on the important aspects of
the mathematics problem but leave the actual solution of the problem to the students.
This way of teaching is often contrasted in the literature with teaching whose aim is to
help students get correct answers with no attention devoted to developing students
understanding. It is commonly associated with devoting considerable class time to
performing fragmentary, individual, small rituals that are practiced until they can be
executed accurately (Davis, 1989), and emphasis is placed on mechanistic answer finding.
Students hardly talk in class. Rather, it is the teacher who provides explanations, asks
questions, and evaluates students short answers, often using the widely documented
InitiateResponseEvaluate discourse pattern (Mehan, 1979) or the funnel pattern
(Bauersfeld, 1988; Wood, 1994), where the teachers questions are aimed at directing
students to a predetermined solution procedure preferred by the teacher (p. 155).

1.2 Framework for analyzing the mathematics addressed in probability lessons

Conceptual frameworks that can be used to examine the mathematics taught in class are
sparse. For this study, we developed a framework that is based on a framework developed
by Even (1990), formerly for analyzing subject matter knowledge for teaching. Adapting
the previous framework for analyzing the mathematics taught in probability lessons was
based on examining various written sources, such as books and textbooks on probability,
and research on probability learning and teaching, aimed at identifying what is considered
as important regarding probability. In addition, several mathematicians and mathematics
Mathematics addressed in probability lessons 209

educators were interviewed about the role and importance of probability theory in
mathematics, in other disciplines and in real-world situations, and regarding the place of
probability theory in the mathematics school curriculum. The resulting framework for this
study comprises five interconnected aspects: (1) essential features and the strength of
probability theory, (2) approaches to probability, (3) probability representations and models,
(4) basic repertoire, and (5) the nature of probability theory. These aspects are succinctly
described below. Whereas this framework appears to be useful for examining the
mathematics that is addressed when teaching the topic of probability, by focusing on how
each aspect was portrayed to students in class, no claim is made about the completeness of
the framework.

1.2.1 Essential features and the strength of probability theory

Uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of work in probability theory. In this regard,

probabilistic thinking is fundamentally different from deterministic thinking, which is used
in other mathematical domains (e.g., Batanero, Henry, & Parzysz, 2005). Probability theory
opens up new possibilities for dealing with uncertain and random situations that occur in
almost every field of our life. It provides new mathematical tools to understand, analyze,
and predict natural phenomena that cannot be explained by classical tools. Thus, it
advances the development of different scientific fields, such as modern quantum physics
and evolutionary biology, as well as modern mathematics and computer science (Batanero
et al., 2005; Beatty, 1987; Falk & Konold, 1992; Freudenthal, 1970; Gal, 2005; Krger,
1987; Krger, Daston, & Heidelberger, 1987).
Another unique fundamental characteristic of probability theory is its focus on the
extent of the predictors knowledge and not on the objective situation (e.g., Falk &
Konold, 1992; Liberman & Tversky, 1996). In other words, when new information is
available, then, without any changes in the objective situation, the estimate of the
probability may change.

1.2.2 Approaches to probability

Two main approaches for handling probability problems are the objective and the subjective
approaches (Batanero et al., 2005; Jones, Langrall, & Mooney, 2007; Kapadia, 1988;
Konold, 1989; Liberman & Tversky, 1996; Steinbring, 1991). According to the objective
approach, which most probability textbooks follow, probability can be assigned only to an
event that can be repeated. The subjective approach interprets the term probability as the
degree of belief rather than as a relative occurrence; thus, it can be applied to one-time
events. The objective approach can be subdivided into two main approaches for defining
and finding probabilities (Jones et al., 2007; Kapadia, 1988; Konold, 1989): the classic
approach (Laplace) and the experimental (frequency) approach. Although textbooks
commonly present only the classical approach (Batanero, Godino, & Roa, 2004), neither
one is suitable for all situations; thus, both need to be taught (Steinbring, 1991).

1.2.3 Probability representations and models

In addition to different approaches to probability, work related to probability is carried out

by using different representations and models, such as tables, Venn diagrams, area models,
tree diagrams, pipe diagrams, and formulas (e.g., Konold, 1996; Phillips, Lappan, Winter,
& Fitzgerald, 1986). Some of these are specific to the topic of probability; others are more
210 R. Even, T. Kvatinsky

general mathematical representations and models. Each representation or model provides

different information and has different advantages and disadvantages (Even, 1998).

1.2.4 Basic repertoire

A basic repertoire includes powerful examples that illustrate and help develop insights into,
and a deeper understanding of, important ideas, principles, properties, theorems, etc. When
one deals with complex situations, the basic repertoire serves as a reference, monitoring
ways of thinking and acting.

1.2.5 The nature of probability theory

In analyzing the mathematics taught in probability classes, one also needs to consider the
nature of probability theory portrayed, or more generally, the nature of mathematics
portrayed. This includes ways of reasoning, means, and processes for establishing and
creating mathematical ideas and truths in general (e.g., Davis & Hersh, 1981; Even &
Lappan, 1994; Lakatos, 1976; Polya, 1954), and in the special case of probability theory.
The nature of probability theory also includes the relative importance of different ideas and
the ever-changing character of mathematics as well as the fact that it is a free invention of
the human intellect that is influenced by different forces inside and outside mathematics (e.g.,
Wilder, 1972).

2 Methodology

2.1 Research design, participants, and setting

To enable thorough examination of the mathematics addressed in probability lessons by

teachers with contrasting teaching approaches and of possible links between differences in
the mathematics offered to students and the teachers teaching approaches, we chose a
novel research design and setting. It comprises two teachers with contrasting teaching
approaches, who followed the same syllabus, used the same textbooks in their
corresponding classes, and frequently worked on identical textbook problems.
The participating teachers were Betty and Gloria (pseudonyms), two high school
teachers teaching in the same schoola large academically oriented senior high school in
the center of Israel. Both teachers had many years of experience in teaching mathematics,
and in preparing students for the Matriculation Examination in mathematics, and both had a
reputation of being competent and responsible teachers.
Each teacher taught the topic of probability in two classesone class of 3-unit level and
another class of 4-unit level (in Israel, the Matriculation Examination in mathematics is
offered in three levels: 3, 4, or 5 units3 being the lowest). No differences were noted
between the compositions of the two same-level classes, in line with the school policy. All
four classes were preparing for the Matriculation Examination in mathematics at the time of
the study, and they followed the same syllabus, with the exception of one topicbinomial
distributionwhich was taught in the 4-unit level classes only. The research here
concentrates only on the topics taught at both levels.
The two 3-unit classes used the same two textbooks intended for the 3-unit level
Matriculation Exam. Similarly, the two 4-unit classes used the same two textbooks intended
for the 4-unit level exam. The teachers often collaborated in planning which textbook
Mathematics addressed in probability lessons 211

problems to use in their teaching, and eventually, about one half of the problems worked on
in each class were identical in the two same-level classes. The teachers also jointly prepared
identical examinations for their same-level classes throughout the school year.
Analysis revealed that Betty and Glorias teaching approaches were very different from
each other (Even & Kvatinsky, 2009). In both of her classes, Betty emphasized mechanistic
answer finding, and the pattern of interaction that characterized her classes was mostly the
Funnel Pattern (Bauersfeld, 1988; Wood, 1994). Betty consistently discouraged students
from actively participating in class and sharing their own ways of solving problems. Instead,
she dictated to students how to solve problems, emphasizing rule following. She seldom
invited students to present their work to other students, and she never discussed unsuccessful
attempts. In contrast, Gloria emphasized in both of her classes more thinking, understanding,
and problem solving. The pattern of interaction that characterized her classes was mostly the
Focusing Pattern (Wood, 1994). Glorias students had numerous opportunities to play a
significant and influential role in the class mathematics discourse, to solve problems in
different ways, to choose different methods of solving problems, and to present and discuss
with the whole class their own methods as well as their unsuccessful attempts.
In addition to enabling us to compare the mathematics offered in class by two teachers
with contrasting teaching approaches, this research design and setting allowed us to
compare the mathematics offered in different-level classes taught by the same teacher that
used the same syllabus. This way, we were able to identify differences in the mathematics
addressed in class between as well as within teachers.

2.2 Data collection

Data were collected in the course of two consecutive school years. During the first year,
data were collected in the two 3-unit classes; the following year, data were collected in the
two 4-unit classes. The main data source was derived from observing all probability lessons
in each class for one school year (excluding the topic of binomial distribution, which was
taught only in the 4-unit classes)15 lessons in each 3-unit class; eight lessons in each
4-unit class. The 46-lesson observations were audio-taped, and field notes were taken. After
all observations were completed, an individual semi-structured interview was conducted
with each teacher. The interviews lasted 4050 min and focused on the teachers views of
teaching probability in general and in different-level classes in particular.

2.3 Data analysis

All lessons consisted almost entirely of solving probability textbook problems, either as
individual seatwork or whole-class work. A detailed analysis of the mathematical content
addressed in the lessons included the talk during whole-class work. The interviews and
observations of the seatwork were used to support or downplay interpretations and to
provide additional information about the ways in which the teachers structured and handled
the mathematical content of the lessons.
The audio-taped lessons (public talk) and interviews were transcribed, and the lessons
were then analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. We added the use of quantitative
methods because we believe that they can strengthen qualitative research studies. We used
the framework described earlier, with the whole-class work on one probability problem as
the unit of analysis. The work on all problems solved during the whole-class work in the 46
observed lessons was analyzed, a total of 193 problems. Of these, as mentioned earlier,
quite a few problems were common to both same-level classes: 36 problems were common
212 R. Even, T. Kvatinsky

to the two 3-unit classes (out of 64 problems solved in Bettys and 50 in Glorias 3-unit
class); 19 problems were common to the two 4-unit classes (out of 42 problems solved in
Bettys and 37 in Glorias 4-unit class).
We first used open coding (Strauss, 1987) to generate initial categories, for example,
choice of representations in solving problems, the use of rules in solving problems, and
ways of conducting calculations. The initial categories were constantly compared with new
data and refined. We scrutinized various aspects of the talk during the whole-group work,
such as how problems are solved, what solutions are presented to the whole class, and how
they are chosen for presentation. We identified relationships and hierarchies among the
categories and created core categories that are the central phenomenon around which all
the other categories are related (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 116). Some of the categories
that were developed through this process were related to the mathematics addressed in
class. These categories were linked with the five aspects in the framework, in line with the
description in the previous section.
Then, for each probability problem worked on in class, we examined references related to
these categories. When noteworthy, we also counted the number of problems where specific
references were made. For example, for the aspect Essential features and the strength of
probability theory, we examined and counted the number of problems where references were
made to (a) uncertainty, (b) the unique fundamental characteristic of probability theory,
namely, the emphasis on the extent of the predictors knowledge rather than on the objective
situation, (c) the role of probability theory in mathematics or in other domains. Likewise, for
the aspect Approaches to probability, we examined the approaches used and counted the
number of problems where specific approaches were used, and so on. In addition to the
authors, two other researchers who specialized in the field of mathematics education
participated in analyzing about 15% of the data. All disagreements were resolved by
discussions, so that a consensus was reached. Then, the rest of the data were analyzed. Finally,
statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test for comparing respective
percentages of problems between the two classes of each teacher and between the two teachers.

3 Addressing the topic of probability in class

In the following section, we present and discuss, for each aspect of the framework, the
mathematics that the two teachers addressed or offered in their lessons. Whenever
applicable, differences between the teachers and between their classes are highlighted.

3.1 Essential features and the strength of probability theory

Both teachers referred to an essential feature of probability theoryuncertainty as opposed

to determinism. Usually, they did it indirectly when solving textbook problems, by stating
that there could be several outcomes. For example, If I enter this class with my eyes
closed, I cant see. Then I can choose any one of those here, Or after spraying the
mosquito for the first time, it could be either dead or alive. To convey uncertainty, the
teachers used terms such as possible outcomes, desired outcomes, occurrences, and
possibilities. The first row in Table 1 presents percentages of problems where uncertainty
was referred to out of the total number of problems solved in Bettys 3- and 4-unit classes
(B3 and B4, respectively) and in Glorias 3- and 4-unit classes (G3 and G4, respectively).
Analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the two teachers, i.e.,
comparing all Bettys classes with all Glorias classes (BG). No statistically significant
Mathematics addressed in probability lessons 213

Table 1 Percentages of problems related to different aspects in the framework

B3 B4 #21 G3 G4 #21 #21

(N=64) (N=42) B3B4 (N=50) (N=37) G3G4 BG

Reference to 22% 26% 0.262 62% 59% 0.058 27.658***

uncertainty
Additional 52% 43% 0.77 90% 76% 3.231 26.653***
representations
Use of tree diagram 68%a 32%b 7.081** 85%c 75%d 0.664 9.076**
Making connections 47% 29% 3.551 84% 73% 1.576 30.8***
Student reports 5% 21% 7.079** 44% 68% 4.755* 41.051***

Note: B3 and B4 stand for Bettys 3- and 4-unit classes (respectively). Similarly, G3 and G4 stand for
Glorias 3- and 4-unit classes (respectively). B3B4 stands for the comparison B3 vs. B4, and so on. BG
stands for the comparison of both of Bettys classes versus both of Glorias classes
a
(N=31)
b
(N=25)
c
(N=26)
d
(N=20)
*0.01<p<0.05, **0.001<p0.01, ***p0.001

differences were found between the two classes of the same teacher, i.e., comparing Bettys
two classes (B3B4) and Glorias two classes (G3G4). Betty referred to uncertainty in
about 25% of the problems in both her classes, whereas Gloria referred to it in about 60%
of the problems, again in both of her classes.
Neither of the teachers, not even when they introduced the topic, mentioned the role of
probability theory in mathematics or in other domains (e.g., genetics or quantum physics
despite the fact that some of the students had already studied genetics in their biology
classes). Similarly, none of the teachers referred, either explicitly or implicitly, to the unique
fundamental characteristic of probability theory, namely, the focus on the extent of the
predictors knowledge rather than on the objective situation.

3.2 Approaches to probability

Neither of the teachers offered the subjective approach to probability problems, i.e., they
never referred to degree of belief, to confidence level, or to one-time events. Rather, like
most textbooks and curriculum documents, the teachers presented solely the objective
approach to probability problems. Betty presented only the classic approach (Laplace) and
kept telling students to look for the number of desired outcomes divided by the number of
possible outcomes. Gloria, in addition to the classic approach, referred to the experimental
(frequency) approach in about 10% of the problems in both classes (often with the classic
approach as well). For example,
G: For instance, if I take now, and I am not going to do that, I am not going to
perform the experiment. If I take a coin now and toss it 1,000 times [the teacher takes
a coin out of her purse and tosses it several times]. ... I got a tail, I got a head, I got a
head again....
...And I am going to toss it like this 1,000 times. What is the probability that Id get a head?
S: One half.
214 R. Even, T. Kvatinsky

G: Out of the 1,000 times that Ill toss the coin, about 500 times, 499 times, it would
result in a head... That is, what is the probability that it would result in a head?
S: One half.

In cases when a problem included particular probabilities that could not have been
obtained by the classic approach, Betty never referred to the origin of these numbers, and
she never explained how these numbers could have been determined. In contrast, when she
began teaching the topic of probability, Gloria explicitly explained possible origins of such
probabilities, emphasizing the role of collecting a large number of results. For example, one
of the problems on which the 3-unit class worked stated that the probability of having rain
in Hanukkah is 1/3. Gloria then raised the question,
G: How do you think I got it? I am giving it to you as given....If in the last three years
there was one time when it rained, then you tell me that this is one-third?...
S: Its possible to do it on six, and then twice. Its also possible nine, and then three...
G: Exactly. If I toss a coin twice, then out of these two times would I get a head exactly
once? You see, probability is not, I need to do a multi-quantitative measurement. That
means, if I measure, for example, over a period of 20 years, 100 years. Each time I do it
with more years, it will be more accurate. I will check a period of 100 years. Lets do 99
to make it easier for me. Then out of the last 99 years, Id see when it rained, Id count
how many years it rained, until I reach the conclusion that in about 33 years out of 99 it
rained. Then I did 33 divided by 99 and I got one-third. That means, this measurement
is to get the one-third. Its impossible to do it for 3 years, and also not for six. To be
accurate, it needs to go way back. But here I am telling you that I have already done the
measurement, and I am giving you the data.

3.3 Probability representations and models

All solutions to the textbook problems were written on the board using formal notation. In
addition, both teachers used various representations and models, such as graphs, pictures,
tree diagrams, and tables. However, none used the area model or the pipe diagram. The
second row in Table 1 presents percentages of problems where additional representations
were used out of the total number of problems solved in each class. Analysis revealed a
statistically significant difference between the two teachers (BG; but not between the two
classes of the same teacherB3B4 and G3G4); Gloria used additional representations
much more than Betty.
The tree diagram is central to teaching the topic of probability in secondary schools. It was
the only representation mentioned explicitly in the probability syllabus (for both levels), and a
special section in the textbooks was devoted to teaching it. Both teachers explained how to build
a tree diagram and how to use it to check answers. For example, Betty said:

From this dot there are two branches, right? From this dot there are also two branches. Add
the probabilities that are written on the branches from the same dot. What do we get here?
One-half and one-half [is] one... This is how its always going to be. Even if in other
exercises you will have three branches from the same dot. When you add the probabilities
on the branches from the same dot, the sum of the probabilities is always one.
The third row in Table 1 presents percentages of problems where the tree diagram was
used out of the total number of problems that could have been solved using a tree diagram
Mathematics addressed in probability lessons 215

in each class. Analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the two
teachers (BG): Glorias classes used the tree diagram considerably more than Bettys
classes. There was also a significant difference between Bettys two classes (B3B4)but
not between Glorias two classes (G3G4)when it could have been used, the tree diagram
was used more often in Bettys 3-unit class than in her 4-unit class.
One of the reasons for the considerable differences between the two teachers in their use
of various representations, as exemplified in the case of the tree diagram, is rooted in their
different approaches to choosing representations when solving textbook problems. As
reported in Even and Kvatinsky (2009), there was a major difference between the two
teachers in the opportunities they created for students to decide what representations to
choose when solving the problems. Betty always made the decision on what representations
to use. Also, when students suggested choosing a different representation, Betty rejected it.
For example, Betty started to solve a problem that involved drawing balls from a jar when a
student interrupted her and suggested using a tree diagram,
S: The tree diagram is easier.
B: Anyway you like [continues to solve the problem without using a tree diagram]...
S: Could you please make a tree diagram?
B: No.
S: But why? It helps.
B: [Continues to solve the problem without using the tree diagram.]
The significant difference in the use of the tree diagram between Bettys two classes
might be related to her different views on what each class needs, as she explained in her
interview: In general, 4-unit students dont always need the tree diagram, but in 3-unit
[classes] it is needed. They want it.
In contrast with Bettys behavior, Gloria was attentive to students suggestions regarding what
representations to choose. When a student suggested solving a problem using a different
representation from the one suggested by her or by another student, Gloria responded positively to
the students suggestion, and as a result, the problem was often solved in two different ways, using
the two representations. For example, when working on a problem that involved two shots, Gloria
began by suggesting using a tree, but then, in response to students queries, she changed her plan:
G: You can do it with a tree, and try it, and it works beautifully.
S: You dont need branches for that.
G: What?
S: Can you do it without a tree?
G: You can also do it without. Right. I like it with. I see that there are some who do it
with branches, and some without. No problem.
S: Do we have to do it with a tree?
G: No, no, you dont have to. We will do it first without a tree, and then we will see
how to do it with a tree.

They then solved the problem on the board both ways, first by using the students
suggestion and then by her initial choice.
216 R. Even, T. Kvatinsky

Another reason for the considerable differences between the two teachers in using
various representations is their different emphases on rule following, as reported in Even
and Kvatinsky (2009). Both teachers gave students rules to use when choosing
representations to solve problems. Betty emphasized that it was important to follow these
rules and presented them immediately when she introduced a representation or a model and
then repeated the rule in response to students questions during problem solving. For
example, Betty introduced the representation of a two-dimensional table and immediately
told the students: If you dont make a table, it is very easy to make mistakes. Therefore,
when you have two dice, or one die twice, or a die and a spinner, you start with a table.
Later, when the students worked on solving such problems, Betty repeated the rule: The
first thing when throwing two dice or one die twice is that you make a table. Who does not
remember what table I am talking about?
Usually, Gloria did not present the rules as important to follow but rather as a useful
tool. She did not give students rules when introducing new representations but only as a
response to students questions. For example, when a student asked Gloria, after solving a
problem that involved drawing balls from a jar, whether using the tree diagram was fine,
Gloria responded:
If I have a problem with jars and balls of two colors, I like to make, and find the
number of balls, and make a tree and see what the probability of drawing from
here is, and what the probability of drawing from there is. The same with rooms
in which I have men and women. Do you sense the cases that I like to do with a
tree?

3.4 Basic repertoire

No differences were found between the teachers regarding the nature of the problems dealt
with in their classes or regarding the kinds of illustrations used. In all four classes, the
teachers followed the syllabus, which was similar in the 3- and 4-unit levels. Furthermore,
as mentioned earlier, about one half of the problems solved in class were common in the
two same-level classes.
Analysis of all the problems solved in class, in light of the basic repertoire they may
support, is beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, different emphases made by the
teachers when working on the textbook problems in class made available to learn different
repertoires, as is elaborated below.
As reported in Even and Kvatinsky (2009), Betty often required students in both classes
to use rules based on semantic hints when solving problems in class. For instance,
Then now remember: When there is and you multiply probabilities. If there is this
and this you multiply probabilities.
Then when I see or it is adding probabilities. When this or this happens, then we
add probabilities.
Even when students suggested different (correct) ways of solving a problem, Betty
ignored them and insisted that they follow the rule. For example, Bettys 3-unit class
worked on the following problem (abbreviated from Geva, 1997, p. 210):

The probability that student A succeeds in the test is 0.9. The probability that student
B succeeds in the test is 0.7. What is the probability that at least one of them succeeds
in the test?
Mathematics addressed in probability lessons 217

A student suggested dealing with three cases: Either one succeeds and the second [student]
fails, or one fails and the second succeeds, or both succeed. However, Betty insisted that
the answer should be based on the probability of the complement of an event:
What did we say, if we want this combination of at least one? [Pause] I asked you to
remember this. When I see, at least one something, I do this: One minus the
probability [of] none.
Betty explained in her interview that, It is very important, especially for the 3-unit
students, to give clear-cut rules, so that they know what to do in each case...4-unit students
also like it and its easy for them.
In contrast with this behavior, Gloria not only did not require students to use rules based
on semantic hints but she also did not even draw students attention to these hints nor did
she emphasize that there were any rules to follow.
Even though many of the textbook problems solved in Bettys classes were identical to
those solved in Glorias classes, by addressing their solution so differently, Betty and
Glorias students were encouraged to construct different basic repertoires. Bettys students
were encouraged to construct a basic repertoire of examples of different rules, whereas
Glorias students were encouraged to construct a basic repertoire of examples of different
ideas and concepts (e.g., the problem above about the rain during Hanukkah is a powerful
example of the experimental frequency approach to probability).

3.5 The nature of probability theory

Most of the class time in all four classes was spent on calculating probabilities and on
carrying out some procedure. Emphasis was also put in all four classes on probability
facts. For example, There is no negative probability and no probability that is greater
than one.
In addition to emphasizing procedural aspects of probability theory during the work on
all problems in all four classes, the teachers made connections to previous learning or to
everyday life, highlighting conceptual aspects of probability. For example, when solving a
problem that involved drawing balls of two colors from a jar, Gloria explained to her
students that it was similar to picking out people from a room with men and women,
stressing that the use of a tree diagram is similar in both situations. The fourth row in
Table 1 presents percentages of problems where the teachers made connections to previous
learning or to everyday life out of the total number of problems solved in each class.
Analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the two teachers (BG) (but
not between the two classes of the same teacherB3B4 and G3G4): Gloria emphasized
connections to previous learning or to everyday life much more than Betty did.
Explanations were less common in all classes, compared with the emphasis on
procedural aspects of probability theory. Rarely did Betty explain, or require students to
explain, why a solution was true or false or why a specific method of solution was
appropriate. In contrast with Betty, Gloria focused more on explanations, usually as part of
discussing solutions of problems with the students. The fifth row in Table 1 presents the
percentages of problems where students reported and explained their solutions out of the
total number of problems solved in each class. Analysis revealed a statistically significant
difference between the two teachers (BG): Glorias students reported and explained their
solutions much more than Bettys students did. This finding is supported by a
corresponding finding revealed from utterance analysis (Even & Kvatinsky, 2009), showing
a statistically significant difference between Bettys classes and Glorias classes in their
218 R. Even, T. Kvatinsky

focus on student explanations. The utterance analysis showed that Bettys questions rarely
were aimed at asking students to explain how they got their answers. Instead, when asking
students mathematical questions, Betty focused almost entirely on the final answer (e.g.,
Then what is the answer?), practically discouraging students from offering their own
ways of solving problems and explaining how they got their answers. Gloria, on the other
hand, encouraged students to explain their methods of solution. In addition to asking for the
final answer, Gloria devoted a considerable part of her questions to probing how students
solved the problem (e.g., How did you get that?).
As shown in the fifth row in Table 1, there was also a significant difference between the
two classes of the same teacher; Bettys and Glorias 4-unit students reported and explained
their solutions more often than their counterpart 3-unit students did. Yet, utterances analysis
(Even & Kvatinsky, 2009) showed that Gloria, and to some extent Betty, encouraged more
her 3-unit students than her 4-unit students to explain their methods of solution (not
statistically significant). Thus, these differences between different-level classes of the same
teacher seemed to be related to differences in students ability to provide such explanations
and not to differences in teachers requesting students to explain their methods of solution.
In general, as reported in Even and Kvatinsky (2009), Betty dictated to students how to
solve problems, emphasizing rule following. She seldom invited students to present their
work to other students and never discussed or allowed students to share unsuccessful
attempts. In contrast with Betty, Gloria encouraged students to solve problems in any way
they desired and to discuss with the whole class their methods as well as their unsuccessful
attempts. She also encouraged solution of problems in different ways.
Clearly, Betty and Glorias students were offered probability theory of different natures.
The nature of probability theory made available to learn in Bettys classes was characterized
by a domain that deals with final results only, where ways of reaching these results are not
important; a domain in which every problem has one solution only, and problems are
solved by following rules developed by experts; a domain in which one can learn nothing
from examining mistakes and only correct solutions have value. In contrast, by participating
in Glorias classes, students were exposed to a different nature of probability theory. The
nature of probability theory made available to learn in Glorias classes was characterized by
a domain that deals with final results as well as with ways of reaching these results; a
domain in which a problem may be solved in different ways, not necessarily by following
rules developed by experts; a domain in which examining mistakes is important and
constructive and could help in achieving correct solutions and understanding.

4 Conclusion

This study examined the mathematics that two teachers with contrasting teaching
approaches addressed in class when teaching the topic of probability. All four classes
studied according to the same probability syllabus. The same-level classes, one taught by
Betty and the other by Gloria, used the same textbooks and worked in class on many
identical textbook problems. Moreover, the two teachers often collaborated on planning
their lessons. Therefore, one would expect to find similarities regarding the mathematics
that was addressed or offered in class by the two teachers.
And, indeed, the analysis revealed such similarities. For example, both Betty and Gloria
mentioned in class the fundamental characteristic of probability, namely, uncertainty, and
both used the objective approach to probability, focusing, like most textbooks and
curriculum guides (including the ones used in their classes), on the classical approach.
Mathematics addressed in probability lessons 219

Furthermore, work in all four classes involved the use of graphs, pictures, tree diagrams,
and tables and emphasized probability procedures and facts.
The conceptual framework developed for this study for analyzing the mathematics that the
teachers addressed in their probability lessons enabled us to notice similarities between the
teachers not only in what they did address, but also regarding important things that they did not
address. For example, neither of the teachers referred to the role of probability theory in
mathematics or in other domains, nor did they mention the emphasis of probability theory on
the extent of the predictors knowledge rather than on the objective situation. Similarly, neither
mentioned the area model or the pipe diagram nor used the subjective approach to probability;
thus, they presented a rather narrow view of probability theory and of representations of
probability, limiting to some extent students understanding of the topic as well as of powerful
tools to deal with probability problems. What the teachers did not address in class was basically
not required explicitly for the Matriculation Examinations and was not included in the
textbooks they used, which were closely connected to the examinations.
Yet, the framework we developed enabled us to detect the existence of quite a few
differences in the mathematics that was addressed in the probability lessons. Sometimes,
these were quantitative differences. For example, although both teachers referred to
uncertainty, Gloria did so much more often than Betty did. Similarly, Glorias classes used
additional representations to formal notation, such as graphs, pictures, tree diagrams, and
tables, significantly more than Bettys classes did.
There were also qualitative differences regarding the mathematics that the teachers
addressed. Only Gloria introduced the experimental approach, extending the narrow view of
probability commonly presented in textbooks using only the classical approach. Furthermore,
Betty made available to learn a basic repertoire of examples of different rules, whereas Gloria
made available to learn a basic repertoire of examples of important ideas and concepts. Betty
offered the domain of probability as a domain that deals with final results where every problem
has one correct solution only, reached by memorizing and following rules developed by experts.
In contrast, Gloria offered the domain of probability as a domain that deals with the construction
and examination of various ways of solving problems.
Analysis revealed, as illustrated in Table 1, that in general, differences in the
mathematics that was addressed in the probability lessons were considerably more
substantial between teachers (BG) than between the classes of each teacher (B3B4 and
G3G4) and that basically, the topic of probability was addressed similarly in the two
classes of each teacher. This finding is somewhat surprising at first, because the two classes
of each teacher were at different levels. Consequently, they used different textbooks and
worked on different textbook problems, whereas the same-level classes (taught by different
teachers) used the same textbooks and worked on many identical textbook problems.
Likewise, the teachers jointly prepared identical exams for their same-level classes
throughout the school year, which were different for different-level classes of each teacher,
taking into consideration the different nature of the Matriculation Exam for each level.
Hence, the differences in what was addressed in the probability lessons were mainly
related to differences between teachers, which prevailed over the difference between their
classes. A major difference between Betty and Gloria lies in their teaching approaches.
And, indeed, the differences in the mathematics that was addressed in the probability
lessons seem to be linked to the teachers different teaching approaches. Adopting the
mechanistic answer finding approach, it is not surprising that Betty did not stress as much
as Gloria did the idea of uncertainty, nor the experimental approach to probability, and the
use of multiple representations, because they were not essential for getting correct final
answers. Her offering a basic repertoire of examples of different rules, and the nature of
220 R. Even, T. Kvatinsky

probability that she made available to learn, again fit her teaching approach. In her
interview, the links between the mathematics Betty addressed in class and her mechanistic
answer finding teaching approach were often explicit. For example, in her interview, Betty
referred to the experimental (frequency) approach as a nice thing for students to experience
but impossible to include in her teaching because of lack of time:
If there is more time, then much more varied. It is also such a topic that you can make
beautiful demonstrations. Let them play with tossing coins. Let them sit for half an
hour, toss coins, and count, and write down the number of times it turned out like
this, and the number of times it turned out like that. Or, bring dice so that they can see
that. Do more demonstrations.
Glorias emphasis on thinking, understanding, and problem solving also fits the findings
that Gloria emphasized the idea of uncertainty, that her classes used multiple representa-
tions, and the way she introduced the experimental approach to probability. Her offering a
basic repertoire of examples of important ideas and concepts and the different nature of
probability she made available to learn again fit her teaching approach. In her interview, the
links between the mathematics that Gloria addressed in class and her teaching approach that
emphasized thinking, understanding, and problem solving were often explicit. For example,
in her interview, Gloria explained the importance that she attributed to using multiple
representations, in general, and as a way of embracing students suggestions:
I: In class, when you give a problem, how do you solve it? If a student suggests doing
with a tree, and you didnt think, or vice versa.
G: I show everything. I invite every student who thought differently, and they both
show their ways on the board. Any possible way I always accept.
I: And do you tell which one is preferred?
G: When two students show, as long as it is correct, I show both ways. When they ask
me afterwards which one is preferred, then I tell.
And later, she remarked, I would do every problem by all possibilities: a table, as well as a
tree, and also by experiment. I would do everything in different directions.
This study showed some differences in the mathematics that was made available to learn
in classes that were characterized by different teaching approaches. The study did not,
however, link that with the nature of student knowledge and understanding that developed.
Yet, such links are documented in the literature. For example, the findings of Boaler (1997)
indicate that students who experienced mathematics at school as working through textbook
exercises in the traditional chalk and talk teaching approach, similar to Bettys students
experiences, had difficulties using their mathematics in new situations. On the other hand,
students who experienced mathematics at school as discussing, interpreting, and using
mathematical ideas in open group-based projects, closer to Glorias students experiences,
were more able to use mathematics in new situations.
The findings of Boaler (1997) suggest that the differences in the nature of probability
theory made available to learn between Betty and Glorias classes would probably be
linked to differences in students ability to use probability ideas in new situations. Still,
our study suggests more than that. The use of the framework we developed for analyzing
the mathematics addressed in probability classes enabled us to detect how both teachers
limited to some extent students ability to understand the topic as well as to develop
powerful tools to deal with solving probability problems. Moreover, the key differences
Mathematics addressed in probability lessons 221

between what the teachers addressed in class suggest potential differences in the nature of
students knowledge and understanding that developed. For example, Glorias emphasis
on thinking, understanding, and problem solving created opportunities for her students to
encounter mathematical facets not made available to Bettys students. Thus, the findings
of this study suggest that more complex links exist between the mathematics addressed in
class and the teaching approaches used. Such links need to be carefully examined in
follow-up studies.
Very little is known about teachers instructional practices as they teach the topic of
probability in their classes (Stohl, 2005). By developing a conceptual framework and using it
for analyzing in detail all probability lessons during one school year in four classes, this
paper provides important information about ways of teaching the topic of probability in
school. Moreover, recent studies show that different teachers enact the same textbooks in
different ways (Manouchehri & Goodman, 2000; Tirosh, Even, & Robinson, 1998). Yet, the
literature provides little information about the mathematics that is addressed or offered in
different classes. The five-aspects framework we developed, the unique research design and
setting, as well as the incorporation of statistical analysis into qualitative investigation
enabled us to detect interesting differences in the mathematics that was offered in different
classes. The findings of this study suggest that teachers who adopt different teaching
approaches, to some extent, make available to learn different mathematics even when they
use the same textbooks. Consequently, Gloria and Bettys students did not only study the
topic of probability differently but also studied different mathematical ideas associated with
probability theory. This finding highlights the prominent and indispensable role that teachers
play in shaping curriculum enactment and underscores their influential role in determining
the nature of the learning experiences provided to students, as well as the mathematical
ideas that students learna role that no curriculum program by itself can fulfill.

References

Batanero, C., Godino, J. D., & Roa, R. (2004). Training teachers to teach probability. Journal of Statistics
Education, 12. Online: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/.
Batanero, C., Henry, M., & Parzysz, B. (2005). In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in schools:
Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 1538). New York: Springer.
Bauersfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematics
education. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching (pp. 2746). Reston:
Erlbaum.
Beatty, J. (1987). The probabilistic revolution in evolutionary biologyan overview. In L. Krger, L.
Daston, & M. Heidelberger (Eds.), The probabilistic revolution: Ideas in history (pp. 229232).
Cambridge: MIT.
Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical
practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113163.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor
of Robert Glaser (pp. 453494). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. Boston: Birkhuser.
Davis, R. B. (1989). Three ways of improving cognitive studies in algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.),
Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 115119). Reston: NCTM.
Even, R. (1990). Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case of functions. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 21, 521544.
Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
17(1), 105121.
222 R. Even, T. Kvatinsky

Even, R., & Kvatinsky, T. (2009). Approaches to teaching mathematics in lower-achieving classes.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(5), 957985.
Even, R., & Lappan, G. (1994). Constructing meaningful understanding of mathematics content. In D. B.
Aichele & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics, 1994 Yearbook
(pp. 128143). Reston: NCTM.
Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teacher knowledge and understanding of students mathematical learning. In
L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 219240). Mahwah:
Erlbaum.
Falk, R., & Konold, C. (1992). The psychology of learning probability. In F. S. Gordon & S. P. Gordon
(Eds.), Statistics for the 21st century (pp. 151164). Washington, D.C.: The Mathematical Association of
America.
Freudenthal, H. (1970). The aims of teaching probability. In L. Rade (Ed.), The teaching of probability and
statistics (pp. 151167). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Gal, I. (2005). Towards probability literacy for all citizens: Building blocks and instructional dilemmas. In
G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in schools: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 3964).
New York: Springer.
Geva, Y. (1997). Mathematics for 3-units: Linear programming, statistics and probability (Vol. 3). Tel Aviv:
Author (in Hebrew).
Jones, G. A., Langrall, C., & Mooney, E. S. (2007). Research in probability: Responding to classroom
realities. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
909955). Greenwich: NCTM.
Kapadia, R. (1988). Didactical phenomenology of probability. In R. Davidson & J. Swift (Eds.), Proceedings
of the second international conference on teaching statistics. Victoria: University of Victoria.
Konold, C. (1989). Informal conceptions of probability. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 5998.
Konold, C. (1996). Representing probabilities with pipe diagrams. Mathematics Teacher, 89(5), 378382.
Krger, L. (1987). The probabilistic revolution in physicsan overview. In L. Krger, L. Daston, & M.
Heidelberger (Eds.), The probabilistic revolution: Ideas in history, vol. 1 (pp. 373378). Cambridge:
MIT.
Krger, L., Daston, L., & Heidelberger, M. (Eds.) (1987). The probabilistic revolution: Ideas in history (vol. 1).
Cambridge: MIT.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1996). Critical thinking (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: The Open University of Israel.
Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge within.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 134.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Reston: Author.
Phillips, E., Lappan, G., Winter, M. J., & Fitzgerald, W. (1986). Probability. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.
Polya, G. (1954). Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Steinbring, H. (1991). The theoretical nature of probability in the classroom. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik
(Eds.), Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 135168). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Stohl, H. (2005). Probability in teacher education and development. In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring
probability in schools: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 345366). New York: Springer.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tirosh, D., Even, R., & Robinson, N. (1998). Simplifying algebraic expressions: teacher awareness and
teaching approaches. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 5164.
Wilder, R. L. (1972). The nature of modern mathematics. In W. E. Lamon (Ed.), Learning and the nature of
mathematics (pp. 3548). Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Wood, T. (1994). Patterns of interaction and the culture of mathematics classrooms. In S. Lerman (Ed.), The
culture of the mathematics classroom (pp. 149168). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wood, T., Williams, G., & McNeal, B. (2006). Childrens mathematical thinking in different classroom
cultures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3), 222255.