The Importance of Communications in the

Mathematics Classrooms
Introduction
Teachers who teach math want their students to succeed in mathematics. They want students
to experience high-quality, engaging mathematics instruction. There are ambitious
expectations for all, with accommodation for those who need it. Of course not all learners of
mathematics are successful for various reasons. Therefore, mathematical leaders and
politicians started the reform movement in mathematics. Prodded by a series of critical
national advisory reports and by disappointing results from international comparisons of
mathematics achievement, organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) formulated an agenda for reform in three volumes of professional
standards: Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989),
Professional Standards for Teaching School Mathematics (1991), and Assessment Standards
for School Mathematics (1995). In the year 2000, NCTM created Principles and Standards
of School Mathematics (PSSM) which includes the principles and standards. In July 2001,
The Mathematics Achievement Partnership (MAP) created the draft for Foundations for
Success: Mathematics for the Middle Grades (FFS). These documents were created to
support teachers by equipping them with the knowledge and skills they need to help raise
student proficiency and understanding of the mathematics curriculum.

There are many issues worth tackling in the field of mathematics education among the “math
wars.” One issue many traditionalist and reformist educators cannot agree upon is
communication in mathematics. Journal writing is a popular tool teachers use to incorporate
writing in their math classes. When reading, writing, discussing, and thinking is encouraged
in the math classroom, students often not only focus on procedural knowledge of algorithms,
but they also communicate their thoughts, explanations, or clarifications in writing. In this
paper, I will describe and summarize the major arguments and research for and against the
issue of communication in math and state my personal view of this issue. This paper will
also include my explicit suggestions for Principles and Standards of School Mathematics
(PSSM), created by The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Foundations for
Success: Mathematics for the Middle Grades (FFS), created by Mathematics Achievement
Partnership (MAP).

Research on Communication
Pros

Many educators of mathematics believe communication is a crucial part of mathematics. It is

a way of sharing ideas and clarifying understanding. Through communication, ideas become
objects of reflection, refinement, discussion, and amendment. The communication process
also helps build meaning and permanence for ideas and makes them public (NCTM, 2000).
When students are challenged to think and reason about mathematics and to communicate the
results of their thinking to others orally or in writing, they learn to be clear and convincing.
Listening to others’ thoughts and explanation about their reasoning gives students the
opportunity to develop their own understandings. Conversations between peers and teachers
will foster deeper understanding of the knowledge of mathematical concepts. When children
think, respond, discuss, elaborate, write, read, listen, and inquire about mathematical
concepts, they reap dual benefits: they communicate to learn mathematics, and they learn to
communicate mathematically (NCTM, 2000).

Silver and Smith believe that "the current interest in issues of communication is both more
widespread than ever before and more central to reform efforts than at any other time in the
history of mathematics education" (1997). The communication in math encompasses both
oral and written communication. If students talk about their thinking as they solve problems,
the teacher can tailor the lesson to suit the student's way of thinking. "Teachers' knowledge
of students' thinking is an important guide in planning effective lessons" (Maher & Martino,
1992). Teachers can learn about their students' thinking through the students' writing as well
as the students' spoken words. In fact, "students who will not ask questions in class may
express their confusion privately in writing" (Miller, 1991). So it is possible for the teacher to
adjust the lesson during the lesson on the basis of the students' oral comments, and it is
possible for the teacher to fine tune future lessons on the basis of students' written comments.

Within the field of education there is fresh interest in inquiry as a framework for teaching and
learning, an interest that resonates with the theoretical turn toward social constructivism in
both mathematics and reading education. Building on the work of Peirce (1982) and of
Dewey (1933), both of whom defined inquiry as the process of settling doubt and fixing
belief within a community, some educators have begun to consider ways to help students
experience this more powerful, if more tentative, view of knowledge. This perspective on
inquiry is especially significant for mathematics education, given the dominance of a
"techniques curriculum" (Bishop, 1988) that represents mathematics as a collection of facts
and procedures. Such curricula tend to reinforce myths about what it means to know and
learn mathematics, myths that are popular yet dysfunctional for learners (Borasi,1992).
Engaging students in mathematical inquiries, that is, inviting them to experience and
appreciate first hand the ambiguity, nonlinearity, and "conscious guessing" (Lampert, 1990)
associated with the mathematical thinking of professional mathematicians, is one way to
demystify mathematics learning for students (Borasi & Siegel, 1994b).

Language takes on new importance in classrooms in which knowledge is regarded as a social

construction, providing the symbolic resources for members of a community to negotiate
meanings and representations of their world. This is quite different from the way language
works in mathematics classrooms in which learning techniques is the main goal. In these
classrooms, language functions as a channel through which previously established knowledge
is transmitted from expert (the teacher or textbook) to novice (the students) through teacher
talk and textbooks. From this perspective, reading serves as a means of receiving the expert's
message (and may be perceived by the teacher as an obstacle to students' learning when
appropriate reading skills are lacking), whereas writing functions as a mode of knowledge
display that provides evidence that the students have achieved the desired learning outcome
(Pimm, 1987). In contrast, the idea that language is a productive force that both shapes and is
shaped by the community suggests new roles for reading, writing, and talking in the
mathematics classroom, roles that may provide the support students need to fully experience
and learn from their inquiries.

In a study done by Siegel and Judith (1998) on using reading, writing, and talking in
mathematics to boost students’ understanding, their findings prove that communication in a
mathematics classroom can be very beneficial. They analyzed three classroom experiences in
which secondary mathematics students engaged in "inquiry cycles" on quite different topics.
These instructional experiences were developed by a collaborative team of mathematics
teachers, mathematics education researchers, and a reading researcher in the context of action
research and teacher research. Analysis of the data led to the identification of 30 functions of
reading that are specific to distinct elements of an inquiry cycle. On the basis of these
findings they suggest that reading can serve multiple roles in inquiry-based mathematics
classes and, in doing so, can afford students unique opportunities for learning mathematics.

Many mathematics educators are advocating methods of assessment other than frequent tests,
quizzes, and daily worksheets (Williams & Wynne, 2000). In fact, the NCTM's Curriculum
and Evaluation Standards states, "The assessment of students' ability to communicate
mathematics should provide evidence that they can express mathematical ideas by speaking,
writing, demonstrating and depicting them visually" (1989, 214). One alternative form of
assessment that incorporates these standards is journal writing. Writing or journal writing in
math helps students stretch their thinking and make sense of problems that can sometimes
leave them confused or frustrated. When children write in journals, they examine, express,
and keep track of their reasoning, which is especially useful when ideas are too complex to
keep in their heads (Burns & Silbey, 1999). Although algorithms provide an efficient route
to securing correct answers, children often do not understand how or why these procedures
work. Merely directing children to follow the traditional rules for algorithms in a lockstep
fashion is like expecting children to arrive without having made the journey (Barnes, 1995).
However, when teachers encourage children to write about the process, it can be a valuable
way for learners to make sense of these algorithms for themselves (Countryman, 1992).
Teachers can use writing to assess their students’ understanding by evaluating their progress
and recognizing their strengths and needs, foster conceptual understanding, and extend
mathematical conversations in class.

Cons

Traditionalist educators are reluctant to accept the method of communications in

mathematics. When traditionalists see students engaged and talking with one another, asking
questions, thinking about the mathematics and mathematical relationships, they view these
behaviors and infer that the basics and other important mathematics are not being taught
(Stiff, 2000). They believe learning takes place when the basics and fundamental
mathematical concepts are taught in the classroom. Teachers in a traditional classroom often
disseminate knowledge, facts, algorithms and generally expect students to identify and
replicate the fields of knowledge disseminated (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, chap. 2). Most
teachers rely heavily on textbooks (Ben-Peretz, 1990). They claim students should be
engaged in text-book inquires, not inquiring within the teacher and other students (Morse,
1998). Students do not learn “naturally” by reading, writing, discussing, elaborating,
thinking, and inquiring mathematics (Morse, 1998). Because the emphasis is on procedural
knowledge and memorization of algorithms, students often work independently completing
workbooks and ditto sheets. Teachers believe independent practice rather than cooperation
with groups will help students learn the mathematical concepts. When asking students
questions, most teachers seek one “right” answer to the math problem and will explain why
the answer is correct. In addition, traditionalists believe schooling is premised on the notion
that there exists a fixed world that the learner must come to know. The construction of new
knowledge is not as highly valued as the ability to demonstrate mastery of conventionally
accepted understandings (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, chap. 2).
Some educators are opposed to writing and reading in the math classroom. Grass-roots
groups oppose writing and reading in math because of poor math scores on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. In 1996, California fourth graders were near the
bottom, outscoring only students in Mississippi, Guam, and the District of Columbia
(Kantrowitz & Murr, 1997). Educators claim that students were not mastering specific skills
by certain grades. Some parents were complaining that their kids were not learning
rudimentary computation (Kantrowitz & Murr, 1997). These educators believe fundamental
math skills are the basics in achieving success in a student’s mathematical education.
Educators opposed to writing and reading in math believe basic computational skills should
be learned in a math class. Many parents also agree that writing and reading should take
place in English or writing classes. Some parents learn their kids can’t multiply without a
calculator and spend more time writing and reading about math than doing it (Walters,
1997). They also argue that math class is a time to learn mathematical concepts and not
writing, reading, or discussing.

Why Communication is Important

In my opinion, I think students should have the opportunity to construct their own knowledge
when learning about mathematical concepts. I view students as thinkers with emerging
theories about the world. Students should be able to work cooperatively in groups and
independently to make the necessary mental constructions about a particular math concept.
For example, there is great benefit to allowing students to construct their own algorithms for
multiplication and division. However, this does not mean that the standard algorithms for
multiplication and division cannot be taught in meaningful ways that help students integrate
new knowledge or procedures with existing understandings of multiplication and division.
Nor does teaching the standard algorithm mean that standard algorithms are the first or only
algorithms to which students should be exposed. Certainly, teachers can foster a greater
understanding of these operations by using objects as referents for numbers and
demonstrating the physical manipulations associated with each operation (Stiff, 2000). When
students construct their own knowledge of mathematical concepts, they need to have the
opportunity to think about, discuss, extend, elaborate, verbalize, write, listen, and read in the
mathematics classroom. Normally in a math class, students are not accustomed to “talk”
about mathematical concepts. They are usually “taught” the concept by the teacher.
Therefore, teachers need to use a number of approaches to probe students’ thinking in
mathematics. Students are not natural talkers in the math classrooms. Older students will
encounter more complex concepts in higher levels of math, discussing, talking, elaborating,
writing, reading, and thinking about complex themes and concepts will help students to
obtain deeper understanding in math. The president of NCTM, Lee V. Stiff states positively,
“NCTM's Principles and Standards is not synonymous with constructivism or any other
single teaching approach.” I agree with this statement. I believe students learn in a variety of
ways. Communication should definitely be a part of the mathematics classroom. Using
different approaches of learning to teach mathematical concepts is my method as well.

Communication in Principles and Standards for School

Mathematics (PSSM)
Summary of the Communication Standard
An effective educational program needs to have clearly defined goals as to what students
should know, understand and be able to do, as well as a plan that effectively guides
instruction to the levels defined by the standards. The Communication Standard in the PSSM
clearly states the importance of communication in mathematics education early on in a
child’s schooling career. On page 59, it states, “Instructional programs from pre-kindergarten
through grade 12 should enable all students to:

• organize and consolidate their mathematical thinking through communication;

• communicate their mathematical thinking coherently and clearly to peers, teachers, and
others;

• analyze and evaluate the mathematical thinking and strategies of others;

• use the language of mathematics to express mathematical ideas precisely.”

On pages 59-62, the PSSM clearly explains the expectations of the Communication
Principle.

Students can organize and consolidate their math thinking through communication. When
students present their methods of solving problems, justify their reasoning to a classmate or
teacher, and formulate a question about something that is puzzling, they gain insights into
their thinking. Reflection and communication are intertwined processes in mathematics
learning. Writing in math can also help students consolidate their thinking because it requires
them to reflect on their work and clarify their thoughts about the ideas developed in the
lesson.

Students need to communicate their math thinking coherently and clearly to peers, teachers,
and others. In order for a math result to be recognized as correct, the proposed proof must be
accepted by the community of math professionals. This way, students can test their ideas on
the basis of shared knowledge in the mathematical community of the classroom to see
whether they can be understood. In order for students to communicate their math thinking
coherently in the classroom, they need to have numerous opportunities to participate in
whole-class discussions or small group discussions and activities to practice.

Analyzing and evaluating the mathematical thinking and strategies of others is another
important expectation. While working with others on math problems, students will gain
several benefits. Students who often has one way of seeing a problem can profit from
another student’s view, which may reveal a different aspect of the problem. Students can
actively participate in sharing and analyzing one another’s strategies in solving arithmetic
problems. The strategies can become objects of discussion and critique.

It is crucial for students to use the language of mathematics to express mathematical ideas
precisely. Early on in their school careers, they need to build a connection to formal
mathematical language. Teachers can foster this by using mathematical vocabulary starting
in the early ages of students’ education. Beginning in the middle grades, students should
understand the role of mathematical definitions and should use them in mathematical work.
In high school, the language should become more pervasive. However, is important to avoid
a premature rush to impose formal math language on students. They need to have an
understanding of the concept in order for them to use the mathematical vocabulary in a
conventional way, in their own words.

Suggestions for PSSM

I personally think the PSSM is a well written standards and principles document. It gives a
clear summary for the four sub-standards of the Communication Standards in Chapter 3. In
Chapter 4, standards for k-2 grades are given; in Chapter 5, standards for grades 3-5 are
given; in Chapter 6, standards for grades 6-8 are given; in Chapter 7, standards for grades 9-
12 are stated. Each chapter gives expectations for teachers and students in the classroom.

On page 193, the document gives examples of what communication should look like in
grades 3 through 5. On this page, an example problem is given from a fifth grade classroom.

Pretend you are a jeweler. Sometimes people come in to get rings resized. When you cut down
a ring to make it smaller, you keep the small portion of gold in exchange for the work you
have done. Recently you have collected these amounts:

1.14 g .089 g .3 g

Now you have a repair job to do for which you need some gold. You are wondering if you
have enough. Work together with your group to figure out how much gold you have collected.
Be prepared to show the class your solution. (P. 114)

It describes the decimal activity in detail including expectations of the teacher and of the
students. In this activity, the teacher presented the students with a problem-solving situation.
Although they had worked with representing decimals, they had not discussed adding them.
As was customary in the class, the students were expected to talk with their peers to solve the
problem and to share their results and thinking with the class. The students used
communication as a natural and essential part of the problem-solving process. As the groups
worked, the teacher circulated among the student. Students were engaged in dialog and
students continued to solve the problem through student and teacher discussions.

The example given in Chapter 5 is fairly explicit. However, it does not give examples of
communication expectation for each individual grade: third, fourth, and fifth. Currently it is
difficult to relate the examples to a specific grade level. K-2, 3-5, 6-8 or 9-12 spans too broad
a spectrum of abilities, and the examples should be specific. The document should include an
example of communication sub-standards for each specific grade in order for teachers to have
a clear understanding of the Communication Standard. This way, teachers of all grades will
have a “guide-line” to follow with examples for each specific grade. Because I think the
PSSM is a well written document, I only have one suggestion for the Communication
Standard. I agree with the suggestions and expectations given for students and teachers in the
Communication Standard. By following the expectations and standards, teachers will have
success in teaching the importance of communication in a mathematics classroom.

Communication in Foundations for Success: Mathematics

for the Middle Grades (FFS)
Summary of Foundations for Success: Mathematics for the Middle Grades
The Mathematics Achievement Partnership (MAP) has been working with its partner states to
strengthen U.S. mathematics education. MAP recognizes that improving student
performance depends on a comprehensive approach based on:

supporting teachers by equipping them with the knowledge and skills they need to help raise
student proficiency;

measuring student proficiency on a regular basis; and

using assessment results to assist teachers and improve classroom practice.

MAP’s work is grounded in the 1995 Third international Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS). TIMSS data show that in too many U.S. classrooms, mathematics curricula in
grades six through eight simply repeat previously taught concepts and do not provide deep
study in any area. The data also show that American mathematics curricula for the middle
grades generally do little to advance mathematics knowledge beyond arithmetic
computation. Achieve reaffirmed the TIMSS findings with its own analysis of 21 state tests
of fourth and eighth grade students. It found that more than 60 percent of the eighth grade
test items dealt with computation, whole number operations, and fractions – concepts that
students in other countries master before the seventh grade. In top performing nations,
seventh and eighth grade curricula include proportionality and slope, congruence and
similarity, equations and functions, and two and three dimensional geometry – topics that
most U.S. state tests address sparingly, if at all.

Following the TIMSS analysis, MAP asked mathematicians and mathematics educators to
take a fresh look at the mathematics expectations for the middle grades. MAP incorporates
its advisory panel’s conclusions and the TIMSS findings in Foundations for Success, a
blueprint for mathematics in the middle grades that is benchmarked to international
standards. This set of expectations is designed to be challenging yet realistic, and eventually
attainable by all students and teachers who are given adequate support. With the goal of
providing all students with a strong foundation in mathematics before they begin high school,
it aims to cultivate every student. Those who master fundamental concepts in the middle
grades will have the tools they need to succeed in high school, college and the workplace.

Foundations for Success offers guidelines and targets for states to provide mathematics
education that is benchmarked to the best in the world. It identifies the skills and knowledge
that will underlie MAP’s professional development, curriculum, and assessment tools. The
expert panel of mathematics educators have worked with Achieve to develop these
expectations which represent a wide spectrum of perspectives about mathematics education.
In the strands algebra, geometry and data analysis, Foundations for Success represents a
balanced and informed viewpoint about the necessary emphases and scope of mathematics in
the middle grades. To help illustrate what the MAP expectations mean, a number of sample
problems and methods for solving these problems accompany the outline of learning
objectives. The primary purpose of these problems is to assist curriculum developers and
teacher educators as they rethink their learning objectives for students in the middle grades.

Suggestions for Foundations for Success

Foundations for Success is a well written document which clearly states their expectations for
middle school students. The expectations comprise four strands, each of which encompasses
three primary topics:

• Number: whole numbers, rational numbers, real numbers

• Data: measurement and approximation, data analysis, probability

• Geometry: common figures, measurements, transformations

• Algebra: symbols and operations, functions, equations

Each strand contains a brief introduction to clarify its purpose; a summary to convey its
scope; and a set of expectations concerning what students need to know, understand, and be
able to do in each topic area. In addition, a major part of each strand is devoted to sample
problems designed to help illustrate the scope, depth and meaning of the expectations. These
problems show more than just procedures and skills. They demonstrate the depth of
mathematical understanding and reasoning skills that students need in order to become
engaged citizens and productive employees in the twenty-first century.

The sample problems are real-life problems students need to figure out. Even though
communication of math thinking is not mentioned in the document, the problems itself
require students to think critically. The problems also have a heavy emphasis on reasoning.
In the Data Strand, problem D3 requires students to use reasoning to solve the problem.

In Canada they measure distances in kilometers. One kilometer is about 60% of one mile.
Estimate this same speed measured in both meters per hour and meters per second.

In order for students to solve this problem, they need to think critically. In order to convert
500 km per hour into meters per hour, we need to know that there are 1000 meters in each
kilometer. So we multiply by 1000 to convert. Notice how we can make the dimensions
cancel:

speed = km m m

500— x 1000 — = 500,000 —

h km h

To convert 500 km per hour into meters per second, we begin with the previous result:

500 km per hour is the same speed at 500,000 meters per hour. Dividing by 60 (because there
are 60 minutes for every hour; notice how, in the calculation, we’re multiplying by 1) gives
us the speed in meters per minute:

m 1 hour

speed= 500,000 —— x —————

hour 60 minutes
 = 500,000 meters

60 minute

Dividing once again by 60 (because there are 60 seconds in a minute) give us the speed in
meters per second.

500,000 meters 1 minute

speed= ———— ——— x —————

60 minutes 60 seconds

= 139 meters

second

Even though this problem does not require a student to write an explanation to the problem,
there is much reasoning behind the thinking. Problems such as this one are consistent in
requiring students to use reasoning and think critically.

The emphasis on reasoning is evident throughout the problems in Foundations for Success.
MAP also sets high standards for students by requiring them to think critically for each math
problem. In order for students to understand mathematical concepts, they need to talk,
discuss, elaborate, or write their thinking for more in depth understanding. It would be
beneficial if MAP add a communication strand to the Foundations for Success document. In
the communication strand, they can state their expectations for communication: why is
communication in math important; how critical thinking and reasoning encompasses
communication in mathematics ; problems and solutions that require students to write in
depth explanations about specific real-life math problems. Other strands in the document
require students to use reasoning. However, when students are not required to write down or
communicate their thoughts or reasoning in some form or way, they will not do it. If middle
school students are required to know strands related to number, data, geometry, and algebra,
why not add on a communication strand, where students are required to write or
communicate their thinking? MAP can consider placing math problems related to the
number, data, geometry, or algebra strand into the new communication strand. This way,
students will be accountable for communicating their thoughts and thinking for the problems
involving each of the strands.

"Teachers' knowledge of students' thinking is an important guide in planning effective

lessons" (Maher & Martino, 1992). Teachers can learn about their students' thinking through
the students' writing as well as the students' spoken words. In fact, "students who will not ask
questions in class may express their confusion privately in writing" (Miller, 1991). If the
Foundations for Success document is mainly for teacher and educator use, teachers need to
some kind of guideline or sample questions and solutions for communication. If the
emphasis of this document is on reasoning, how will teachers assess students’ understanding
if students are not communicating their reasoning and thinking in some means? MAP may
also consider placing the communication expectation within each of the four strands.
Communication can take part in the Summary of Expectations for number, data, geometry,
and algebra strands. This way the expectation to communicate students’ thinking will be
incorporated in each strand. Teachers may assess students’ understanding in each strand
more easily if the communication piece is added to the Foundations for Success document.

Conclusion
Should communications be required in the mathematics classroom? Communication is an
essential part of the mathematical classroom. Students may use verbal language to
communicate their thoughts, extend thinking, and understand mathematical concepts. They
may also use written language to explain, reason, and process their thinking of mathematical
concepts. Communication is a tool which can help students to form questions or ideas about
concepts. Conversations in which mathematical ideas are explored from multiple
perspectives help the participants sharpen their thinking and make connections. Students who
are involved in discussions in which they justify solutions—especially in the face of
disagreement—will gain better mathematical understanding as they work to convince their
peers about differing points of view (Hatano and Inagaki 1991). Such activity also helps
students develop a language for expressing mathematical ideas and an appreciation of the
need for precision in that language. Students who have opportunities, encouragement, and
support for speaking, writing, reading, and listening in mathematics classes reap dual
benefits: they communicate to learn mathematics, and they learn to communicate
mathematically (NCTM, 2000).

References:
Barnes, D. (1995). Talking and learning in classrooms: An introduction. Primary Voices,
16(1), 2-7.

Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The Teacher-Curriculum Encounter: Freeing Teachers from the

Tyranny of Texts. New York: State University of New York Press.

Bishop, A. (1988). Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural Perspective on Mathematics

Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Borasi, R., & Siegel (1994b). A first step toward a characterization of an inquiry approach for
mathematics education. L'Insegnamento Della Matematica E Delle Scienze Integrate, 5 (17A-
17B), 467-493.

Brooks, J. & Brooks, (1993). In Search of Understanding the Case for Constructivist
Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Burns, M. & Sibey. (1999). Math journals boost real learning. Instructor, 110(7), 18.

Countryman, J. (1992). Writing to Learn Mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath.

Foundations for Success: Mathematics for the Middle Grades Consultation Draft (2001,
July). Mathematics Achievement Partnership.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer:
Mathematics Knowing and Teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.

Hatano, G. & Inagaki (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity.
Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, pp. 331–48. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.

Kantrowitz, B. & Murr (1997). Subtracting the new math. Newsweek, 130(24), 24.

Maher, C., Davis, & Alston (1992). Teachers paying attention to students' thinking.
Arithmetic Teacher, 39(9), 34-37.

Miller, L. (1991). Writing to learn mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 84(7), 516-521.

Morse, S. (1988, October). Characteristics of migrant secondary students: Outreach meeting

report. (ERIC No. ED 319 550).

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics for School Mathematics (1989). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.

Peirce, C. (1982). The fixation of belief. In H. S. Thayer (Ed.), Pragmatism: The Classic
Writings pp. 61-78). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Original work published 1877)

Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in Mathematics Classrooms.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Siegel, M. & Judith (1998, July). Supporting students’ mathematical inquiries through
reading. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(4), 378-388.

Silver, E. & Smith (1997). Implementing reform in the mathematics classroom: Creating
mathematical discourse communities. Reform in Math and Science Education: Issues for
Teachers. Columbus, OH: Eisenhower National Clearinghouse.

Stiff, L. (2000). Constructivist mathematics and unicorns: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics president’s message. Retrieved from
http://www.nctm.org/news/president/2001-0708president.htm

Walters, L. (1997). Rebel parents see ‘new-new math’ as a big minus. Christian Science
Monitor, 89(152).

Williams, N. & Wynne (2000). Journal writing in the mathematics classroom: A beginner’s
approach. Mathematics Teacher, 93(2), 132-135.