TME, vol11, no.1, p.

61

Teaching and learning mathematics with Math Fair, Lesson Study and Classroom
Mentorship

Sharon Friesen1 & Krista Francis-Poscente

Faculty of Education
University of Calgary

Abstract: For more than a decade, researchers, math educators and professional
developers from the Galileo Educational Network (Galileo) in the Faculty of Education
at the University of Calgary, to which the two of us are associated, have worked to
improve the teaching of mathematics. Our focus has always been twofold: to improve
teacher knowledge of mathematics and the pedagogy of teaching mathematics. We report
on the extensive work we have conducted with teachers with lesson study, classroom
mentorships and math fairs.

Keywords: Lesson study; Math fairs; Math teacher professional development; Galileo
Educational Network

Introduction

Initially encouraged by the findings of the Third International Mathematics and

Science Study (Institute of Education Sciences, 1995), we started our first Lesson Study.

We sought and acquired external funding. We invited mathematicians from the Pacific

Institute for the Mathematical Sciences (PIMS) to join our efforts. We extended an

invitation to teachers from the schools in which Galileo professional developers were

working. Monthly sessions with teachers, mathematicians, mathematics educators and

researchers all focused on improving mathematics learning and teaching were followed

by job-embedded professional development for teachers. We worked with teachers in the

context of their own classrooms providing them with support by teaching alongside them,

1
sfriesen@ucalgary.ca
The Mathematics Enthusiast, ISSN 1551-3440, Vol. 11, no.1, pp.61-82
2014©The Author(s) & Dept. of Mathematical Sciences-The University of Montana
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

videotaping their instruction for later examination and discussion and providing them

timely, effective feedback on their instruction.

Initially, we began with only the findings from Institute of Education Sciences

(1995), knowing that something needed to change in order to bring about the stronger

mathematical reasoning. Through personal communications in 1999 with James Hiebert,

researcher from Institute of Education Sciences (1995) videotape study, we were

encouraged to contact Clea Fernandez who was forming a Lesson Study group in the

United States. While we built on many of the ideas and approaches from Fernandez and

Yoshida (2004), we also modified our approach to Lesson Study to adapt to the needs of

our teachers. Like Fernandez and Yoshida, teachers met to collaboratively plan lessons;

however, knowing that the majority of our teachers did not have enough mathematical

knowledge for teaching we always included at least one, and frequently more than one,

PhD mathematician, mathematics educators and researchers in our endeavours to ensure

our planning was rooted deeply in the discipline of mathematics. Although our funding

allowed us to provide teachers with monies with release time to meet during class hours,

we were unable to also fund teachers to obtain teaching release time to observe lessons

being taught. That said, we were able to provide teachers with a combination of

mathematicians, mathematics educators and/or professional developers to work alongside

them in their own classrooms as they tried out new instructional strategies. To provide

teachers the opportunity to learn from other teacher’s lessons we videotaped the teachers.

Videotapes were viewed and discussed during a portion of our group meetings.

Our Lesson Study has never been devoted entirely to lesson planning. We always

split our time between planning and learning mathematics for teaching as many teachers
 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 63

in Alberta (and Canada) lack sufficient background and understanding of mathematics

(Friesen, 2005). In this way, the teachers in Alberta are not unlike many teachers in the

United States.

In Liping Ma’s (1999) groundbreaking study she identified a discrepancy in the

mathematical knowledge between teachers in the US and China. Teachers from China

have less education than their U.S. counterparts, yet they have a better understanding of

mathematics for teaching. Unsurprisingly, the quality of mathematics teaching was

dependent on the teachers’ mathematical understanding. Ma called for a more connected

longitudinal concept development form of teaching mathematics.

Ball et al., (2005) observed that of mathematical understanding of many U.S.

teachers is “dismally thin” (p. 14). They argue that rather than more advanced

undergraduate mathematics classes, teachers would benefit from knowing more

mathematics for teaching. Yes teachers need to know the concepts and procedures they

teach: fractions, functions, factoring, symmetry, etc. But to extend this knowledge into

their classrooms, teachers need a different type of mathematical knowledge for teaching

for planning, implementing, evaluating, and assessing student work. Beyond recognizing

student errors, teachers need to be able to pin point the misconception that resulted in the

misunderstanding. Effective mathematics teachers need to engage these

(mis)understandings and move student understanding into the discipline of mathematics

(Fuson, Kalchman, & Bransford, 2005). Being able to explain why and the meaning of

mathematical concepts require much more than being able to do.

Learning the why and the meaning of mathematical concepts is extremely difficult

when people have been taught mathematics as sequence of rote facts and procedures to be
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

remembered, recalled and regurgitated rather than connected concepts to be understood

requiring procedural fluency and adaptive reasoning; developing strategic competence

and a productive disposition (Kirkpatrick et al., 2001).

The practice of remember, recall and regurgitate has lead to an identifiable teaching

script, “consistent with the belief that school mathematics is a set of procedures” (Stigler

& Hiebert, 1999, p.2). This teaching script, referred to as the North American teaching

script (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999) involves teachers demonstrating a procedure and students

repeatedly practicing the procedure with similar questions. Research has shown that this

script is ineffective (Stigler & Hiebert, 2004; Institute of Education Sciences, 1995;

Institute of Education Sciences, 1999; Institute of Education Sciences, 2003) leading to

what Perkins (1992) calls fragile mathematical knowledge.

Each successive generation of teachers who learned mathematics in just this way

have come to believe that mathematics as a discipline is a set of procedures. This belief

divorces math learning from the “community of relations” (S. Friesen, Clifford, &

Jardine, 2008, p. 118) in which the discipline of mathematics resides. Changing teachers’

practices and beliefs about the nature of mathematics has been our greatest challenge.

That’s A Good Problem

In 1999 a group of mathematicians, math educators and teachers, supported by

PIMS, Mt. Royal College and the Galileo Educational Network, started to address the

problem of mathematics learning and teaching in K-12 in Alberta. While we knew that

policy work was needed, we took a different approach. We started our work at the level

of the classroom starting an initiative which we called That’s A Good Problem. This
 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 65

initiative provided teachers, students and parents with an opportunity to engage with

mathematics, increasing the mathematical understanding and competence of teachers,

providing opportunities for deep engagement with mathematics and providing teachers

with the opportunity to work with and learn from mathematicians and math educators

within the context of their own classrooms.

Schools are invited to send a team of four or five teachers to a half-day professional

development day. The focus of this meeting was on: teaching mathematics through math

explorations and investigations by working through a number of math explorations and

investigations.

Mathematical investigations and problems were created or provided by research

mathematicians and math educators. Each of the investigations or problems had

particular characteristics in that they:

1. Began with a "story" (i.e., they were situated in a meaningful context)

2. Allowed group work, but encouraged individual effort.
3. Required that students work with mathematical ideas in an active manner.
4. Could be successfully explored at many levels.
5. Permitted innovative solutions by students.
6. Included a rapid evolution from the simple to the profound.
7. Exposed the frontiers of knowledge when exploring ideas.
8. Dealt with fun and important, useful mathematics.
9. Ensured participation requires the communication of original thought.
10.Provided opportunities for interpretation, multiple correct solutions.
(Friesen & Stone, 1996)

The magnitude of the required change for teaching these explorations and

investigations was difficult for teachers to envision let alone implement in their

classrooms. Two colleagues from a neighbouring university were introducing their math

students to good problems through an activity which they called Math Fair. We decided
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

to introduce the teachers we were working with to ideas from Math Fair as a way to

introduce good problems into their classroom practice.

Math Fair is a mathematical problem solving fair developed by Dr. Andy Liu and

Dr. Ted Lewis, both PhD mathematicians, to bring students closer to the discipline of

mathematics (GENA, 2008b; Lewis, 2002). Unlike the familiar science fair, math fair

was designed to involve all students in non-competitive, student-led, active problem

solving activity. Math Fair problems are rich, good problems which require students find

connections and patterns, make conjectures and develop mathematical reasoning. After

trying a number of different problems, teams of two children choose and become an

expert of one problem. They learn how to give hints and extensions without revealing the

solution. At the Math Fair event, students coerce and coach invited adults and peers to

solve their problem. A successful Math Fair requires rigorous mathematical work.

We have found that Math Fair is a small enough parcel for teachers to bite into

and try out a different teaching script. For us, Math Fair became the crack that helped

teachers catch a glimpse of a different way to teach good math problems and launching

point to explore math concepts and connections.

Our mentorship for Math Fair still follows the same format as when we first

began with That’s A Good Problem which has since formed the basis of our current

version of Lesson Study. In our first meeting, teachers who are interested, come together

to solve good problems and learn what is required to host a successful Math Fair. We

provide teachers with information and images of past successful Math Fairs. Once the

logistics of Math Fair have been discussed we explore a few Math Fair problems

together. We place the teachers in the exact space we hope their children encounter.
 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 67

Math Fair problems require mathematical thinking and reasoning. We do not provide

solutions to the problems. Many teachers find this aspect of good problems somewhat

unnerving as most are unfamiliar with having to justify a mathematical solution to a

problem. This is often uncharted territory for teachers. However, we encourage teachers

to come forward and present their solutions. We teach into the space that their solutions

open for us. In this way, we demonstrate for the teachers the ways in which robust,

problem solving activity unfolds.

Our next step in Math Fair is to go into the teachers’ classrooms where a

mathematician and a math educator or professional developer presents problems to the

students. Students are enticed to jump into the problems. For most students, this way of

approaching problems is unfamiliar. Used to being carefully led through a procedure

which leads to a correct solution, the students exhibit many of the same behaviours of

their teachers. They want the assurance that there indeed is a unique solution and in time,

we will reveal the answer. However, committed to immersing the students in robust

mathematical thought and reasoning, that is not dependent on flipping to the back of the

book and identifying the correct answer, we persist by traversing the mathematical

territory with them showing them where they have already travelled and identifying

possible next landmarks. We provide many words of encouragement and leave hints

about how their might get the problem to yield more of its secrets. Students experience a

range of emotions when tackling difficult mathematical work from frustration to elation.

When a student has found a solution we ask them to explore alternate solutions or

provide them with an extension to keep them working on the problem and exposing the
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

elastic nature of good problems. The rich elasticity of the Math Fair problems provides a

course of action for differentiated learning.

Once most of the students have found a solution to the problem we get them to

bring their understandings forward to the class. Together we explore the innovative

solutions students have discovered. Then we follow with a discussion about the

mathematics we have been investigating.

We then leave the teachers for a few weeks or months depending on their time

frame to work on the problems with their student. Teachers are encouraged to explore

with their students to find the paths. We always remain in contact by phone or email for

students and teachers alike.

Our next visit to the classroom occurs once students have chosen their problem to

present at the Math Fair. We introduce students to a formative assessment instrument, a

bulls-eye rubric that we have developed, tested and modified (GENA, 2008a), to use as

they are working on their problem. The top half of the bulls-eye is based on Kilpatrick et

al.,’s (2001) five intertwining strands of mathematical proficiency: adaptive reasoning,

procedural fluency, conceptual understanding, productive disposition and strategic

competence. The lower part of the rubric is dedicated to the students’ hints and

extensions, coaching ability and their display. For a successful Math Fair, students need

to be proficient, at the centre of the bulls-eye, in all areas of the rubric.

Teachers are often surprised at students' ability to engage with the math

investigations. Students are often surprised that they have the ability to assist an adult

solve their math problem.

I enjoyed the math fair because it was fun solving the difficult problems. My mom
thought they [people] were confused on jumping chips and my mom got frustrated
 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 69

and skipped jumping chips. I felt good because we helped them [parents] instead of
them helping us. Math can be fun, exciting and interesting. I would like to have a
math fair because we can do better in math and want to do math. We did this
because we wanted to see how our parents solve the problems, because they solve
them in a more advanced way. – Joel

The math fair was a success because we all worked together. I enjoyed making a
problem and working in a group. It was hard for my parents to figure out the
problem. Helping my parents was good because then it would be easier to make
them finish the problem. We should have a Math Fair every year so other people
and our parents can learn more math and to give us different ways to do math. It
also shows us math is fun and to improve math. Math can be exciting and we can
be better problem solvers. – Emmett

I feel math is fun again. I went with my uncle and he thought it was really nice. I
felt really smart helping my uncle. At first he didn’t get it then I told him to read it
again. I would want a math fair every year because we can see how smart our
parents are. – Sarah

I think the Math Fair was fun because I have all the games to myself. I enjoyed
when I made the hint cards and made the heads and tails for our game. My mom
was confused of my game and when she finished playing she went to Randy’s
house. When I helped my mom she got better luck of playing. I like the Math Fair
because our brain gets smarter and our parents too. Doing different ways to do
math is fun. I want to do a Math Fair each year because we will be better at math.
Math can be exciting and I can be better at math. – Chi

After teachers have hosted a Math Fair, we follow up with another group session

with the teachers where we discuss their learning from the Math Fair experience.

Teachers are often encouraged by the positive energy and mathematical insights

generated in Math Fair. Math Fair provides images of what working with math differently

may look and feel like.

For some teachers that is as far as they are willing to travel. For them, Math Fair

becomes a one of event, an add-on to their ‘real work’ of teaching students mathematical

procedures. Their beliefs and practices of mathematics remain unmoved, their teaching

script unchanged despite the changes in learning they have observed in their students.

For others Math Fair gave them a glimmer of possibilities and provides an opening for
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

change. These teachers are ready to transition their mathematical experiences from Math

Fair into student learning and our Galileo Lesson Study. We have found that a

combination of Math Fair, Lesson Study and strong classroom mentorship is effective in

helping teachers develop stronger instructional practices for teaching mathematics.

Beyond That’s A Good Problem: Galileo’s Lesson Study

Our Galileo Lesson Study addresses both knowledge of mathematics and

knowledge of mathematics for teaching. Our research has shown that mentorship is

absolutely integral to supporting teachers in their efforts to improve their practice. When

teachers were ready, we mentored teachers within the context of their own classrooms.

We worked with the teachers to design lessons, teach alongside them at times and provide

them with timely, specific feedback on their instruction. We specifically looked for

student understanding and helped teachers coach their students through problems

encouraging them to dig deeper into mathematics and to assist them to teach into the

various solutions students presented to the class. We found that we needed to scaffold

the teachers learning in this way to have them take on rich, rigorous mathematical

problems and stay true to the mathematical reasoning and problem solving needed for

mathematical proficiency. Our research indicates that we were making headway with

teachers shifting their teaching script.

Unfortunately, a few years ago we lost our funding. While we were able to

continue with Math Fairs, as schools were able to afford the small price tag for our

externally subsidized Math Fairs, and we were able to provide monthly Lesson Study

meetings after school hours, along with PhD mathematicians from Mount Royal College
 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 71

and the University of Calgary but were no longer able to provide the accompanied

mentorship in the teachers’ classrooms. Our research has shown that the classroom

mentorship was a necessary component of our Lesson Study. Lesson Study, without the

classroom mentorship was starting to yield less robust mathematical instruction. In an

effort to address this matter we began working with video exemplars from a variety of

sources.

A Problem With Transfer of Professional Learning: A Case Study of Area of a

Triangle

During one Lesson Study we watched the video “Can you find the area?”

(Takahashi, 2002b). In Takahashi’s lesson, students used geoboards and dot paper of the

same unit size. Students used elastics to create the exact right-angled isosceles triangle

shape Dr. Takahashi requested on the geoboard. They then recreated the exact shape on

the dot paper. Before moving on, Dr. Takahashi invited two students with different sized

triangles to bring their work forward. Together, the class learned which was the accurate

size. With an exact geometric right-angle isosceles triangle, students were then asked to

find the area. A right-angle isosceles triangle lends itself to accurate counting of the

squares and half squares, although, Dr. Takahashi gave his students the opportunity to

make that discovery themselves. With successive exercises, the shapes of the triangles

evolved and Dr. Takahashi lead the students to discover the pattern of the area between

all the different triangle shapes.

The video exemplar inspired a group of teachers to plan and implement a lesson

for their Grade 4/5 students to find the area of the triangle. For the most part, the teachers

in this group were new to Lesson Study. They had not hosted a Math Fair. However, one
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

member had been part our Lesson Study group for several years. The teachers planned

together in their own school and invited us to video record when they began to teach the

lesson.

We found that the mathematical nuances of Dr. Takahashi’s teaching were missed

entirely by our teachers. Dr. Takahashi bound the exploration strongly by the rules and

discipline of geometry. He chose exact triangles in a specific sequence all the while

enforcing precision accuracy. Each of his students discovered the generality for the area

of a triangle. Dr. Takahashi’s accompanying Lesson Plan (2002a) provided the goals for

what he wanted the students to learn. The Lesson did not spell out the specifics that were

demonstrated in the video. The teachers borrowed heavily from the Takahashi’s Lesson

Plan (Takahashi, 2002a) adding only the outcomes from the Program of Studies for

Mathematics (Alberta Education, 1997).

What we witnessed when we came to video was constructivist practice interpreted

at its worst. The lesson was very unstructured. In the class prior to our arrival students

were instructed to draw and cut out a triangle, any triangle on plain white paper. Without

the use of rulers and unbounded by the nature of geometry, students created sloppy,

uneven shapes all less that 3 centimetres in height or length. When we arrived the sloppy

triangles were pinned to a board at the front of the room. Students were instructed to

remove their triangles and using any tools they wanted, find the area of the triangle.

Towards the latter part of the class students came together to discuss their findings. The

teachers listened, never interrupted, never corrected mistakes and never directed the

students understanding into the discipline. Student activity was isolated from the
 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 73

discipline that would have held activity in place. When most of the class did not arrive at

a generalization for the area of the triangle, the teachers were quick to blame the students.

Like their students, the teachers were on their own to try an unfamiliar practice

with unclear and poorly understood tools for guidance. In Alberta, teachers are used to

both this type of professional learning and also its accompanying failure to provide real

instructional improvement. Brought together to discuss and plan new practices, they are

left to their own to figure out how to implement the new practices in their own

classrooms. It is not yet common practice to provide teachers with professional learning

opportunities within the context of their own classrooms. In our previous research we

had documented teachers’ learning gains when provided with a combination of offsite

group learning and situated contextual professional learning. Stretched to volunteer our

time for monthly group meetings and amateur video and editing, we have had no choice

but to restrict our Lesson Study to providing an opportunity for teachers to learn

mathematics and to design lessons for their respective classrooms. Our research has

shown that while teachers still continue to learn mathematics and design lessons; without

the added support within their classrooms most teachers are not able to transfer their

learnings into the context of their own classrooms.

Does A Math Fair Help Teachers Transfer Learning: A Case Study With Fractions

We wanted to know whether a teacher who had hosted a Math Fair would be more

successful in trying out new instructional mathematics practices.

When we walked into the classroom, the energy level in the classroom on that

first day was electric. Sandy’s room was overflowing with books, manipulatives, and

students work. Students were grouped around hexagonal tables and their voices were
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

buzzing. Some were seated; some were walking around talking to students at other

tables; some were trying to get Sandy’s attention. Sandy appeared completely at ease

within this vibrant environment; the students appeared keen and excited as they tackled

the problem Egyptian Fractions, which appeared on a SMART Board2 at the front of

the classroom.

Egyptian Fractions3

The Egyptians only used fractions with a numerator of 1.

Take the fraction 80/100 and keep subtracting the largest
possible Egyptian fraction till you get to zero. Three
Egyptian fractions are enough:

80/100 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/20

Do the same for 85/100, 90/100, 95/100, and if you are

particularly fond of Egyptians, 99/100

As the students started to work on this problem some misconceptions about

fractions became increasingly apparent. It was clear that a number of students were

trying to recall a procedure that Sandy had previously introduced to them using the first

example of 80/100. Similar to Hiebert’s (2005) observation of North American

classrooms, Sandy had demonstrated a procedure for breaking the larger fraction into

smaller fractions. Brian4 worked through the problem as shown in Figure 1. He had

accurately broken the fraction into two smaller fractions: 85/100 = 75/100 + 10/100. He

worked procedurally to break the smaller fractions into smaller fractions; however, as

shown in Figure 1, Brian’s over dependency on procedural knowledge soon started to

2
An interactive whiteboard.
3
Galileo Educational Network,
http://www.galileo.org/math/puzzles/EgyptianFractions.html
4
All students’ names are pseudonyms
 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 75

show some significant conceptual misunderstandings. Brian did not write the

denominator in the next iteration of breaking the fraction into smaller fractions.

75 10
100 100

25  50 55

 
 
1 1 1 1
 
4 2 2 2

Figure 1: Brian’s Solution

Krista: “How did you get the two 1/2 fractions?”

Brian: “ I just divided the 5 by 10 to get 1/2.”

Brian’s error provided an excellent opportunity to confront him with what he

could not see and did not understand. When Krista asked him if “1/2 + 1/2 equalled

10/100”, he silently shook his head. “I must have made a mistake”. He gazed back at his

work. Knowing he was wrong, but not knowing what was wrong, left him unsure of what

to do next. He had no further strategies to draw upon.

There are two ways that people attempt to solve problems: (1) direct translation

strategy and (2) problem model strategy. The direct translation strategy for solving a

mathematical problem uses a procedure of picking numbers from the problem and

performing arithmetic operations on them. This ‘short-cut’ procedural approach

emphasizes calculation. A problem model strategy emphasizes finding the relationships

among the variables in the problem. This procedure begins with the person trying to
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

understand the situation described and establishing a solution based on their

representation of the situation (Mayer & Hegarty, 1996).

The direct translation strategy is a common method for less successful problem

solvers. North American children are more likely to engage in short-cut procedural

approaches to solving problems and instruction is more likely to emphasize computing

correct numerical answers rather than understanding the problem (Friesen, 2005; Stigler

& Hiebert, 1999). Procedural problem solving is the most common in North American

classrooms (Hiebert, 2005).

While direct translation strategy makes minimal demands on memory and does

not require extensive knowledge of problem types, it frequently leads to erroneous

answers. Similarly, direct translation strategy is not productive for solving non-routine

problems (Mayer & Hegarty, 1996). Routine problems are problems that learners know

how to solve based on past experience. Non-routine problems are problems that the

learner does not immediately know how to solve (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001).

Brian’s error in the example above demonstrates his direct translation strategy for

solving the problem. Brian was trying to follow the procedure demonstrated by his

teacher. As we continued to move about the classroom, we found that most of the

students tried to follow Sandy’s procedure for solving the problem.

The solution to the Egyptian Fraction problem requires the subtraction of “the

largest possible Egyptian fraction till you get to zero.” (GENA, 2008b, ¶ Egyptian

Fractions) For 85/100, the second largest fraction is not 1/4, but 1/3. None of the students

in the class had come upon this realization. All were working with 1/4 as the second

largest fraction. The students realized that 1/4 was not working but they were unsure
 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 77

what fraction they might try instead. Krista suggested that they try 1/3. As the students

set about the problem again, many struggled with how to proceed. Sandy’s problem

solution procedure would not work as easily.

One group of four girls worked with coloured wooden blocks to solve their

problem. They engaged in a heated discussion about how to divide the hundred’s block

into 1/3. After much consternation and debate, they finally agreed that the hundreds block

could not be divided into thirds. Fully convinced they announced that the problem could

not be solved. Krista rebutted their claim and assured them that indeed, the problem did

have a solution. After all, the Egyptians had figured out how to solve it.

Knowing how to create a common denominator with fractions 85/100 and 1/3

eluded the students. It didn’t take long before other misconceptions about fractions were

illuminated. These students had memorized a set of procedures but had no conceptual

understanding of the problem and limited procedural fluency with fractions.

Seeing that the children were struggling with the problem, Sandy would pull

children aside to a table at the back of the classroom for assistance. By the end of the

Egyptian Fraction class time, Sandy was surprised to see how many of her students were

struggling with the concept of fractions. Many teachers would have been quite distraught

with this finding, but not Sandy. She saw this problem as an opportunity to learn

something about her students. In reflecting on the students’ experience, Sandy said, “I’ve

learned an tremendous amount about their understanding of fractions from this problem.”

In this investigation, Sandy was working in what Donovan and Bransford (2005)

term an effective learning environment. In the learner-centered lens students’

misconceptions and misunderstandings about fractions became apparent. This enabled

 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

Sandy to know where instruction was needed to move into the knowledge-centered lens.

Within the assessment-centered lens, student thinking and learning became visible. This

provided a guide for both Sandy and her students in learning and instruction. The

questioning, the dialog, the respect and the risk taking were all indicative of the

community-centered lens. An incredible space for exploration of fractions had been

opened up. However, confronted with the realities of teaching a densely-packed

curriculum in an examination year5, Sandy faced a dilemma. Should she devote more

time to this problem and fractions in general or should she carry on with other content

that was also pressing at this time of the year. Sandy made the decision to move on.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have any more time than this

class to devote to fractions. It is near the end of the year
and we still have so much to cover.”

Fractions and proportional thinking are foundational concepts in mathematics.

The Egyptian Fractions Problem helped to expose these Grade 6 students’ superficial

understanding and misunderstanding of fractions. This is particularly worrisome as these

students will carry their fragile knowledge of fractions into next year’s study of

proportions. But fostering deeper understandings takes time and effective instruction;

time to play, to ponder, to think, to forward and justify solutions and instruction attuned

to the students’ emerging understanding and tethered strongly to the discipline of

mathematics.

When Sandy demonstrated an algorithm for her students, typical of the North

American teaching script she stripped fractions from their mathematical “community of

relations” (S. Friesen et al., 2008, p. 118) into fragments and isolated rote facts and

5
All Grade 6 students in Alberta write standardized provincial examinations in
Mathematics, Science, Social Studies and Language Arts.
 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 79

procedures. When the problem strayed from the algorithm, Sandy’s students’ fragile

mathematical knowledge came forward. At the end of the year, Sandy’s teaching focus

was pressured and influenced by the high stakes provincial exam. She felt pressured to

move on to ‘cover’ the curriculum.

While Sandy was unable to fully transfer her learning from Lesson Study into her

practice, her experience with Math Fairs allowed her to make further progress in

improving her instructional practices than a teacher who was involved in Lesson Study

alone. We should also note, that Sandy was able to reflect on her practice in ways that

the teachers involved in Lesson Study alone were not able to do. In time, with continued

reflection, Sandy might be able to further improve her instructional practices, more

attuned to her students’ understanding and tethered more deeply to the discipline of

mathematics.

Endbit

Changing and improving mathematics instruction is a multifaceted complex

endeavour in North America. While significant money has been expended on teacher

learning to improve teachers’ understanding and practice of mathematics, in order to

improve the quality of student learning, little progress has been made (Mizell, 2007;

Sawchuk, 2008; Smith, Desimone, & Ueno, 2005).

Loss of funding has provided us with the opportunity to study the effectiveness of

(i) Math Fairs when combined with monthly Lesson Study professional learning

opportunities without classroom mentorship and (ii) monthly Lesson Study professional

learning without Math Fairs or classroom mentorship. Our research has shown that, in
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

Alberta, our combination of Math Fairs, Lesson Study and classroom mentorship was

very effective in bringing about the changes and improvement to teachers’ understanding

and practice of mathematics. Math Fair interrupts the everydayness of teaching

mathematics and provides teachers with insight into how mathematics might be taught

differently. Their students’ excitement and intellectual engagement observed in Math

Fair encourages teachers to explore a different practice at Lesson Study. After Math Fair

at Lesson Study, teachers are willing to explore mathematics and develop lessons that

lead to rich mathematical inquiries. Mentorship in classrooms with Galileo’s mathematics

educators helps teachers shape the lessons into effective changes in practice. We

acknowledge that the changes to teaching practice are not instantaneous. However, we

have seen how a combination of Math Fair, Lesson Study and classroom mentorship lead

to a profound progression into teaching mathematics in connected relational nature.

 TME, vol11, no.1, p. 81

References
Alberta Education. (1997). Mathematics program of studies, kindergarten to grade 6.
Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Retrieved from
http://www.education.alberta.ca/teachers/program/math/programs.aspx
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., and Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who
know mathematics well enough to third teach and how can we decide? American
Educator, Fall, 14-21, 43-46.
Donovan, M. S., and Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn mathematics in
the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Fernandez, C., and Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A japanese approach to improving
mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Friesen, S., Clifford, P., and Jardine, D. W. (2008). Meditations on classroom community
and the intergenerational character of mathematical truth. In D. W. Jardine, P.
Clifford and S. Friesen (Eds.), Back to the basics (2nd ed., pp. 117-129). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Friesen, S., and Stone, M. G. (1996). Great explorations. Applying Research to the
Classroom, 12(2), 6-11.
Friesen, S. L. (2005). Math: Teaching it better. Education Canada, 46(1), 6-10.
Fuson, K. C., Kalchman, M., and Bransford, J. d. (2005). Mathematical understanding. In
M. S. Donovan, and J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn mathematics in the
classroom (pp. 217-256). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
GENA. (2008a). Developing mathematical proficiency through math fair rubric.
Retrieved October 8, 2008, 2008, from
http://www.galileo.org/math/rubrics/mf_rubic1.pdf
GENA. (2008b). Math fair problems. Retrieved October 7, 2008, 2008, from
http://www.galileo.org/math/puzzles.html
Institute of Education Sciences. (1995). Trends in international mathematics and science
study 1995 Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995.html
Institute of Education Sciences. (1999). Trends in international mathematics and science
study 1999 Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss1999.html
Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). Trends in international mathematics and science
study 2003 Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss2003.html
Jardine, D. W. (2008). On the while of things. In D. W. Jardine, P. Clifford and S. Friesen
(Eds.), Back to the basics (2nd ed., pp. 223-242). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jardine, D. W., Friesen, S., and Clifford, P. (2006). Curriculum in abundance. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., and Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children
learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Lewis, T. (2002). The math fair booklet. Vancouver, BC: The Pacific Institute of
Mathematics.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching mathematics: Teachers understanding of
fundamental mathematics in china and the united states. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
 Friesen & Francis-Poscente

Mizell, H. (2007). Narrow the focus, expand the possibilities: Educate teachers,
administrators, policy makers, and system leaders on what high-quality professional
learning is--and isn't. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 18-22.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking for every child. New York, NY: The
Free Press.
Sawchuk, S. (2008). Leadership gap seen in post-NCLB changes in U.S. teachers.
Education Week, 28(3)
Smith, T. M., Desimone, L. M., & Ueno, K. (2005). "Highly qualified" to do what? the
relationship between NCLB teacher quality mandates and the use of reform-oriented
instruction in middle school mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 27(1), 75-109.
Stigler, J. W., and Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's
teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Stigler, J. W., and Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational
Leadership, 61(5), 12-17.
Takahashi, A. (2002a). 4th grade mathematics lesson plan. Retrieved February 4, 2007,
from http://lessonresearch.net/AreaGeoboard_4thgrade.pdf
Takahashi, A. (2002b). Can you find the area? [DVD]. Oakland, CA: Lesson Study
Group at Mills College.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.