Hiebert Wearne

Links between Teaching and Learning Place Value with Understanding in First Grade
Author(s): James Hiebert and Diana Wearne

Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Mar., 1992), pp. 98-
122
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749496
Accessed: 17-07-2017 06:44 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
This content downloaded from 128.195.64.2 on Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:44:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
1992, Vol. 23, No. 2, 98-122
LINKS BETWEEN TEACHING AND LEARNING

PLACE VALUE WITH
UNDERSTANDING IN FIRST GRADE
JAMES HIEBERT, University of Delaware

DIANA WEARNE, University of Delaware
Conceptually based instruction on place value and two-digit addition and subtraction w
regrouping was provided in four first-grade classrooms, and more conventional textboo
instruction was provided in two first-grade classrooms. An observer compiled extensive
of 20 lessons in each kind of classroom. Students who received conceptually based inst
performed significantly better on items measuring understanding of place value and tw
addition and subtraction with regrouping and used strategies more often that exploited the
and ones structure of the number system. Content and pedagogical differences betwe
instruction lessons are linked to the learning differences and are used to explain between
differences in levels of performance and understanding. Observations are offered on the co
interactions between instruction, understanding, and performance.
In this article we investigate issues of conceptual understanding in tea

learning mathematics. We consider questions of teaching and questions of
and potential links between them. In particular, we describe one form of in
that targets understanding and compare its effects on students' think
performance with more conventional textbook instruction. We then detail
two forms of instruction look like as they are implemented in classrooms
for differences in instruction that may explain differences in learning
especially interested in links between instruction, understanding, and perf
BACKGROUND
Recommendations for reform in mathematics education (e.g., Nati

of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989; National Research Council, 1989
call for an increased emphasis on meaningful experiences in school m
and a decreased emphasis on repeated practice of computational algori
of the reform movement, there is a growing interest in approaches
conceptual understandings.
Theoretical arguments in favor of teaching mathematics for unders
a long and rich tradition (e.g., Brownell, 1935; Davis, 1984; Fehr, 195
1949). Generally, the arguments assume that teaching for understan
We would like to thank the National Science Foundation (Grant No. MDR 885
supporting the project and Thomas Armington for his help with the classroom ob
We would also like to thank the editor and several anonymous reviewers for their
on an earlier draft of this paper. The opinions and conclusions expressed in the paper
of the authors and should not be attributed to the reviewers or the National Science Fou
99
learning with understanding and learning with understanding has both short- and
long-term benefits such as flexibility, transfer, and increased learning over time. At
this point there appears to be no single instructional approach that best achieves
these objectives. Descriptions of instruction that aim to facilitate students' under-
standing have taken a variety of forms.
The conceptually based instruction that we describe is built on the notion of
constructing connections between representations of mathematical ideas (Hiebert
& Carpenter, in press; Lesh, Post, & Behr, 1987). Such instruction supports
students' efforts to build relationships between quantities and actions on quantities
that are represented physically, pictorially, verbally, and symbolically. All represen-
tations are treated as tools that can record quantities, that can reveal the effects of
acting on quantities, and that can aid in communicating about these activities with
others in the group. Instruction encourages students to consider relationships among
these tools. From a cognitive point of view, it can be argued that building
connections between external representations supports more coherent and useful
internal representations (Hiebert & Carpenter, in press). In other words, instruction
that focuses on helping students construct connections provides one form of
teaching for understanding.
Understanding place value involves building connections between the key ideas
of place value, such as quantifying sets of objects by grouping by 10 and treating
the groups as units (Fuson, 1988; Steffe & Cobb, 1988), and using the structure of
the written notation to capture this information about groupings. Different forms of
representation for quantities, such as physical materials and written symbols,
highlight different aspects of the grouping structure, and building connections
between these yields a more coherent understanding of place value.
In spite of the strong theoretical arguments in favor of teaching mathematics for
understanding, there have been few systematic efforts to document features of
instruction that might support early understandings or to study the interactions
between arithmetic understanding and performance. In the arena of place value, it
is clear that understanding and performance can be increased using a variety of
alternative instructional approaches (Bednarz & Janvier, 1988; Fuson, 1986; Fuson
& Briars, 1990; Kamii, 1989), but it is not yet clear exactly what features of
instruction facilitate conceptual understanding. Our objectives in this report are to
contribute to the literature by describing what one form of conceptually-based
instruction looks like as it is operationalized in classrooms, by considering its effects
on learning, and by searching for links between instruction, understanding, and
performance.
METHOD
Sample
The project began with the 153 first graders attending a suburban/rural school.
The students represented a range of socio-economic levels. Because first graders in
the school do not take standardized tests, no achievement scores were available. The
100 Teaching and Learning Place Value
first graders were randomly assigned by the scho

remained in their home classrooms for all academic instruction. Two students
moved during the school year, leaving a total of 151 students in the sample.
Four classrooms implemented alternative conceptually based instruction on
place value, and two classrooms followed the classroom teacher's textbook-based
approach. One of the six teachers chose to use her textbook-based approach; the four
alternative classrooms were randomly selected from the remaining five classrooms.
The teacher who chose to use her own approach was the lead teacher in the first grade
and identified by the principal as one of the outstanding teachers in the school. The
four alternative classrooms contained 103 students and the two textbook-based
classrooms contained 48 students.
Instruction
The six first-grade teachers ordinarily delivered their mathematics instruction by

moving through the textbook in the prescribed sequence, all at about the same pace.
Two chapters in the textbook (Rucker, Dilley, & Lowry, 1988) dealt with place
value: Chapter 6 on place value to 100 and Chapter 10 on two-digit addition and
subtraction without regrouping. Alternative instruction was provided for these
topics in four classrooms during the time the chapters would have been taught. The
two teachers in the remaining classrooms were asked to carry out their regular
instruction on these topics, and all of the teachers were asked to implement their
regular instruction on the remaining topics.
The alternative instruction was provided by the two authors. Each author taught
in two classrooms. The set of lessons on place value to 100 were taught during 12
days in January. The set of lessons on two-digit addition and subtraction were taught
during 10 days at the end of April and beginning of May. The written prescription
for each lesson included the key problems and questions to discuss in order to ensure
a reasonable degree of similarity among the four classrooms.
As noted earlier, the theoretical rationale for the alternative instruction was that
conceptual understandings are constructed as connections are built between repre-
sentations of mathematical ideas. The working hypothesis was that building
connections between external representations promotes the construction of internal
connections and thereby the development of conceptual understandings.
Several principles guided the development of instruction that would support
students' efforts to make connections. First, external representations (physical,
pictorial, verbal, symbolic) were used as tools for demonstrating and recording
quantities, acting on quantities, and communicating about quantities. Second, once
a particular representation was introduced (e.g., base-10 blocks) it was used
consistently to allow students to practice using it as a tool and to become familiar
with the uses it afforded. Third, the representations were used to solve problems as
well as being analyzed as interesting artifacts in their own right. Fourth, class
discussions focused on how the representations could be used and on how they were
similar and different. The general aim of these principles was to help students
become comfortable with different forms of representation and to build relation-
ships between them.
James Hiebert and Diana Wearne 101
Several additional guidelines were use

and verbal stories were used as the initia
on quantities. Pictures of the physical
students were then used for convenience
written symbols were introduced as ef
actions that had been explored and disc
a particular form of representation w
interchangeably with previous forms.
The principles for the alternative inst
ing ways. The January lessons began
objects there were in large sets, mostly
and suggested strategies began with coun
efficiently by grouping and counting by
of object investigated was Unifix cubes
permanent bars of 10. Two-digit nume
recording the size of sets. Discussio
interpreting the written number-as on
interpreted as 57 individual objects and
objects. Base-10 blocks were introduce
hooked together. Most tasks at this poin
with large sets by, for example, packag
used base- 10 blocks or pictures of the b
the problems and then described the st
The unit on two-digit addition and subt
end of April. Base-10 blocks, Unifi
continued to be the primary physical a
tions involved joining and separating qu
the problems, usually through stories, a
solve the problems. Discussions includ
tion strategies by the students and the
horizontally, were introduced as an ef
problem and the results of acting on t
reflect on ways in which they could u
could the symbols function as tools?
introduced as ways to describe problem
sentences, and problems were solved wi
the student's choice. Vertical number sen
unit as an alternative written form. The
discussed but not emphasized nor heav
The two classrooms that did not receive alternative instruction followed the
textbook quite closely, as indicated by the teachers' descriptions of their instruction
and by classroom observations to be described later. The textbook (Rucker et al.,
1988) began the chapter on place value by showing pictures of a bundle of 10 sticks
and some singles and asking students to write the associated numeral in a tens/ones
table. After some counting practice to 20 and ordering

several pages were devoted to activities with beanst
glue 10 beans on a stick and carry out a variety of qua
numeral for how many were in a set or making a s
beansticks were shown and students recorded the n
Pictures then changed to sticks of 10 blocks and sin
the numerals, first in tens/ones tables and then as or
next activity involved writing a numeral one more an
and choosing the larger and smaller of two numera
pictures of crayons in boxes of ten, pictures of dime
for which students were to write the associated numeral.
The chapter on two-digit addition and subtraction without regrouping, taught by
the classroom teachers in April-May, began with two pages of beansticks activities.
Horizontal number expressions were presented (e.g., 23 + 35), students were asked
to estimate the sum and then check their estimate by using the beans. Students were
then asked to think of two numbers that added to a target number (e.g., 54) and to
check their guess using the beans. The chapter continued with pages of addition
exercises written in vertical form. Combining the ones first and then the tens was
suggested. Subtraction was presented similarly. The last half of the chapter included
pages of mixed practice (addition and subtraction) with problems written vertically
and pages of abbreviated word problems. For example, using pictures of objects,
one page presented scenarios such as "Have 28" boxes of raisins, "Eat 16" boxes of
raisins, "How many are left?"
It should be noted that the alternative instruction we provided is a relatively
conservative alteration in the conventional program. Alternative instruction was
implemented only during the days the topics would have been covered by the
classroom teacher, and only the topics included in the textbook curriculum were
discussed. Optimal instruction on place value would undoubtedly require more
radical changes. For example, students may benefit from more time to explore
grouping-by-ten ideas, the separation between the study of place value (Chapter 6)
and adding and subtracting (Chapter 10) is rather artificial, and the exclusion of
regrouping problems in Chapter 10 may prevent the most natural development of
place-value ideas.
However, with regard to instruction, we were interested primarily in the effects
of a singular change: a change from relatively conventional textbook-based instruc-
tion to instruction that placed a greater emphasis on conceptual understandings prior
to procedural skills. We were interested in how one form of such instruction looks
when it is implemented in classrooms and in how, all other things being equal, such
a change in instructional objectives and activities influences students' learning.
Classroom Observations
One of the four alternative classrooms and one of the two textbook-based
classrooms were observed every day on a rotating basis during the lessons on place
value and two-digit addition and subtraction. The same observer conducted all
observations, taking notes during the

discussed, the explanations given by stud
the times marking the beginning and end
practice sessions, and so on. All obser
observer added to and corrected the obse
a daily basis.
Each of the authors (alternative-instruc
during the January lessons and on five da
of 20 observations of the alternative instruction. Each of the two classroom teachers
was observed during eight lessons in January and during eight lessons in April-May.
To develop comparisons between the alternative instruction and the textbook-based
instruction, five lessons of each classroom teacher during each of the two units were
used for analysis. The lessons were selected to most evenly space the observations
across each of the units.
The classroom observations provided an opportunity to analyze the implemented
instruction. We began the search for pedagogical features of instruction that might
distinguish the alternative instruction from the textbook instruction by asking the
classroom observer, at the end of the year, to reflect on the instructional sessions and
to identify as many differences as possible between the implemented lessons in the
textbook classrooms and the alternative classrooms. This provided a way of tapping
into the experiences of someone who had been in all of the classrooms over an
extended period of time. We then read the descriptions of all lessons, looking for
examples and counter examples of the observer's impressions and looking for
patterns other than those suggested by the observer. Our aim was to identify features
of instruction that could be coded reliably from the written descriptions. Through
this process we identified three features of instruction that seemed to consistently
discriminate between the alternative and the textbook instruction: the way in which
physical materials were used, the time spent discussing individual problems, and the
coherence of individual lessons.
We defined the nature of coherence within lessons in terms of the kinds of changes
that occurred from activity to activity. Instructional lessons always consist of one
or more activities or segments. For this analysis, we defined an activity as a tightly
connected sequence of classroom interactions (demonstrations, explanations, ques-
tions, responses) or a period of individual work that was intended to focus students'
attention on a particular concept or procedure and that flowed along without a
noticeable break in the arrangement of the classroom, the physical materials being
used, or the form of the representation being used (e.g., physical materials, pictures,
written symbols).
Changes in activities were marked by changes in one or more of the following:
(a) the topic of discussion (b) the material being used (c) the representation form
used by the teacher and (d) the representation form requested of the students. A
change in topic was defined as a change in the mathematical feature of place value
or two-digit arithmetic that was being highlighted. For example, one activity might
focus on counting by tens, the next activity on representing a written number with
beans and beansticks, and the next activity on order

size. A change in the material was a change in the p
from beansticks to base-10 blocks to money. Movi
picture of the same material was not considered a
the representation form used by the teacher or the
one of five different forms of representation: spok
pictures, written symbols, and stories or real-lif
Because more than one representation form can be
noted between activities if there were changes in
being used by either the teacher or the students.
Changes between activities were often marked by c
four characteristics identified above. All of the cha
from one activity to the next were coded.
After reading and discussing the definition of an
written descriptions of eight randomly chosen lesso
the January place-value lessons and one durin
subtraction lessons. The coders identified all the activities in each lesson. Across all
eight lessons, the coders agreed on 32 activities and disagreed on two activities for
an intercoder agreement of 94%.
To check on the reliability of coding the nature of changes between activities, two
independent coders read the same eight randomly selected lessons used to establish
interrater agreement on the demarcation of activity segments. This time activities
were marked in the descriptions of lessons, and the coders' job was to determine
whether a change had occurred between activities in one or more of the four
characteristics. Over the eight lessons, there were 27 changes in activities and
consequently 108 coding decisions. The coders agreed on 98 of these decisions for
an intercoder agreement of 91%.
The levels of interrater agreement indicated that the written observations could
be coded reliably to address the coherence of individual lessons. The other two
pedagogical features to be analyzed, the way in which physical materials were used
and the time spent discussing problems, were described unambiguously in the
written observations.
Assessment
Assessment schedule. All of the participating students were pretested in Decem-

ber using a written group test. At the same time, 12 students from each of the six
classrooms were selected randomly and received individual interviews. All students
received written tests again after the first set of lessons in January and after the
second set of lessons in May. The same 72 interviewees were interviewed after each
of the written test administrations.
Group test items. The written pretest contained a broad range of items to measure
students' entry knowledge of writing numerals, counting by ones and tens, ordering
numerals by size, grouping objects by tens, and adding and subtracting one- and
two-digit numbers. The pretest contained 34 items and was administered to each
class as a group, with the administrator re

test had a Spearman-Brown split half reli
in later analyses.
The second and third written tests contained
on features of place value and asked student

to use the numeral to tell how many in a s
addition and subtraction without regrou
instruction in April/May, and the third w
regrouping and for which students did not
Examples of items that involved using
following. On one item students were sho
with less than 10 visible and some singles.
10 flowers and were asked to write the n
there were altogether.' Another item show
a page. Students were told that the store w
each box. They were asked to circle each g
of 10 they could make and how many bot
Examples of items that required using th
in the set are the following. One item s
students were told that a bakery made 74 c
they could sell a full bag of 10. Students w
tell how many full bags they could sell. Ot
larger of two numbers and writing a numb
Addition and subtraction problems, bot
mostly open number sentences written h
were presented in a story context, joinin
situations for subtraction. Students follow
administrator read them aloud.
There were a total of 16 items on the second written test and 20 items on the third
written test. Not all of the items were parallel from test to test; the third test included
some more challenging items and discontinued some items that were already
showing ceiling effects. The second and third tests were administered in classroom
groups just as the pretest. Students used only paper and pencil to solve the problems.
Interview tasks. The tasks on the individual interviews were designed to elicit a
variety of strategies for grouping by ten, using the groupings to solve problems, and
dealing with written symbols. The set of tasks changed somewhat from interview
to interview as students became more proficient. The first, second, and third
interviews contained 10, 8, and 10 tasks, respectively.
'This item and many others on our tests and interviews are similar to those used by other researchers. In many cases
we modified the items presented elsewhere or used a compilation of ideas to form one item so it is difficult to credit
sources for individual items throughout the presentation. Nevertheless, we would like to acknowledge the following
sources from which we drew heavily for appropriate items: Bednarz and Janvier (1982); Cobb & Wheatley (1988);
Kamii (1980); and Ross (1989).
The interviews began with several counting task

shown three bundles of sticks, with 10 sticks in a
student was told there were 10 in each bundle, on
together to confirm this, and then the student was a
in all. Of particular interest was whether the student
total. After the student found that there were 35 st
if necessary, the sticks were covered and two more
The student was asked how many sticks there were
opaque cover. Again, the strategies students used we
counting task showed the student four packs of
lifesavers. The student was told there were 10 lifesa
many lifesavers there were altogether.
Two interview tasks focused on the meaning of tw
the student was asked to count a set of 16 chips and
on a card. The interviewer then circled the 6 with t
student to show that part of the number with the chip
to their original positions and the interviewer then c
to show that part of the number with the chips. O
showed 64 written on a card and told the student that the number 64 stood for 64
children playing outside during recess. If they wanted to make teams with 10
children on each team, how many teams could they make?
Most of the remaining interview tasks were addition and subtraction story
problems, some without regrouping and some with regrouping. The semantic
situations included joining problems with the result unknown and with the change
unknown, and separating problems with the result unknown. No physical materials
were available for these tasks. On the third interview, students were shown a blank
paper and a pencil and were told they could use these if they wished. The addition
and subtraction problems were ordered so problems without regrouping preceded
similar problem types with regrouping. If a student could not begin any reasonable
strategy on the earlier problem, the later problem was not administered and the
student was judged to have failed both problems.
The interviews were administered by the two authors and an assistant. The authors
did not interview students in the classrooms they were teaching. All interviews used
the same interview format and asked the same initial follow-up questions. The
follow-up questions were intended to elicit students' explanations about the
strategies they used and included questions like "Can you tell me how you figured
that out?" "What numbers were you thinking about to get the answer?" and so on.
Further questions depended on the student's response. Students' thinking was
probed until the interviewer was satisfied that the strategy was clear or until it was
obvious that no further explanation was forthcoming. The interviewers recorded
students' explanations and visible strategies on an interview form. All interviews
were audiotaped and the tapes were used, when needed, to complete the descriptions
of explanations and strategies.
HYPOTHESES
Descriptions of the content of instruction and the assessment tasks

several hypotheses about the differences in the kinds of learning that may
the different classrooms. On the second written test, we expected the stude
alternative classrooms to perform somewhat better on the items focusin
value because these items were more closely related to alternative-inst
activities than to textbook activities. We had no predictions regarding th
and subtraction problems because arithmetic operations had not been di
any of the classrooms.
On the third written test, we expected the students in the alternative cla
to perform somewhat better on the place-value items and the student
textbook-based classrooms to perform somewhat better on the addition and
tion problems without regrouping. The latter hypothesis was based on the
the textbook approach emphasized and practiced written procedures f
problems more than the alternative instruction. The third kind of items, ad
subtraction with regrouping, are the most interesting. Neither instruct
proach introduced these problems. If students understood the procedures
for nonregrouping problems, one might expect them to extend and ad
procedure for regrouping problems. On the basis of this rationale, we expe
students in the alternative classroom than in the textbook-based classroom to
succeed on these tasks.
The interview data of primary interest were the strategies students' used. We were
particularly interested in the way students made use of their place-value knowledge
in building procedures for adding and subtracting. Given the intent of the alternative
instruction to encourage students to connect various representations of quantity, we
expected more of these students to use notions of tens and ones to solve new
problems-addition and subtraction problems at interview 2 and addition and
subtraction problems with regrouping at interview 3.
Two notes are in order. First, the analysis of content differences between the
instructional approaches provide some predictions of learning differences and serve
as partial explanations for them if the predictions are confirmed. But instructional
content is only part of the story. Pedagogical factors are also likely to influence
learning. Analyses of the observation data will focus on pedagogical differences
between the approaches that might reveal additional links between instruction and
learning.
A second note is that the hypotheses represent an effort to examine connections
between instruction and learning rather than a contest between instructional
approaches. The goal is to understand how particular forms of instruction influence
particular kinds of learning. To gain such an understanding, it is useful to contrast
instructional forms that differ in specifiable ways. The aim is not to declare a winner
but to document links between differences in instruction and differences in learning.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Group Differences in Learning

Written testperformance. Means (and standard deviations) for Test 1 and
group of items on Tests 2 and 3 are given in Table 1. The means are give
of the six classrooms to provide an indication of the pattern of diffe
Classrooms 1-4 received alternative instruction, and Classrooms 5 and 6
textbook-based classrooms. Although the content of instruction in the fou
tive classrooms was similar, the classrooms were not identical; the same
for the two textbook-based classrooms. Consequently, it is important to co
patterns of means across the six classrooms on each set of items and
assessment point.
Table 1
Means (and Standard Deviations) for Each Classroom on Written Test Subtests
Alternative instruction Textbook instruction
1 2 3 4 5 6
Subtest (number of items) (n = 26) (n = 26) (n = 26) (n = 25) (n = 24) (n = 24)
Test 1 (34) 15.48 15.46 16.40 16.08 16.46 13.37
(4.13) (3.51) (4.11) (5.16) (4.34) (5.28)
Test 2
Place value (8) 5.69 5.81 5.81 5.52 5.29 4.12
(1.52) (1.94) (1.96) (2.04) (2.26) (2.58)
Addition and subtraction-
nonregrouping and 0.65 1.00 1.38 1.00 0.71 0.87
regrouping (6) (1.20) (1.52) (1.88) (1.35) (1.49) (1.54)
Test 3
Place value (6) 5.00 4.96 5.12 4.88 4.58 3.79
(0.85) (1.31) (1.18) (1.51) (1.41) (1.47)
Addition and subtraction- 7.35 7.81 7.38 6.64 6.46 7.12
nonregrouping (11) (2.78) (2.80) (3.54) (3.12) (3.32) (3.46)
Addition and subtraction- 0.92 0.77 0.85 0.80 0.37 0.25
regrouping (3) (1.06) (0.86) (0.97) (1.12) (0.77) (0.61)
Three observations about the data are of particular in

predicted patterns in learning differences were confirmed
alternative-instruction classrooms are somewhat higher
classrooms on the place-value items on Test 2 and on th
tation regrouping items on Test 3. The relatively lower
6 on Tests 2 and 3 could be explained by lower entry pr
1) but not those of Classroom 5.
A second observation is that the pattern of means on th
and subtraction items on Test 3 suggests that the incre
procedures in the textbook-based classrooms did not tr
ciency. Also, note the relatively high mean of Classroom
to its means on the place-value items. Pra

relatively high performance on the target
conceptually related tasks.
A third observation is that the mean differences between the classrooms are small
and the standard deviations are rather large. This indicates a good deal of overlap
between the classrooms. For example, on the place-value tasks, some students in the
alternative-instruction classroom performed poorly, and some students in the
textbook-based classrooms performed well. This makes it more difficult to make
strong claims regarding connections between instruction and learning, and the
conclusions that are drawn must be interpreted with these overlapping distributions
in mind.
To test whether the mean differences between the two types of classrooms were
statistically significant and to control for differences between students in entry
proficiency, we collapsed the classrooms into an alternative-instruction group and
a textbook-based group and used each student's score on Test 1 as a covariate.
Between-group differences were computed for each set of items on the second and
third tests. Nonregrouping and regrouping arithmetic items were collapsed on the
second test because at this point students had not received instruction on either kind
of problem. The unadjusted and adjusted means and standard deviations for the
instruction groups on each kind of item along with the F ratios are shown in
Table 2.
Table 2
Means, (Adjusted Means), Standard Deviations, and ANCOVA Results for Between-Group
Differences on the Written Test Subtests
Alternative instruction Textbook instruction

(n = 103) (n = 48)
Mean Standard Mean Standard
Subtest (number of items) (adjusted) deviation (adjusted) deviation F
Test 2
Place value (8) 5.71 1.85 4.70 2.47 6.19*

(5.65) (4.83)
Addition and subtraction-
nonregrouping and 1.01 1.51 0.79 1.50 0.18
regrouping (6) (0.97) (0.87)
Test 3
Place value (6) 4.99 1.22 4.19 1.48 10.81**

(4.96) (4.26)
Addition and subtraction- 7.30 3.06 6.79 3.37 0.37
nonregrouping (11) (7.24) (6.92)
Addition and subtraction- 0.83 0.99 0.31 0.69 9.49*
regrouping (3) (0.82) (0.34)
Note. Score on Test I was used as covariate.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
We found significant differences between the two

predicted except that differences favoring the textbo
nonregrouping addition and subtraction problems a
are consistent with those suggested by the patterns
statistically significant, the mean differences are re
As mentioned earlier, the regrouping addition and
are the most interesting because neither group stu
require an extension of the procedures used in class. I
provide the best site for examining connections b
instruction and the nature of learning that go bey
students learn what they are taught. As shown in Tab
these problems are quite low and the standard devi
analyses are informative.
Table 3 shows the number of students in each of t
solved each problem. Problems in Tests 1 and 2 that w
problems were identified and the number of correc
points are shown as well. No item on Tests 1 or 2 w
Table 3
Number of Students Correct in Each Instruction Group on Written Test Regrouping Problems
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Problem Alternative Textbook Alternative Textbook Alternative Textbook
38 + 24 = 5 2 12 5 40 8
43 + 27 = 40 7
62- 34 = 2 0 3 0 6 0
Note. n = 103 for alte
Two observations
of the subtraction
3 suggests that su
those in addition.
instruction group
value activities suc
For most students
these problems.
numerals without
problem suggests
knowledge of a ba
adapt the procedu
Students who en
showed less unde
successful in adap
students applied a nonregrouping procedu

would expect a higher incidence of the
as writing 512 as the answer for 38 + 24
digit answers accounted for 29% of the
the responses in the alternative-instruct
Interview responses. At the first inter

alternative and the textbook instruction
by 10 (bundled sticks and packs of Lifes
10, but some counted by 1. No students in
10 chips. About half the students in each
unknown (8 + 6 = _ ) and a join-change-unknown (7 + = 12) story
problem, with most correct responses generated by an advanced strategy such as
counting on or deriving the solution from known facts. Almost no students in either
group solved similar stories that involved two-digit numbers and regrouping. In
summary, both groups of students entered instruction with some facility in counting
by 10 and understood simple story situations, but they had not connected groupings
of 10 with multidigit numerals and they could not apply this skill to solve two-digit
addition problems.
At the second interview, after instruction on place value, students from both
groups used similar strategies to count the number of sticks bundled by 10 (with
three bundles covered) and to count the number of Lifesavers in packs of 10. The
fact that more than 80% of the responses in both groups were generated by either
counting by 10 or counting the number of 10s ("4 packs is 40") indicates that most
of the students had developed, in concrete contexts, strategies of using 10 to quantify
sets. However, at this point a greater proportion of students in the alternative-
instruction groups used strategies involving 10 in symbolic or abstract contexts. For
example, when asked how many teams of 10 could be made from 64 children, more
than twice as many alternative-instruction students as textbook-instruction students
(31% to 13%) reasoned that because six 10s make 60, there must be six teams. Also,
about twice as many alternative-instruction students (27% to 13%) used the numeral
6 and said that 64 children can make six teams because the 6 tells you there are six
10s. On the computation word problems involving two-digit numbers, more
responses of the alternative-instruction students than the textbook instruction
students (39% to 23%) were produced by treating tens and ones as parts of numbers
that could be separated and recombined. For example, the most common strategy
of this kind for adding 26 and 37 was to add 2 tens and 3 tens (or 20 and 30) to get
50, then add 6 and 7 to get 13, and then combine 50 and 13 to get 63.
The strategies used at the second interview suggest that some students, mostly in
the alternative-instruction group, had begun connecting representations and could
make use of written notation to represent groups of ten. Perhaps they had internal-
ized certain representations and used these to solve mentally the two-digit addition
and subtraction problems by decomposing and recombining tens and ones.
At the third interview most students in both gro

10 by counting the number of 10s and adding t
subtraction story problems without regrouping, th
similar. Recall that paper and pencil were availabl
interview. About 65% of the students in both grou
with about two-thirds of the correct responses ge
number sentence and about one-third generated
numbers. Again, differences appear on the more c
those requiring regrouping. The results on the two
in Table 4.
Table 4
Number of Students That Used Appropriate Strategies on Regrouping Problems During Interview 3
Strategy
Mental Write number sentence
Instruction Number Add tens, Add ones, Add tens, Addones,

group correct then ones then tens Count on then ones then tens
Join-result-unknown story problem (24 + 38 = )

Alternative 17 11 0 0 5 1
Textbook 6 1 0 0 0 5
Join-change-unkn
Alternative 11a 0 0 7 0 3
Textbook 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note. n = 48 for alternativ

aOne of the correct respo
On the join-result-u
alternative-instructio
suggested and discu
problems. In contrast,
solved the problem u
a procedure that eac
The join-change-unk
students. As shown,
problem, mostly by c
on by ones and two c
46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51
then filled in the add
solved this problem.
Discussion. The resu

complicated picture
performance. On the
means and the low levels of performance o

place value is not "all or nothing" and is no
Understanding, as measured by the place
gradually over the year, and pieces of un
students in each classroom. Additionally
suggest a wide range of individual differ
ships between instruction and learning are
On the other hand, analyses of respons
suggest some clear relationships between
mance. First, the alternative instruction w
those tasks that would seem to require h
new kinds of problems that could be solve
Second, the strategies used more frequentl
showed this sort of flexibility. For exam
used these strategies to solve the novel re
4. In other words, the alternative instruc
levels of understanding, and this seemed
mance on tasks that exploited such unde
However, a third observation is that unde
translate directly into computation proce
performed poorly on the addition and sub
performed quite well on the place val
integrated this understanding with simp
tended and modified the procedures to so
is the increased success at the third ass
though such problems had not yet been t
Finally, productive interactions betwee
appear to be facilitated more in some inst
number of students in the alternative-i
problems. But even students in the textbo
on the place-value tasks were unable to m
solve new problems. It is on the regrouping
see most clearly this complex interaction
performance.
Pedagogical Features of Instruction

The fact that the two instructional groups did differ in some important ways raises
the question of what instructional features might help to account for the differences.
We identified earlier three pedagogical features of instruction that discriminated
consistently between the two kinds of instruction. Analyses of these features suggest
additional potential links between instruction and learning.
Use of physical materials. Place value is a topic for which a variety of physical
materials are available. The two teachers who were implementing their own
textbook-based instruction used a number of these materials. One teacher used eight
materials: bags with 10 objects in each, sticks with 10 beans glued on each, bundles
of 10 sticks, strips of 10 squares, strings of 10 bea

dimes), sets of 10 fingers for each student, and an
teacher used five of these eight materials during t
were used during most of the lessons. Each use of
minutes for the first teacher and 9 minutes for the second teacher.
The alternative-instruction classrooms used fewer kinds of materials. During the
10 observed lessons, one teacher used four materials: Unifix cubes, base- 10 blocks,
sets of 10 fingers for each student, and links in chains of 10. The other teacher used
only Unifix cubes and base-10 blocks. Materials were used during most of the
lessons. Each use of a material lasted an average of 15 minutes for the first teacher
and 19 minutes for the second teacher.
Materials for place value were sometimes used by the teacher or an individual
student to demonstrate a quantity or an action, and they were also distributed and
used by all of the students to represent quantities and solve problems. Figure 1 shows
the average amount of time per lesson that the materials were used in each of these
two ways by the four teachers. Clearly, the materials were used differently in the two
kinds of classrooms. The textbook-based teachers used them more for demonstra-
tion while the students watched, whereas the alternative-instruction teachers used
them only by distributing them to all students and asking the students to use them.
The picture that emerges regarding the use of physical materials, is that the
students in the alternative-instruction classrooms worked consistently with the
materials over an extended period of time. In contrast, students in the textbook-
based classrooms were exposed to a greater variety of materials, but they spent less
time with each material and for part of this time they watched someone else
demonstrate its use. Using the tool metaphor for representations, perhaps a repre-
sentation becomes useful for students as they handle it and work with it repeatedly.
20
(" Demonstration
Student use
"E 15
C
0
a)
S10\
aQ
(D 5
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D
Textbook-based Alternative
instruction instruction
Figure 1. Use of physical materials during the obser
Time spent per problem. Although the

development was nearly the same for bot
minutes per lesson for the textbook-bas
for the alternative-instruction classroom
worked fewer problems during this time
Figure 2 shows that, on average, the alt
almost twice as much time per problem
both the place value and the addition and
observed lessons in the textbook-based cl
spent on each problem exceed 4 minutes, w
lessons did so.
S5
= Textbook-based instruction
"%4 I4Alternative instruction

E X
0 3 -- ...-"
"2
January April/May
Figure 2. Time spent per problem during the development por
If students are to reflect on problems, consider alterna

them, and build connections between different ways of r
need some time. It may be that discussing fewer proble
with each one facilitated the kind of conceptual unders
instruction was designed to support.
Coherence of lessons. Recall that we defined coherenc

changes that occurred between activities within a less
changes: topic, material, the representation form used
requested of the student. Changes between activities sho
alternative-instruction classrooms, and similar profiles f
so the data were pooled for comparison. Figure 3 show
occurred between activities in each kind of classroom.
The alternative-instruction classrooms were marked by less frequent changes in
topic and material and more frequent changes in student representation forms than
the textbook classrooms. Lessons that provide opportunities for students to build
1.0
Textbook-based instruction
CD Alternative instruction
o 0.8
C-.
3 0.6
a,
C: C
CD 0.2
0.0
Topic Material Teacher Student
representation representat
form form
Figure 3. Nature of changes from one classroom activ
connections between forms of representation may

same topic using the same materials but that ask st
which the quantities and actions are represented
representation form, the structure of the lesson its
forms of representation and encourage students to
connections. In these lessons, transitions between
by shifts in the representation form of the student t
physical material.
Other features of instruction. There are many

classroom lessons that cannot be captured using
above but may nevertheless be important for unde
the kinds of instruction. These features suggest
already offered for the learning differences betwee
identify all possible alternatives, we can point to
Particular episodes in the lesson transcripts reveal
have influenced the nature of students' learning
ment in the alternative-instruction classrooms to c
procedures compared with a tendency in the tex
students through a single step-by-step procedure; (
representations throughout the lessons compared
tion and then moving to another representation wi
and (c) laying the groundwork in one lesson for
developing ideas in a somewhat inconsistent way
will be presented to illustrate these contrasts, but w
examples do not all represent pervasive tendencies
episodes that could have been selected that su
approaches than these examples indicate.

instances may be influential in learning,
and suggest additional explanations for l
The first set of episodes indicate that, a
heavily on a step-by-step procedure a
alternative classrooms supported the de
procedures. On 25 April, near the beginnin
of the textbook-based teachers discussed
Teacher (T): Yesterday we had trouble with 3

35
+2
on chalkboard). What do I do first?

Student (S): Look at the tens?
T. Is that right?
S: No, you have to add up the ones first.
T: Let's do that. How many ones?
S: Five.
T: Plus?
S: Two.
T: How much is five plus two?

S: Seven.
T: What do we do next?
S: Add the other number.
T: What is that called? Three ones or three tens or what?
S: Three tens.
T: We have three tens here. Do I have any tens there?

S: No.
T: So I take three plus what? Do I add anything to the three? What do I do? I take three plus
what?
S: Zero.
T: Three plus nothing is?

S: Three.
T: So I just bring my three down.
On the same day, also near the beginning of the addition and subtraction unit in
this class, one of the alternative-instruction teachers began the lesson by distributing
sets of base-10 blocks (sticks and small cubes) to each student and writing 12 +
35 = on the chalkboard.
T: Who knows how to show the number sentence with the blocks? Wha
[Students put out various arrangements of blocks.]
S: Take 35 little ones and 12 little ones and put them together.
T: That's one way. What's another way?
S: Put one 10 and two little ones for the 12 and three 10s and five little ones for 35.
The teacher then discussed the two alternatives.
On the next day, the same teacher wrote the sen

and asked someone to make up a story for it.
S: Cherie has 26 apples and she ate 6.

T: See if you can find how many apples Cherie had left? (St
and pencil or mental strategies to solve the problem.) W
S: 20.
T: Does everyone agree that 26 - 6 = 20? Are there other suggestions:

Ss: [All agreed.]
These brief episodes suggest a somewhat greater tolerance for, and interest in,
alternate responses and a somewhat slower pace in the alternative classroom
compared with a rapid-fire pace focused on particular procedures in the textbook
classroom. Perhaps these differences provided students in the alternative classroom
with more opportunities to reflect on procedures and build connections between the
ideas and skills they were acquiring.
A second set of episodes compares the use of different forms of representation.
On 20 April, the same textbook-based teacher described earlier discussed addition
using beansticks and single beans. She wrote
14
+ 11
on the board and asked a student to come to the front and show each number
with the beans and sticks.
T: What number are you making?

S: Fourteen.
T: Look at the number. How many ones do you need?

S: Four.
T: How many tens?

S: One.
T: Take your 1 ten first. Where's a ten? (S picks up a bean) Nope, those are ones. (S picks up
a stick). Right. So you need 1 group of ten and 4 ones. (S then shows 11 correctly.) What
do we do when we add? We take two sets, put them together, and make a new set. (T pushes
the beans and sticks together.) How many tens do I have now?
S: Two.
T: Two tens. How many ones?

S: Five.
T: So how much is 14 plus 11?

S: Twenty-five.
The teacher continued with another problem in which she again focused on the
tens first, then the ones. By 25 April, the beans and sticks were no longer used for
these kinds of problems; students solved them only with paper and pencil. In the
25 April episode presented earlier and in others that continued throughout the unit,
the teacher exhorted the students to "do the ones first." Not only had the beans and
sticks disappeared, but the manipulation of them did not match well the prescription
for manipulating the next representation form.
In contrast to the rather disconnected use

alternative classrooms suggest a greater e
30 April, one of the alternative-instruction
number sentences. The teacher wrote 15 + 31 = on the board and asked
whether a student could write the same sentence but going up and down.
S: [Wrote]
15
+ 31
S: You forgot the equals sign.

T: What about up-and-down number sentences? Do we need an equals sign?
S: No.
T: What's our equals sign on this?

S: The line.
T: Look at how Susan wrote this. Did she line up the 5 and the 1 on these numbers?
S: Yes.
T: How about the 3-where is that written?
S: Under the 1.
T: What do you think the answer is?

S: 46.
T: How did you do that?

S: I added the 5 and the 1 and the 3 and the 1.
T: Martin found an easy way to do this. He just added the 5 to the 1 and got 6, and then added
the 1 to the 3 and got 4. So he got 46. Let's check to see if that gives us the answer. (Students
were asked to use the blocks to find the answer, and then the process of combining blocks
was compared to the suggested paper and pencil procedure.)
Here the blocks are used to verify the outcome of a new procedure. The discussion
focused on the similarities between combining blocks and symbols. Perhaps the
connections between familiar materials and actions on the one hand, and new
procedures on the other, allowed students to construct meaning for the new
procedures they saw demonstrated.
A final set of episodes suggests that the alternative instruction may have, at times,
laid a more explicit groundwork for future ideas. Continuing an episode presented
earlier from 25 April, an alternative-instruction teacher was discussing how to add
12+ 35.
T: Everybody show 12 on one corner of your desk and 35 on the other corner. [Pause.] W
would we get if we added all these blocks together?
S: Thirty-five.
T: Look at your blocks.
S.: Thirty-seven.
T: How many sticks do you have?
S: Four.
T: How much does that make?
S: Forty.
T: And how many little ones?

S: Seven.
T: So that's 47. Could someone make up a story about that?

S: There were 12 jets flying and some more jets came flying along.
T: How many more jets came flying?
S: Thirty-five.
T: So how many jets were there altogether?
S: Forty-seven.
T: When we put the blocks together, did we have enough left over ones to make another stick
of ten?
S: No.
T: We had seven little ones. How many more would we need to have ten?
S: Three.
This discussion focused on ideas and actions that would become important later.
In contrast, consider the 20 April episode from the textbook-based classroom related
earlier in which students added the beansticks (tens) and then the beans (ones).
Presumably, the activities of 20 April would lay the foundation for later activities,
such as those on 25 April. But the physical materials were manipulated differently
than the symbols. The alternative classroom lesson may have alerted students to
important future ideas about regrouping, whereas the textbook classroom lesson
may have actually undermined later efforts to prescribe the manipulation of
symbols.
Although these episodes suggest possible explanations for the learning differ-
ences between groups, we must again caution against overgeneralization. These
selected episodes cannot characterize the two different forms of instruction.
Instruction is too complex and varied to be captured by a few examples. However,
they do indicate that potentially important features of instruction are not fully
captured by the coded data either, and alternative analyses that link instruction and
learning are possible and should be pursued.
CONCLUSIONS
We began this article with several objectives: to describe one form of c

ally based instruction and contrast it with more conventional textboo
instruction, to present the effects of these instructional approaches on
learning, and to examine further the nature of this learning-in parti
connections between understanding and performance. We now offer a few
observations.
Relating teaching and learning is a complex enterprise. This is especially true

when searching for links between teaching for understanding and learning with
understanding. We view this study as an illustration of one approach for investigat-
ing relationships and this article as one approach for describing potential
relationships.
We conclude that instruction that support

forms of representation is one viable for
within the constraints of conventional sco
tations of brief mathematics lessons, the
students' efforts to build understanding.
practice on conventional procedural skill
adversely affect students' proficiency on
These general conclusions are tempered by
differences between the groups was not st
significant performance differences betw
and striking differences on particular item
mean differences on groups of items wer
within groups were large. We believe it is
differences and the hypothesized links betw
some students but not all.
We also conclude that explanations for learning differences can be found in

analyses of instructional content and pedagogy. That is, descriptions of links
between instruction and learning should include, on the instruction side, both
content and pedagogy. In this study, we are most confident of the links that build on
the analyses of content that generated predictions of learning differences and the
analyses of pedagogy that yielded reliably coded distinctions. But other links are
possible and these data cannot rule them out.
We must note that the features of instruction that distinguished between the
alternative and textbook-based instruction are not prescriptions. It may be possible
to design instruction that scores high on the coding schemes we used here or
contains episodes of the kind we described and still is inconsistent with teaching for
understanding. The description of potential relationships between teaching and
learning is very different from prescriptions that claim to produce a certain kind of
learning.
Finally, we conclude that students' understanding and performance are connected
in complicated ways and that instruction influences the way in which the interaction
plays out. The data reported here suggest that understanding, as measured by the
place-value tasks, does not translate directly into procedures but that it does interact
with procedures to yield increased flexibility and power. However, this interaction
is influenced by the instructional environment and, in this case, flourished more
when instruction attempted to facilitate students' understanding rather than proce-
dural proficiency.
REFERENCES
Bednarz, N., & Janvier, B. (1982). The understanding of numeration in primary school. Ed
Studies in Mathematics, 13, 33-37.
Bednarz, N., & Janvier, B. (1988). A constructivist approach to numeration in primary school: Results
of a three year intervention with the same group of children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19,
299-331.
Brownell, W. A. (1935). Psychological considerations in the learni

D. Reeve (Ed.), The teaching of arithmetic. Tenth yearbook of
Mathematics (pp. 1-31). New York: Teachers College, Columb
Cobb, P., & Wheatley, G. (1988). Children's initial understanding
in Mathematics, 10(3), 1-28.
Davis, R. B. (1984). Learning mathematics: The cognitive science
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fehr, H. (1955). A philosophy of arithmetic instruction. Arithm
Fuson, K. C. (1986). Roles of representation and verbalization in th
subtraction. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1,
Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children's counting and concepts of numb
Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learn
second-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtractio
ics Education, 21, 180-206.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (in press). Learning and teaching
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and lea
Kamii, C. (1989). Young children continue to reinvent arithmeti
Kamii, M. (1980, May). Place value: Children's efforts to find
numbers of objects. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual Sym
Philadelphia.
Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in
mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the
teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standardsfor school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of
mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Ross, S. H. (1989). Parts, wholes, and place value: A developmental view. Arithmetic Teacher, 36(6),
47-51.
Rucker, W. E., Dilley, C. A., & Lowry, D. W. (1988). Heath mathematics (Vol. 1). Lexington, MA:
C. Heath.
Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Van Engen, H. (1949). An analysis of meaning in arithmetic. Elementary School Journal, 49, 321-329;
395-400.
AUTHORS
JAMES HIEBERT, Professor of Educational Development, College of Education, Un

Delaware, Newark, DE 19716
DIANA WEARNE, Associate Professor of Educational Development, College of Education, University
of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716

Hiebert Wearne

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Hiebert Wearne

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Links between Teaching and Learning Place Value with Understanding in First Grade

Author(s): James Hiebert and Diana Wearne

LINKS BETWEEN TEACHING AND LEARNING

JAMES HIEBERT, University of Delaware

In this article we investigate issues of conceptual understanding in tea

Recommendations for reform in mathematics education (e.g., Nati

first graders were randomly assigned by the scho

The six first-grade teachers ordinarily delivered their mathematics instruction by

Several additional guidelines were use

table. After some counting practice to 20 and ordering

observations, taking notes during the

beans and beansticks, and the next activity on order

Assessment schedule. All of the participating students were pretested in Decem-

class as a group, with the administrator re

on features of place value and asked student

The interviews began with several counting task

Descriptions of the content of instruction and the assessment tasks

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Group Differences in Learning

Three observations about the data are of particular in

to its means on the place-value items. Pra

Alternative instruction Textbook instruction

Place value (8) 5.71 1.85 4.70 2.47 6.19*

Place value (6) 4.99 1.22 4.19 1.48 10.81**

We found significant differences between the two

Problem Alternative Textbook Alternative Textbook Alternative Textbook

Note. n = 103 for alte

students applied a nonregrouping procedu

Interview responses. At the first inter

At the third interview most students in both gro

Mental Write number sentence

Instruction Number Add tens, Add ones, Add tens, Addones,

Join-result-unknown story problem (24 + 38 = )

Note. n = 48 for alternativ

Discussion. The resu

means and the low levels of performance o

Pedagogical Features of Instruction

of 10 sticks, strips of 10 squares, strings of 10 bea

Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D

Figure 1. Use of physical materials during the obser

Time spent per problem. Although the

"%4 I4Alternative instruction

Figure 2. Time spent per problem during the development por

If students are to reflect on problems, consider alterna

Coherence of lessons. Recall that we defined coherenc

Figure 3. Nature of changes from one classroom activ

connections between forms of representation may

Other features of instruction. There are many

approaches than these examples indicate.

Teacher (T): Yesterday we had trouble with 3

on chalkboard). What do I do first?

T: How much is five plus two?

T: We have three tens here. Do I have any tens there?

T: Three plus nothing is?

T: So I just bring my three down.

The teacher then discussed the two alternatives.

On the next day, the same teacher wrote the sen

S: Cherie has 26 apples and she ate 6.

T: Does everyone agree that 26 - 6 = 20? Are there other suggestions:

T: What number are you making?

T: Look at the number. How many ones do you need?

T: How many tens?

T: Two tens. How many ones?