Mathematics Education Research Journal (2023) 35:77–103

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00376-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary

problem solving

Sandra Herbert1 · Gaye Williams2

Received: 1 October 2020 / Accepted: 2 March 2021 / Published online: 28 May 2021
© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2021

Abstract
Mathematical reasoning, which plays a critical role in students’ capacity to make
sense of mathematics, is now emphasised more strongly in various curricula inter-
nationally. However, reasoning is sometimes difficult for teachers to recognise, let
alone teach. This case study considers video of one teacher’s implementation of a
problem-solving lesson in a year 1 primary school class in Australia. It examines the
opportunities this teacher provided to leverage reasoning and contributes to the body
of knowledge on ways reasoning may be elicited during problem solving. The new
Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework arising from the analysis of the data
in this study builds on and extends previous research. It provides a tool to support
researchers, teacher educators, professional learning providers, and teachers in rec-
ognising and eliciting reasoning.

Keywords Eliciting reasoning · Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework ·

Problem solving · Reasoning within problem solving · Development of reasoning ·
Early years primary

Introduction

Brodie (2010) asserted that mathematical reasoning (MR) was crucial in understand-
ing mathematical concepts and flexibly using mathematical ideas and procedures to
reconstruct prior mathematical knowledge. A renewed emphasis on reasoning is evi-
dent in curricula in recent years (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting
Authority (ACARA), 2017; Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010; Depart-
ment for Employment and Education (DfEE), 2014). For example, “Students are rea-
soning mathematically when they explain their thinking”s (ACARA, 2017); “[s]tudents

* Sandra Herbert
sandra.herbert@deakin.edu.au
1
School of Education, Deakin University, Warrnambool 3280, Australia
2
The International Centre for Classroom Research, Melbourne Graduate School of Education,
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3053, Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
78 S. Herbert, G. Williams

at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make
sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments” (Common Core,
2010); “[students can d]escribe simple patterns and relationships involving numbers or
shapes; decide whether examples satisfy given conditions” (DfEE, 2014); and students
are using reasoning to connect new mathematical understandings with prior learning
“when they adapt the known to the unknown, when they transfer learning from one
context to another” (ACARA, 2017). However, Jeannotte and Kieran (2017) reported
that the descriptions of MR in these curricular documents are imprecise and incon-
sistent, likely contributing to findings of Stylianides et al. (2007), Clarke et al. (2012),
Loong et al. (2017) and Herbert et al. (2015) that many primary teachers display confu-
sion regarding the nature of MR. It is important to support teachers’ developing peda-
gogical practices to foster students’ reasoning (Stylianides et al., 2007) and to overcome
challenges teachers face when implementing lessons that build students’ mathematical
understandings (Lampert, 2001).
Reasoning takes place in classrooms when teachers (and researchers) use problem-
solving approaches to encourage students to build mathematical understandings (e.g.
Lampert, 2001; Wood et al. 2006). Problem solving, for the purposes of this study, is an activ-
ity associated with working to solve unfamiliar, challenging problems (Liljedahl, 2016).
Such problem-solving lessons provide teachers with opportunities to elicit reasoning,
which may not be available in other approaches to teaching mathematics (Lampert,
2001). In the problem-solving lesson that provided the data for this Reasoning Elicit-
ing Study, reasoning was elicited but was not the explicit focus. The teacher’s focus
was instead on eliciting student communication of mathematical ideas that these stu-
dents were developing. Given the identified confusion of some teachers with the nature
of reasoning, and the identified existence of reasoning as part of problem-solving, this
study explores the nature of the eliciting of reasoning in a context in which complex
reasoning terminology was not employed. This study addresses the following research
question:
What was the nature of this teacher’s eliciting of reasoning during this prob-
lem-solving lesson?
An outcome of this study is the Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework that
provides insights into different types of eliciting of reasoning and illustrates their oper-
ationalisation in an early-years classroom. It is expected that such a framework will be
useful to teachers, professional learning providers, teacher educators, and researchers
working to increase teacher understanding of the nature of MR. The potential for an
increase in the frequency, with which reasoning is elicited in lessons through guidance
provided by Eliciting of Mathematical Reasoning Framework, could increase teachers’
familiarity with reasoning actions of students and increase teachers’ understanding of
MR.

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 79

Background

Mathematical reasoning

Brodie (2010) argued that reasoning arguments are developed to convince others
of a claim, solve problems or bring together several ideas. Reid (2002) asserted
that “[d]eveloping mathematical reasoning is central to mathematics education”
(p. 5). The opportunities teachers provide for students to reason mathematically
can enhance the development of their students’ reasoning (Long et al., 2012; Reid,
2002; Stylianides et al., 2013). Classroom culture is influential in the development
of reasoning when students are expected to clearly communicate their reasoning
(Kilpatrick, et al., 2001) by expressing their ideas; explaining and justifying their
thinking; and identifying flaws in others’ thinking (Long et al., 2012).
In order to increase consistency between the various meanings of “mathematical
reasoning”, Jeannotte and Kieran (2017) conceptualised a model of MR for school
mathematics. Their model structures the previously vague and sometimes contra-
dictory descriptions of MR into two aspects: structural and process. The structural
aspect which is not relevant to this study is “the form in which the reasoning is
expressed, be it deductive, inductive, or abductive” (p. 9). Their process aspect of
reasoning is relevant to this study. It includes exemplifying, comparing, classifying,
identifying patterns, justifying, generalising, conjecturing and proving—reasoning
actions relevant to primary school mathematics (Lampert, 2001).
The reasoning actions within Jeanotte and Kieran’s (2017) process aspect are
interrelated. Comparing and classifying cases enable identification of patterns and
the formation of conjectures to be justified. Conjecturing includes a statement or
collection of statements that are thought to be true but not yet known to be true
(Taylor & Garnier, 2016), a reasoning action associated with generalising. Jus-
tifying includes the evaluation of conjectures (Winsler et al., 2007) using logical
arguments to convince others of the validity of a claim (Jeannotte & Kieran, 2017;
Mata-Pereira & da Ponte, 2017). Logical arguments can be considered proving
when they “progress from empirical to deductive arguments through a dialectic
between conjecturing and proving” (Stylianides & Stylianides, 2017, p. 122).
Generalising involves moving from a few cases to making statements about a
wider collection of cases or examining one case in detail to make sense of inter-
relationships between instances more generally (Jeanotte & Kieran, 2017; Wood
et al., 2006). In Wood et al.’s study in a third-grade classroom, they report that few (3 out
of 148 inquiry/arguments) involved “Constructing Synthesizing—Formulate math-
ematical arguments to explain discovered patterns” (p. 232), that is, the essence
of generalising.
“Mathematical situations often present an overabundance of information, visual
cues, and possible patterns, making it impossible to process everything at once”
(Lobato et al., 2013, p. 809). Krutetskii (1976) identified the “mental activ-
ity” of analysing, describing it as a preliminary process of exploring a problem
by breaking it down into parts, “to generalise mathematical relations one must
first dismember them” (p. 228). Krutetskii further identified the simultaneous

13
80 S. Herbert, G. Williams

consideration of several elements as a more complex type of analysis. Thus,

Krutetskii provides actions (breaking into parts, considering simultaneously) addi-
tional to Jeanotte and Keiran’s (2017) analytical processes of exemplifying, com-
paring and classifying to explore a problem. Exemplifying supports generalising
from conjectures and validating (Jeanotte & Keiran, 2017). Comparing and clas-
sifying involve consideration of the examples generated in exploring a problem
(exemplifying) to identify relationships (Mason, 1982) between the examples to
produce conjectures. Students may search purposefully and systematically with
the intention of verifying their conjectures. Krutetskii (1976) described capable
students’ approaches to solving a problem as progressing from analysing to gen-
eralising: “they isolate different elements in its [the problems’] structure [analys-
ing], assess them differently, systematize them, … [and] seek out mathematical
relationships [generalising]” (p. 227). Krutetskii identified even more complex
processes, associated with simultaneous consideration of several elements, that
were employed for purposes of judgement [validating].
For the purposes of this study, Jeannotte and Kieran’s (2017) process aspects of
MR and Krutetskii’s (1976) analysing actions have been grouped into three broad
types of reasoning: analysing, validating and generalising (see Table 1) to form the
theoretical framework of reasoning processes employed.
The MR processes and actions and description displayed in Table 1 have been
used to categorise the different types of reasoning elicited, to inform the coding of
the data.

Eliciting reasoning during mathematical problem solving

The focus of this study is the eliciting of reasoning during problem solving, where
problem solving is the process of grappling with new and unfamiliar tasks where
the means of solution are unknown and/or there is not one specific solution (open
task) (Silver, 1997). Silver described Eliciting as “the set of teaching actions that
serve the function of drawing out students’ mathematical ideas” (p. 111). Although
many researchers have referred to reasoning terminology (e.g. explain, justify; make
decisions, conjecture) within problem-solving activity in schools (Clarke & Clarke,
2003; English & Gainsburg, 2015; Lesh et al., 2000; Lithner, 2017; Schoenfeld,
1992), very few (e.g. Lampert, 2001) explicitly and consistently identify these as
reasoning actions during the implementing of problem solving. Terms like “Conjec-
ture: Reasoning” (p. 369) are part of Lampert’s usual classroom language included
on worksheets and used in discussions during problem solving, to explain students’
reasoning.
Eliciting of students’ mathematical ideas occurs during Williams’ (2014) Engaged to
Learn (E2L) approach which was developed to increase students’ mathematical
understandings through problem solving. The teacher does not provide mathemati-
cal input during students’ activity, but rather employs open questioning, and drawing
of attention, with an absence of hinting, telling, affirming, and querying (see Williams,
2020). Within E2L, students work in small groups on non-routine, complex but acces-
sible tasks that provide opportunities for explorations in which groups select which

13
 Table 1  Theoretical framework of reasoning processes (informed by Jeannotte and Kieran (2017) and Krutetskii (1976))
MR process MR actions Description

Analysing Involves exploring a problem by deconstructing it into essential parts (analysing), then simultaneous
analysing of these parts (synthetic-analysis) (Krutetskii, 1976; Williams, 2007)
Exemplifying “Supports other MR processes by inferring examples” (Jeannotte & Kieran, 2017, p. 14)
Comparing “Infers, by the search for similarities and differences, a narrative about mathematical objects or relations”
(Jeannotte & Kieran, 2017, p. 11)
Validating Justifying “Aims at changing the epistemic value (i.e., the likelihood or the truth) of a mathematical narrative”
(Jeannotte & Kieran, 2017, p. 1)
“Involves searching for data, warrant, and backing to allow for modifying the epistemic value of a narra-
tive” (Jeannotte & Kieran, 2017, p. 12)
Proving “Modifies the epistemic value of a narrative from likely to true” (Jeannotte & Kieran, 2017, p.12)
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem…

Generalising “Infers narratives about a set of mathematical objects or a relation between objects of the set from a
subset of this set” (Jeannotte & Kieran, 2017, p. 9)
Classifying “Infers, by the search for similarities and differences between mathematical objects, a narrative about a
class of objects based on mathematical properties and definitions” (Jeannotte & Kieran, 2017, p. 11)
Identifying a pattern “Infers a narrative about a recursive relation between mathematical objects or relations” (Jeannotte &
Kieran, 2017, p.10)
Conjecturing “Infers a narrative about some regularity with a likely or probable epistemic value and that has the poten-
tial for mathematical theorization” (Jeannotte & Kieran, 2017, p. 10)
81

13
82 S. Herbert, G. Williams

Table 2  Thought processes during mathematical problem solving (Woods et al., 2006)
Mathematical thinking Examples of cognitive activity

Recognizing comprehending + Understand concepts behind taught idea or known strategy

Recognizing applying + Know when to use a known mathematical idea
Building-with analyzing + Apply known mathematical procedures in a new context
+ Solve using a problem with a slight twist
+ Familiarise self with problem using specific numerical examples
+ Systematise the numerical results and search for patterns
Building-with synthetic-analyzing + In contrast and comparison of two methods for the difference
+ Interconnect various representations, operations and assumptions
+ Use more than one pathway to solve a problem
+ Produce an independent generalisation—“small discovery”
+ Analyse one case or form a guiding principle to formulate a new
rule
Building-with evaluative-analyzing + Interconnect solution pathways for the purpose of identifying
flaws and strengthening arguments
+ Pull together ideas for making a judgement
+ Evaluate whether a method or result is reasonable, efficient or
elegant
Constructing synthesizing + Formulate mathematical arguments to explain discovered patterns
+ Explore the problem from many perspectives rather than just
work towards a solution
+ Integrate concepts to create new thoughts or ideas (new insight).
Could vary in:
+ Number of concepts involved
+ Diversity of the domains that concepts were drawn from
+ Size of the conceptual leap
+ Spontaneity with which the process is undertaken
+ Progressively explore the problem to continually develop new
insights
Constructing evaluating + Progressively reflect on the situation as a whole for the purpose
of recognizing inconsistent information and/or finding a more
elegant solution pathway
+ Reflect on the process of problem solution for the purpose of
recognizing its limitations and its application to other contexts
+ Reflect on the solution pathway developed and its possible contri-
bution to generic mathematical processes to employ in the future

mathematics, and which representations, to use. Through group reports and subse-
quent whole class discussion, a variety of mathematical ideas and representations
are linked. The eliciting of mathematical thinking during the E2L approach is theo-
retically framed by Thought processes during problem solving (Wood et al., 2006)
adapted from Williams (2002), which builds upon Dreyfus et al. (2001) and Krutetskii
(1976) (see Table 2).
Strong synergies are evident between reasoning processes (Table 1) and math-
ematical thinking employed during problem solving (Table 2). The reasoning
process of analysing is synonymous with Building-with actions of analyzing, and
synthetic-analyzing, whilst validating is consistent with the Building-with action of

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 83

evaluative-analyzing and generalising and proving align with Constructing (synthe-

sizing and evaluating).

Methodology

In this Reasoning Eliciting Study, “we feel that we might get insight into the
[research] question by studying a particular case” (Stake, 1995, p. 3, 4). The “case”
is the bounded system (Stake, 1995) of the teacher’s (Earl’s1) interactions with his
year 1 class of boys and girls (in a small rural government primary school in Aus-
tralia) during one 80-min problem-solving lesson (hitherto referred to as the “case”
lesson). This Reasoning Eliciting Study sits within a broader study of a 6-year,
whole-school professional learning program (PLP)—that included Earl’s school—
where teachers experimented with the Engage to Learn (E2L) approach to problem
solving under the guidance of the PLP leader, Williams.
Herbert selected this lesson for this Reasoning Eliciting Study because, on inspec-
tion of lesson videos of the broader study, Williams identified frequent eliciting of
reasoning in this lesson even though the term “reasoning” was not included in the
talk of the teacher or the students during the lesson.
The findings provide insights into types of reasoning eliciting activity undertaken
by this one teacher, in one lesson (Stake, 1995), rather than a complete list of all pos-
sible types of eliciting of reasoning actions. A case study approach is “open to the
use of theory or conceptual categories that guide the research and analysis of data”
(Meyer, 2001, p. 331). This case study is theoretically framed by literature related to
reasoning (see Table 1) and thought processes during problem solving (see Table 2).

Earl and his class

Earl, with over 5 years teaching experience, participated in the PLP about eliciting
mathematical thinking rather than reasoning. He developed his own refinements of
E2L, informed by his previous observing, trialing, discussing and reflecting on prob-
lem-solving lessons implemented and observed by teachers during the PLP. The case
lesson was one such lesson. Students worked in groups of two to four selected by the
teacher with roles allocated by Earl. Roles included recorder, reporter, encourager
and timekeeper. The class, year 1 students (21 students aged 5–7 years) from two
composite classes (foundation/prep, year 1), undertook problem solving with Earl
with once a week as part of the usual school program.
Note: Letters have been used to identify students, e.g. Student A.

Content of “case” lesson

Prior to the “case” lesson Earl had read the first page of the storybook “The Door-
bell Rang” (Hutchins & Keating, 1986): “I’ve made some [12] cookies for tea,” said

1
Pseudonym.

13
84 S. Herbert, G. Williams

Ma. “Good,” said Victoria and Sam. “We’re starving.” “Share them between your-
selves,” said Ma. “I made plenty.” (p. 1).
He asked “how many whole biscuits will Sam and Victoria have each?”.
This single solution question focused students’ attention on the 12 cookies, how
the cookies might be shared and types of language and representations they might
decide to use in communicating to the class what they had done.

“Case” lesson

The “case” lesson followed this introductory lesson with the same storybook
employed as a stimulus for students’ thinking. In the “case” lesson, Earl read the
first three pages of the book, finishing with “‘No one makes cookies like Grandma,’
said Ma [and were just about to eat the 12 cookies] as the doorbell rang”. Earl set
the book aside and set the groups to work on the task “with your group you’ll need
to choose how many people are at the door and how Sam and Victoria will work out
how everyone can get the same amount of whole cookies”.

Data collection

The lesson was video-recorded since “participant verbal reports [alone] of conver-
sations, behaviors and events distort and fail to include details necessary for deep
understanding of the processes under study” (Woodside, 2010, p. 9). Four video
cameras were employed to capture the classroom interactions. The data for this arti-
cle was from the video focused on the teacher that captured the reporter at the board,
the class sitting on the floor and the teacher. The video images were sufficiently
clear for identification of inscriptions, such as drawings, symbols and writing, which
group reporters attended to on group worksheets as they reported to the class. The
audio from the video was transcribed verbatim and used in conjunction with the
video images to identify instances of eliciting of reasoning.

Data analysis

For the purpose of this study, “eliciting of mathematical reasoning” was consid-
ered to occur where teacher actions could result in student reasoning (whether or
not it did). It was identified through the video data, supplemented by the transcript
because “[s]peech and gesture together can often provide a clearer and more accu-
rate picture” (Kelly et al., 2002, p. 22).
Our fine-grained analysis is presented in a similar structure to Powell et al.
(2003), but with the primary focus of the analysis on the eliciting of reasoning rather
than the development of mathematical thinking. The phases of analysis were:

• Herbert presented the research focus and video illustrations to the broader pro-
ject team.
• The broader project team, including researchers with a background in reasoning,
discussed incidences of eliciting of reasoning seen in the video.

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 85

• Herbert repeatedly viewed the video (Akerlind et al., 2005) to identify eliciting
of reasoning and code as types of reasoning (Table 1), referring to the transcript
as necessary (Herbert & Pierce, 2013; Herbert et al., 2015).
• Williams (informed by class observation, repeated viewing of the video, discus-
sion session with broader team, and the lesson transcript) reviewed Williams’
coding.
• Herbert and Williams discussed and came to consensus where there were dis-
crepancies in their code allocations.
• Herbert selected representative illustrations of each code category to include in
the paper that were clear and concise.
• Williams identified and coded the types of mathematical thinking (Table 2) that
might occur in response to the eliciting activity (Williams, 2007)
• Williams and Herbert discussed and where necessary refined the coding of math-
ematical thinking.

Like Pea (2006), this analysis provides more “complete records of complex phe-
nomena than earlier methods” (p. 1325).

Results

This section presents the findings from the analysis of the interactions during the
reporting session recorded in the video data. Where the data is sufficient to make
inferences {} brackets are used to enclose the researchers’ inferences. In response to
the task (see “Methodology”) different groups chose various numbers of people at
the door including 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 17.
Student D: We think there were 10 people at the door.
Student E: there are four people [at the door]
Student F: We thought 17 was how much people were at the door.
Earl asked the students to “work out how many whole cookies each person
should get to be fair”. Working with their chosen number of people and 12 cook-
ies, groups investigated the problem in whatever way they chose. Earl employed the
E2L approach as groups explored his question, concluding the lesson with a report-
ing session. The reporter from each group successively attaching their group’s A3
worksheet to the board for the purpose of explaining their group’s thinking to the
class. Earl asked questions of each reporter and then encouraged other class mem-
bers to ask questions. Figure 1 shows an image taken from the video illustrating one
group’s work on this problem which includes diagrammatic, numerical and verbal
representations.
The results are presented in the order in which MR processes are displayed
in Table 1 (analysing, validating and generalising) with associated thought
processes (Table 2) indicated in {}. Excerpts of interactions are included to
provide evidence of these eliciting of reasoning actions. The quotes, which
illustrate the types of comments and questions Earl employed, are not neces-

13
86 S. Herbert, G. Williams

Fig. 1  Reporter linking numeri-

cal and diagrammatic represen-
tations utilised by her group

sarily sequential so “*” is used to separate the quotes. Where the quotes are
sequential, they are grouped together with a single asterisk and the line of
space between these quotes has been omitted.

Eliciting actions for mathematical reasoning

Crucial to the eliciting of types of reasoning was Earl’s encouraging of students’

contributions which resulted in their communication, both oral and other forms, of
their mathematical thinking. Through the process of coding outlined above, these
three main eliciting categories emerged:

• Eliciting types of reasoning (with subcategories analysing, validating and gener-

alising)
• Eliciting communication of reasoning (with subcategories oral and other repre-
sentations)
• Eliciting reasoning through encouraging student contributions (with subcatego-
ries share thoughts with class, value contribution, share ideas in easy to under-
stand ways, understand ideas of others)

Eliciting types reasoning

Data illustrating each of the three subcategories analysing, validating and generalis-
ing are now presented.

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 87

Analysing

At the beginning of the lesson, students were encouraged to explore the problem
posed by Earl.

* Earl: With your group this morning, you need to choose how many
people are at the door so that everyone can get the same amount
of whole cookies.

During the reporting session, students were encouraged to listen and try to under-
stand the thinking of others, their solution processes and their solutions. Opportuni-
ties for reasoning were further encouraged by Earl communicating that class mem-
bers asking questions of reporters helped to deepen the thinking that occurred.
* Earl: Now yesterday whilst people were reporting, the questions that were
being asked really helped us to understand the maths and really really encour-
aged the reporter to think a little bit deeper about what they had done, so I’m
going to encourage that today.
The following excerpt illustrates how Earl’s eliciting encouraged students to
explain their analysis of the problem more fully.
* Student D: We think there is 10 people at the door.
Earl: What did that mean? {pose question to elicit mathematical meaning
about group focus}
Student D: That means they get one cookie each. There’s 2 people inside and
10 people outside [holding up 2 fingers] which makes 12 people
{elicit connections between cookies and people}.
Earl: Is there a sum that you know that would show that? {elicit links between
representations}
Student D: [Reads 10 + 2 = 12 from worksheet] Ten plus two equals 12
Earl: 12 cookies altogether so what does that mean for the people? {elicit link
between cookies and people in numeric representation}
Student D: They all get one each.
This exchange, where Earl’s questions elicited Student D’s explanation, is one of
the many instances that occurred in the reporting stage of the lesson where a student
responded to Earl’s question with further explanation of their group’s analysis of the
problem, thus demonstrating Earl’s eliciting of reasoning from the students in his
class in several ways.
The following excerpt illustrates Earl’s eliciting of analysing (inspecting compo-
nent parts) to find out more through simultaneously thinking about symbolic and
physical representations (synthetic-analysis) and his encouragement of class mem-
bers to ask questions to assist them in understanding more.

13
88 S. Herbert, G. Williams

* [Student F’s inscription seen in the video]: 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 17.

Earl: I’m wondering if some people might like to think about that. There’re
some questions already happening about this work. {Elicit thinking
from others about what they do or do not understand for the purpose of
asking questions to understand more}.

Validating

Also evident in the data were instances where Earl’s eliciting encouraged his stu-
dents to justify (validate) their solutions. Illustrations of eliciting of validating are
given next.
Earl expected other students to consider groups’ findings and test the reasonable-
ness of the work presented. The following exchange demonstrates how Earl’s elicit-
ing led to a student justifying their group’s solution processes and solution, indicat-
ing Earl’s success in eliciting this reasoning process.
* Earl: What have you done and why? {eliciting of justification of mathematics used}.
Student E: I’ve done that because there are four people and this is my box
[pointing to one circle] and this is Jacob’s box this is Victoria’s box
and this is Sam’s box and they’ve each got three each and it shares
the twelve.
Earl: Can you show us how it is twelve? {further eliciting of justification of
mathematics used}.
Student E: I just did it before 3, 6, 9, 12 [showing one finger for each count].
Earl: Are you counting by something?
Student E: Yes counting by threes.
Earl: I saw you write something there and it’s not something we do all the time
but I think it’s pretty important for the rest of these guys to see it. As you
were drawing these circles you were writing some numbers there. What
were those numbers? {Eliciting justification of representation employed}
Student E: Those were just counting numbers like 1,2,3,4,5,6 … 12 [pointing
to each number inside the circles].
This interaction demonstrates eliciting communication of Recognizing an appro-
priate selection of number of people, and appropriate mathematics in various rep-
resentations, and of Build-With through connecting representations to justify. Earl
requested explanation “what have you done?” and justification “why?” (first line
of this exchange). When the student provided a partial justification, indicated by
“because”, Earl elicited further explanation about the step not explained (Can you
show us how it is twelve?). Earl’s request for further elaboration (Are you counting
by something?) contributed to the explanation by drawing attention to the counting
the student had done, but not mentioned. Earl’s question “what were those num-
bers?” was intended to elicit connections between diagrammatic and symbolic rep-
resentations (synthetic-analysis), but this question did not explicitly elicit that con-
necting since the student responded with only names symbolic representation but
not its meaning in this context. That said, the student had connected cookies and

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 89

people in the first line of the transcript, indicating awareness of the meanings of this
mathematics in the context under study.

Generalising

Whilst there are many examples in the data of Earl eliciting justifying, there are very
few where he was identified to be eliciting generalising. Groups chose a variety of
numbers of people at the door so there was some potential for Earl to elicit evidence
of various generalisations (e.g. if there are more than 12 people it is not possibly to
give out whole cookies fairly; sometimes there are cookies left). In the following
exchange with a reporter, Student B, Earl attempted to draw out mathematical think-
ing that had the potential to lead to conjecture then generalisation.
* Earl: How many people at the door. 17 that’s a lot of people at the door
so what’s going to happen with the cookies? {eliciting Building-With:
analyzing and synthetic-analyzing (simultaneously considering cook-
ies and people)}.
Student B: They are all going to get one each {it can be inferred that synthetic-
analysis has not occurred for this student}.
Earl: One each? How many cookies are there?
Student B: 17
Earl: Why, is my question! Why did your group decide that 17 was not going
to work out? Why?
The inferred intent of this eliciting activity was to encourage connections between
number of people and the number of cookies (synthetic-analysis), for the purpose of
highlighting that 17 does not work. Finding why it does not work could open up an
opportunity to conjecture, test, and finally make a generalisation such as “if there are
more than 12 people, whole cookies cannot be shared fairly”. Student B was unclear
about the thinking about this that occurred in his group.

Eliciting communication of reasoning

Earl accepted communication through any representation, for example, oral, ges-
tural, symbolic or diagrammatic. Data illustrating each of the subcategories of com-
munication are now presented (oral communication and communicating through
other representations).

Oral communication

Integral to Earl’s eliciting of reasoning was his expectation of sharing thinking with
other group members, and communicating of group thinking to the whole class,
with students contributing comments and questions to elicit further elaboration from
reporters. The following quotes demonstrate Earl’s belief in the importance of the
students communicating ideas clearly. He encouraged students to listen to each other
and to try to understand their ideas. These foci illustrate Earl’s eliciting of students’

13
90 S. Herbert, G. Williams

mathematical thinking through the sharing of each group’s thinking and his encour-
agement of students’ questions as crucial to the class developing understandings.
* Earl: Okay, lots of great ideas coming out there [Student A] so let’s just go
really quite slowly so that [Student B] and [Student C] can get up to
speed as much as they can be- [Student B], do you understand all the
maths that is going on here? {expecting students to communicate in
inclusive ways}
* Earl: Listen, it’s important to work together. … I think you’ll need to describe.
You’ll need to be really clear for this guy … yesterday whilst people
were reporting the questions that were being asked really helped us to
understand the maths {Valuing contributions from class members}.
Earl’s requests for further explanations and for reasons why certain actions were
taken were interspersed as appropriate.
Earl encouraged class members to ask the reporter questions to clarify their
explanations. He also encouraged the reporters to elaborate their answers to these
questions.
* Earl: There’re some questions already happening about this work so Student
F, people with their hands up [indicating Child F should choose]
Student F: [indicating which student would respond]: Student E.
Student E: What’s the 1 + 1 + 1 + for?
Earl: Oh you’re seeing some of the maths crossed out. Student F, this stuff up
here [pointing to work sample] what was that?
Student F: People, then crossed it out.
Earl: So these were the people and you [your group] crossed them out. How
many people were you working out with this?
Student F: 17.
Earl: What did you discover? Why did you cross it out? {further eliciting of
thinking about 17}.
Earl then used this opportunity to elicit explaining of why 17 people did not work.
Throughout the entire lesson, Earl demonstrated the expectation that students
should communicate their reasons. This quote illustrates that expectation.
* Earl: Which bit are you going to talk about champ? Okay, tell us about why
that one? [Eliciting of justification of selection of number of people].
The classroom norms Earl established emphasised the importance of students
developing logical understanding (Skemp, 1979): communicating their mathemati-
cal thinking in their group and to the class as a whole.

Communicating through other representations

Pictorial representations were common. Groups used either drawings only, combina-
tions of drawings, words and number symbols or explicitly linked pictorial represen-
tations with numeric representations. Representing of reasoning in diverse ways that

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 91

enabled eliciting of connections between these representations was evident. Diver-

sity of representations was encouraged and added to the richness of the reporting of
groups’ solution processes.
The following eliciting from Earl demonstrated his valuing of a wide variety of
representations.
* Earl: Student C—the group work was pretty much normal and they had all
the working out and their maths ideas were all recorded on sheets and
from these [worksheets] and from the important maths thinking.
* Earl: Can you show us that [on the diagram] somehow?
* Earl: If you’ve changed your ideas. If you’ve tried something but you weren’t
quite sure if it worked, please don’t scratch it out. That might actually
help another group or that might help you later on to see some of the
thinking you were doing.
* Earl: Sometimes we draw different diagrams so that we can get thinking
about our work.
These exchanges illustrate that Earl is prepared to accept a diagram as a form
of communicating of reasoning, and written forms of “working out”. His state-
ments indicate that all working towards a solution is acceptable and valued, which is
emphasising the importance of interim thinking.
The structure of Earl’s lesson and the evidence of his classroom norms show that
Earl is accepting verbal responses to questions and that these may be connected to
other representations. Earl’s question “anything else you can tell us?” uses “tell”
more broadly than only a verbal response. Diagrammatic and symbolic responses
were also used to communicate solution paths.
* Earl: You have been experimenting with that symbol and that operation a little bit.
* Earl: And you’ve got something else on your sheet that I think that you might
be able to share with the group. What’s all that down the bottom there?
Student D: Twelve times one equals twelve [pointing to 12 × 1 = 12 on work sample].
Earl: Could you explain 12 times 1 = 12 what does that mean?
These statements and questions suggest that Earl has noticed and accepted sym-
bolic representations as a suitable way to communicate students’ thinking. When
considered in conjunction with other questions and comments Earl made during the
lesson, it is most likely that he is trying to help the class to connect verbal, diagram-
matic and symbolic representations to increase students’ understandings of sym-
bolic representations. Earl’s eliciting of reasoning about why particular mathemat-
ics was used and the form in which it was communicated (Recognizing) go beyond
explanation of known mathematical procedures. Students select and combine math-
ematics in unfamiliar ways as they progress towards curtailing their mathematical
thinking (synthesis) to communicate their new ideas through connections between
representations.

13
92 S. Herbert, G. Williams

Eliciting reasoning through encouraging student contributions

This eliciting of reasoning process occurred through action types which encouraged
students to participate in reasoning actions: Sharing ideas in easy to understand
ways, Valuing contributions, and Understanding ideas of others.
Share thoughts with class:
* Earl: Now yesterday … the questions that were being asked really helped us
to understand the maths … so I’m going to encourage that today.
Value contribution:
* Earl: Okay, lots of great ideas coming out there [Student A].
Share ideas in easy to understand ways:
* Earl: So let’s just get really quite slowly so that [Student B] and [Student C]
can get up to speed as much as they can be.
Understand ideas of others:
* Earl: [Student B], do you understand all the maths that is going on here?
Such multiple actions to establish and sustain the classroom culture were
employed before, during and after teacher eliciting of student reasoning. Earl’s
activity elicits mathematical thinking as he encourages students to:

• share their thoughts [“lots of great ideas coming up”] rather than only completed
ideas;
• think more deeply about what they have found [“[your] questions really helped
us to understand”];
• share their own ideas in easy to understand ways [“[go] quite slowly so … [oth-
ers] can get up to speed”]; and
• understand the ideas of others [“do you understand all the maths that is going on
here”].

He demonstrated that he considered it important that all students have opportu-

nity to understand, and that he was monitoring this.
By valuing all contributions, it appears that Earl has increased the likelihood that
groups put forward tentative ideas. This should progress the development of ideas
faster. In doing so, there is potential for students to develop a stronger understand-
ing of mathematics relevant to the task, and further understanding of explorations
undertaken by their group and other groups. Encouraging elaborations that include
the connecting of representations (Building-with: synthetic-analysis) and the justi-
fying of ideas reported (Building-with: evaluative-analysis) should increase class
members’ understandings of ideas. A question that remains unanswered is whether
Constructing, synthesis, would occur in later lessons in this problem-solving task
when students have generated further instances of different numbers of people at the
door to support generalising from patterns generated.

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 93

Summary of Analysis

Illustrations of Earl’s eliciting of mathematical reasoning actions have been mapped

against the categories: Eliciting types of reasoning, Eliciting communication of rea-
soning and Encouraging student contribution to communicating mathematical ideas
and sustaining these communications, which could be considered classroom norms
that set the scene for reasoning. This encouraging of student contributions was cru-
cial to eliciting of reasoning because it valued inclusivity, encouraged interim think-
ing including partially developed ideas and made transparent the expectation that
the class value the same. This task enabled group choice of numbers of people at the
door, solution processes employing multiple representations (including mathemati-
cal arguments), autonomous selection of modes of communication and opportunities
for both teacher and students to elicit reasoning. As such, it is potentially useful for
others interested in illustrations of eliciting of reasoning, especially in early years,
and as a tool to experiment with to develop such skills.
Earl’s strategies for progressing mathematical understanding included elicited
student responses that (a) shared, explained and discussed what they had done (ana-
lysing); (b) gave reasons for the mathematics they used (validating); (c) encouraged
conjecturing (that could lead to generalising); (d) employed communication through
different representations (and connected representations); and (e) contributed by
sharing. Eliciting of reasoning was embedded in Earl’s eliciting of mathematical
thinking. In addition, Earl explicitly sustained classroom norms that encouraged stu-
dents to reason by valuing their ideas, providing opportunities to learn and encour-
aging them to take on eliciting roles themselves. Earl highlighted the usefulness of
such activity throughout the lesson. Earl’s faith in his students was demonstrated by
his statements indicating that all students would be able to understand if ideas were
clearly presented.

Discussion

Findings from this study add to the growing literature connecting reasoning and
problem solving by emphasising the role of the eliciting of reasoning in developing
new (to the students) mathematical understandings during problem-solving activity.
Previous research connecting problem solving and reasoning has focused differently
to this study, by not specifically focusing on the eliciting of reasoning (e.g. Yackel
& Cobb, 1996; English & Gainsburg, 2015; Schoenfeld, 1992; Lithner, 2017; Lesh
et al., 2000; Lampert, 2001).

The Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework

The main contribution of this study is the Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Frame-
work that has emerged, which brings together and extends previous research on MR
to include the eliciting of MR during problem solving in the early years.

13
 94

Table 3  Williams and Herbert’s (2021) Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework

Category of eliciting actions Purposes of teacher’s eliciting of reasoning Illustration of teacher’s actions and associated mathematical thinking
elicited (see Key below)

13
1. Types of reasoning: • Enable student autonomy in the selection of the mathematics they • Choose how many people are at the door so that everyone can get the
analysing, validating or generalysing explore same amount of whole cookies (R)
• Elicit explanations clarifying reasoning • What did that mean? (R). … So would you be able to explain what the
numbers were about and how it will all work? (BWsa)
• Elicit steps during student-controlled solution processes • What happened next? What did your maths show you? (Ra, BWsa)
• Elicit student focus, why mathematics selected, interpretations of • 12 cookies altogether so what does that mean for the people? [10 + 2 = 12
mathematics generated, why these interpretations on worksheet] (BWsa)
• Elicit justification of choices, and suitability of mathematical approach • What have you done and why? (BWea)
• Elicit further justification • Can you show us how it is twelve?
• Elicit explanations to increase likelihood of class conjecturing/hypoth- • Okay, tell us about why that one? (BWea)
esising
• Provide opportunities to start to form conjectures • You thought about 17. … What did you discover? (BWea)
• Elicit a response to a counter example • 17 that’s a lot of people at the door so what’s going to happen with the
cookies?
2. Eliciting communication of reasoning: • Elicit from reporter communication previous discussion between small • I noticed on your page you had this sum …. Do you know why this sum?
oral and other representations group and teacher (BWsa and/or BWea)
Intended to increase the quality of com- • Elicit thinking/questions from others about the finding of one group • Does anyone have any questions about that? (Ra, BWea)
munication, and reasoning, by encour-
aging reporters to elaborate further • Valuing students’ independent thinking • I like what you’re thinking
Valuing different representations in • Share thoughts • Does anyone have any questions about that? (Ra, BWea)
explanations • Expecting clear communication of strategies and solution processes • Listen, it’s important to work together. … I think you’ll need to describe.
from reporters and other students You’ll need to be really clear for this guy
• Eliciting links between representations Sometimes we draw different diagrams so that we can get thinking about
our work … And you’ve got something else on your sheet that I think
that you might be able to share with the group. What’s all that [diagram]
down the bottom there? (BWsa)
S. Herbert, G. Williams
 Table 3  (continued)
Category of eliciting actions Purposes of teacher’s eliciting of reasoning Illustration of teacher’s actions and associated mathematical thinking
elicited (see Key below)

3. Eliciting reasoning through encourag- • Establish and sustain classroom norms • We ask questions and have lots of discussion, that’s the maths stuff we
ing student contributions increases the want to record
likelihood that students articulate their
reasoning • Explicit statements of expectations that class share ideas in easy to • Your words and your explaining would be [about] something that your
understand ways, and understand ideas of others group found really helpful today

• Value all contributions • Yesterday whilst people were reporting … questions … being asked
really helped us to understand the maths … [and] encouraged the
reporter to think a little bit deeper

• Structure of problem-solving lesson indicates expectation that students’ • Is there a way you can really show that? When you share is there a way
thinking will be shared that you will be able to explain your maths thinking? (Ra and/or BWa)

• Eliciting to facilitate that one student’s explanation could be understood • So let’s just get really quite slowly so that [Student B] and [Student C]
by other students can get up to speed as much as possible

• Eliciting responses to check a student’s understanding of another • Do you understand all the maths that is going on here? (Ra and/or BWa)
student’s ideas
• Valuing contributions from individuals and other class members • Okay, lots of great ideas coming out there
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem…

Key: R (Recognizing; “a” analysing to identify relevant mathematics); BW (Building-With, Analysis; “a” analysis involving breaking into component parts, “sa” synthetic-
analysis, “ea” evaluative-analysis); C (Constructing, includes synthesis “s”, evaluation “e”)
95

13
96 S. Herbert, G. Williams

The Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework (Table 3) was formulated

through the simultaneous analysis of eliciting of reasoning actions (Table 1),
thought processes during problem solving (Table 2) and additional actions identi-
fied during the analyses of data. This framework synthesises findings arising from
answering the research question: “What was the nature of this teacher’s eliciting of
reasoning during this problem-solving lesson?” It classifies the nature of the elicit-
ing of reasoning that occurred into three categories: Eliciting of types of Reasoning,
Eliciting communication of reasoning and Eliciting reasoning through encouraging
student contributions (Table 3, column 1); documents the purposes for which the
teacher employed this eliciting of reasoning (column 2); and illustrates the teacher’s
eliciting of reasoning activity and the mathematical purposes such eliciting of rea-
soning addressed (column 3). Eliciting communication of reasoning is consistent
with the emphasis on communication of reasoning advocated in curriculum docu-
ments (ACARA, 2017; Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010; Department
for Employment and Education (DfEE), 2014) and thus adds support to the useful-
ness of the framework for teachers applying curriculum requirements.
The first two categories in this framework (Eliciting types of reasoning and Elicit-
ing communication of reasoning) explicitly refer to the eliciting reasoning. The third
category (Eliciting reasoning through encouraging student contributions) (Table 3,
row 3) is a catalyst to this eliciting of reasoning. It builds a classroom culture in
which students feel safe to participate, share their interim thinking and explain their
reasoning (Inoue et al., 2019).

Category 1: eliciting types of reasoning The eliciting of reasoning occurred through-

out the lesson, for example, when Earl commented “12 cookies altogether” then
asked “so what does that mean for the people?” he drew attention to the need for
students to give reasons (Table 3, Eliciting types of reasoning: analysing) for what
was on their sheet and the need to make connections between the physical situation
and mathematics within it (Table 3, Eliciting types of reasoning: validating). Like
Yackel (2001), Earl expected his students “to clarify aspects of their mathematical
thinking that they think might not be readily apparent to others” (Yackel, 2001, p.
13) and justify their mathematical claims “So what did that mean?” These expecta-
tions are consistent with Kilpatrick et al.’s (2001) statement “[c]lassroom norms can
be established in which students are expected to justify their mathematical claims
and make them clear to others” (p. 130). It appears that Earl endeavored to elicit
a conjecture from the group that chose 17 “‘Why?’ is my question. Why did your
group decide that 17 was not going to work out? Why?” (see Results: “Generalis-
ing”). The reporter did not respond with reasoning, most likely because he had not
fully understood the group discussion at that time. Since forming conjectures fre-
quently involves identifying commonalities across cases (Lannin et al., 2011), this
group may not have been exposed to sufficient cases (numbers of people at the door)
at this time or may need more time to undertake such thinking (Clarke & Clarke,
2003).

Category 2: eliciting communication of reasoning Skemp (1979) described

being able to communicate mathematical ideas developed as an additional

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 97

type of mathematical understanding—logical understanding (beyond relational

understanding—the communicating of relational understandings developed).
Illustrations of eliciting of reasoning associated with communicating this rea-
soning are thus contributing to opportunities for students to develop deeper
mathematical understanding. Other researchers have emphasised the impor-
tance of students communicating reasoning to convince others through oppor-
tunities to express their ideas and build mathematical understanding (Brodie,
2010; Long et al., 2012; Reid, 2002; Stylianides, et al., 2013). Earl (as in
Williams, 2005) elicited mathematical ideas in common language from the students
(as illustrated through this student response “There’s 2 people inside and 10
people outside [holding up 2 fingers] which makes 12 people”) and provided
mathematical terms when the majority of the class appeared to understand a
conceptual idea and were expressing it in common language “You have been
experimenting with that symbol and that operation a little bit.”

This category includes both oral communication of reasoning and communica-

tion of reasoning through the use of other representations (e.g. see student work in
Fig. 1 where verbal, diagrammatic and symbolic representations were employed).
Reasoning may be expressed and conveyed through a variety of representations
(Bakker & Hoffmann, 2005) as evident in Earl’s interactions with his students
“sometimes we draw different diagrams so that we can get thinking about our work”.
Earl also accepted students’ gestures as their responses when they pointed to vari-
ous places on the worksheet and, like Lampert (2001), progressed student work by
his introduction of language. Earl’s focus was on encouraging students to connect
mathematical representations and explain to others how they made those connec-
tions. In eliciting clearer communication of thought processes employed, simple
analysis (Wood et al., 2006) was encouraged when Earl’s eliciting of reasoning drew
attention to parts of a symbolic representation (e.g. “Could you explain 12 times 1 = 12
what does that mean?”) and synthetic-analysis (see Table 2) when students were
asked to make connections between different representations (e.g. “… these circles
… and … [those] numbers there. What were those numbers?”). Evaluative-analysis
(see Table 2) in conjunction with synthetic-analysis was encouraged through Earl’s
eliciting of justifying of mathematics generated and supporting its reasonableness
by drawing on another representation “…on your page you had this sum …. Do you
know why this sum?” Language associated with reasoning emerged as he pursued
this purpose.

Category 3: eliciting reasoning through encouraging student contributions This

includes teacher valuing of students’ explanations, and discussions, and teacher
asking of questions whilst encouraging students to participate in such questioning
as well, to increased opportunities to learn. The attention the teacher paid to the
pace and clarity of the reports “so let’s just get really quite slowly so … [they] can
get up to speed …”, and to whether learning was occurring for individual students
“do you understand all the maths that is going on here?”, demonstrated a valu-
ing of all class members. Such actions made explicit the classroom norms and the

13
98 S. Herbert, G. Williams

socio-mathematical norms (Yackel & Cobb, 1996; Yackel, 2001). Lampert (2001),
like Earl, “involved other students in supporting and furthering [student’s] think-
ing” (p. 145), which further contributed to the culture developed. Earl’s “handing
over questioning to the class” was a strategy he appeared to employ when insuf-
ficient reasoning had been elicited by his own actions. Earl’s valuing of students’
ideas (echoed in the work of Funahashi and Hino (2014), Smith and Stein (2011)
and Kilpatrick et al. (2001)) encouraged them to communicate more of their think-
ing (Table 3, Value contribution). Inoue et al. (2019) found that highly effective
teachers of inquiry-based learning, like Earl, were adaptable and inclusive. They,
like Earl, addressed “‘students’ whole person development and creat[ed] a collabo-
rative and inclusive learning community” (p. 376). The present study contributes to
the body of research on ways to develop classroom cultures in which reasoning can
flourish by illustrating a diversity of this teacher’s actions that contributed to this
development.

Generic eliciting

It has become apparent from the data presented that there is a general type of elic-
iting of reasoning that could be applicable to a variety of problem-solving tasks.
These include generic non-task specific questions and questions that can be adapted
variables in other tasks. Such question types may assist teacher who are not yet
familiar with the nature of reasoning and/or how to elicit it.

Non‑task specific questions Earl frequently employed generic eliciting of reason-

ing actions (see Table 3, column 3). For example: “What was your thinking today?”
[Analysing]; “Why?” [Justifying]; “so let’s just get really quite slowly so … these
students … can get up to speed …” [Share ideas in easy to understand ways]. Such
generic action types could elicit reasoning when implementing other problem-solving
tasks (e.g. Wood et al., 2006).

Questions changing context variables In addition, Earl employed eliciting of rea-

soning actions that could be adapted to other problem-solving situations. For exam-
ple, a change in the variables (cookies and people) in say “12 cookies altogether so
what does that mean for the people?” (Table 3, Category 1) might in another task
be “12 lions altogether so what does that mean for the area of the cage?” Some of
the illustrations in Table 3 have thus provided insights into how eliciting of reason-
ing may be transferrable from one task to another. In summary, this study illustrates
and categorises generic types of eliciting of reasoning that may facilitate students’
reasoning.

Contribution of the eliciting of mathematical reasoning study

The Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework benefits researchers, educa-

tors, professional learning leaders, and teachers. It provides an analysis tool for
researchers, guidance for professional learning leaders and educators, and supports

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 99

early years teachers building their pedagogical expertise in eliciting of reasoning.

The framework thus has the potential to support researchers and teacher educators
as they address reported difficulties many teachers have with identifying and elicit-
ing reasoning (Jacobs et al., 2010; Clarke et al., 2012; Herbert et al., 2015; Long et
al., 2017). This research further contributes to existing knowledge about reasoning by:

• highlighting what mathematical reasoning during problem-solving can look like

in early years
• illustrating teacher questions and classroom norms that can elicit mathematical
reasoning
• highlighting potential for eliciting reasoning in other problem-solving contexts
• illustrating task design that offers opportunities for frequent eliciting of math-
ematical reasoning

Importantly, this study suggests that reasoning could be elicited by teachers who
do not yet have secure knowledge of reasoning including reasoning terms, without
this absence hindering their experimentation within problem-solving activity.
Fruitful areas for further research arising from this study also include: “How
could this framework be employed as a useful analysis tool for teacher professional
learning?” “How would other teachers, using the same problem-solving task, opera-
tionalise the eliciting of reasoning?” “Would subsequent parts of the task lead to
the eliciting of types of reasoning not elicited so far?” “Are the types of reason-
ing elicited dependent upon the problem-solving task employed?”, “Can this task be
employed to elicit reasoning at other year levels?” The robustness of the framework
can be investigated through further research in other contexts: early years class-
rooms, other year levels and diverse subject domains.

Conclusion

The Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework captures the intertwined nature

of the eliciting of reasoning and progressing mathematical thinking during problem
solving. Eliciting of reasoning, before and during student communicating of their
mathematical thinking, was an engine that drove further progress in such thinking.
The three categories of the Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework help make
transparent the roles the teacher played in setting up situations in which reasoning
was more likely to occur and eliciting reasoning through the eliciting of commu-
nicating of mathematical ideas represented on group developed worksheets. The
nature of the task, and the E2L Approach employed, provided opportunities for the
teacher to undertake these roles. Within a safe and collaborative classroom envi-
ronment, the nature of the task encouraged idiosyncratic group reasoning and the
approach encouraged and stimulated communication of that reasoning at the group
and the whole class level.
Although these findings from one case, of one teacher interacting with one class
for one lesson, are not generalizable, they have provided insights into categories of
eliciting actions. Further research could examine whether each category is necessary

13
100 S. Herbert, G. Williams

and whether these three categories are sufficient. The applicability of the Eliciting
Mathematical Reasoning Framework to eliciting of reasoning in other classrooms
with other teachers and other tasks is signaled by the generic Teachers’ Eliciting of
Reasoning Actions identified.
The interrogation of videos of classroom interactions in an early years primary
mathematics problem-solving lesson demonstrates the usefulness of this approach
for researching teachers’ actions for eliciting MR. This methodological approach
with microanalysis of classroom video to identify teachers’ eliciting of reasoning
actions could be employed in problem-solving lessons in other early year contexts,
other year levels and may be adaptable to lessons in other areas of the curriculum.
The theoretical lenses employed to identify MR and mathematical thinking, integral
to the development of the Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework, should
help to inform its use as an analysis tool for researchers.
The Eliciting Mathematical Reasoning Framework contributes to research on
eliciting MR by identification and illustration of types of eliciting of reasoning
actions that occurred. It provides guidance for researchers, teacher educators and
teachers intending to leverage the power of reasoning to build students’ understand-
ings of mathematical ideas through progressive connections between them.

Author contributions Both authors contributed to the preparation and writing of this article. The first
draft of the manuscript was written by both authors collaboratively, and both authors read and approved
the final manuscript.

Funding This project was supported by a research grant from the Victorian Dept. of Education & Train-
ing and research funding including a project start-up funding grant from School of Education, Deakin
University.

Availability of data and material Data is stored on a secure university password protected drive. Data is
kept 6 years after final publication as stipulated by Deakin University HREC.

Code availability Studiocode was used to assist in coding.

Declarations

Ethics approval Ethic approval was gained from the Deakin University Human Ethics Committee, and
permission to research was granted by the Victorian Dept. of Education & Training.

Consent to participate The researchers explained the teachers’ and students’ part in the research after the
principal had agreed to the research. The school was sent a Plain Language Statement and consent form for
the participating school principal to sign. Interested teachers were given a Plain Language Statement and
consent form which described the research project and their involvement. The research was explained to
the students by the researchers. Students were given their own simplified PLSs. The parent/s or guardians
of students in the teachers’ primary class were forwarded the PLS for parents and the consent form for
parent/s and students. This occurred after the teachers of these classes had agreed to take part in the study.

Consent for publication The plain language statements provided details of participation and use of data
in publications.

Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 101

References
Akerlind, G., Bowden, J., & Green, P. (2005). Learning to do phenomenography: A reflective discussion.
In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography. (pp. 74–100). Mel-
bourne, Australia: RMIT University Press.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2017). Australian Curriculum:
Mathematics. Retrieved from http://​www.​austr​alian​curri​culum.​edu.​au/​Mathe​matics
Bakker, A., & Hoffmann, M. H. (2005). Diagrammatic reasoning as the basis for developing concepts: A
semiotic analysis of students’ learning about statistical distribution. Educational Studies in Math-
ematics, 60(3), 333–358.
Brodie, K. (2010). Teaching mathematical reasoning: A challenging task. Teaching mathematical reason-
ing in secondary school classrooms (pp. 7-22). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Clarke, D. M., & Clarke, B. A. (2003). Encouraging perseverance in K-2 mathematics: The tale of two
problems. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(4), 204–217.
Clarke, D., Clarke, D., & Sullivan, P. (2012). Reasoning in the Australian Curriculum: Understanding
its meaning and using the relevant language. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(3),
28–32.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Wash-
ington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief
State School Officers.
Department for Employment and Education. (2014). Primary national curriculum: Mathematics.
Retrieved from http://​www.​educa​tion.​gov.​uk/​schoo​ls/​teach​ingan​dlear​ning/​curri​culum/​prima​ry/
Dreyfus, T., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (2001). Abstraction in context II: The case of peer interac-
tion. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1(3), 307–368.
English, L. D., & Gainsburg, J. (2015). 12 Problem solving in a 21st-century mathematics curriculum.
In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education.
(pp. 313–335). NY: Taylor and Francis.
Funahashi, Y., & Hino, K. (2014). The teacher’s role in guiding children’s mathematical ideas toward
meeting lesson objectives. ZDM— The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(3),
423–436.
Herbert, S. & Williams, G.(2021). Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem solv-
ing. Mathematics Education Research Journal. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13394-​021-​00376-9
Herbert, S., & Pierce, R. (2013). Gesture as data for a phenomenographic analysis of mathematical con-
ceptions. International Journal of Educational Research, 60, 1–10.
Herbert, S., Vale, C., Bragg, L., Loong, E. & Widjaja, W. (2015). A framework for primary teachers’
perceptions of mathematical reasoning. International Journal of Educational Research. 74, 26–37.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijer.​2015.​09.​005
Hutchins, P., & Keating, I. (1986). The doorbell rang. . New York, NY: Greenwillow Books.
Inoue, N., Asada, T., Maeda, N., & Nakamura, S. (2019). Deconstructing teacher expertise for inquiry-
based teaching: Looking into consensus building pedagogy in Japanese classrooms. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 77, 366–377. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tate.​2018.​10.​016
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical
thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.
Jeannotte, D., & Kieran, C. (2017). A conceptual model of mathematical reasoning for school mathemat-
ics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(1), 1–16.
Kelly, S. D., Singer, M., Hicks, J., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2002). A helping hand in assessing children’s
knowledge: Instructing adults to attend to gesture. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 1–26.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Krutetskii, V. (1976). Psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. (J. Kilpatrick, & I. Wirzup
(Eds.), J. Teller, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1968).
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Lannin, J., Ellis, A., & Elliot, R. (2011). Developing essential understanding of mathematical reasoning
for teaching mathematics in prekindergarten-grade 8. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing
activities for students and teachers. NY: Routledge.

13
102 S. Herbert, G. Williams

Liljedahl, L. (2016). Creative problem solving P Liljedahl M Santos-Trigo U Malaspina R Bruder Eds
Problem solving in mathematics education Springer Hamburg, Germany 6–19.
Lithner, J. (2017). Principles for designing mathematical tasks that enhance imitative and creative reason-
ing. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 49(6), 937–949.
Lobato, J., Hohensee, C., & Rhodehamel, B. (2013). Students’ mathematical noticing. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 44(5), 809–850.
Long, C. T., DeTemple, D., & Millman, R. (2012). Mathematical reasoning for primary teachers (6th ed.
ed.). Boston, Mass.: Pearson Addison Wesley.
Loong, E., Vale, C., Herbert, S., Bragg, L. A., & Widjaja, W. (2017). Tracking change in primary teach-
ers’ understanding of mathematical reasoning through demonstration lessons. Mathematics Teacher
Education & Development, 19(1), 5–18.
Mason, J. (1982). Thinking mathematically. London: Addison-Wesley.
Mata-Pereira, J., & da Ponte, J. P. (2017). Enhancing students’ mathematical reasoning in the classroom:
Teacher actions facilitating generalization and justification. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
96(2), 169–186.
Meyer, C. B. (2001). A case in case study methodology. Field Methods, 13(4), 329–352.
Pea, R. D. (2006). Video-as-data and digital video manipulation techniques for transforming learning
sciences research, education and other cultural practices. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, & P. Trifonas (Eds.),
International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments (pp. 1321–1393). Dordrecht, Nether-
lands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Powell, A. B., Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studyingthe development
of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotapedata.The journal of mathematical
behavior,22(4),405-435.
Reid, D. A. (2002). Conjectures and refutations in grade 5 mathematics. Journal for Research in Math-
ematics Education, 33(1), 5–29.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-
making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and
learning. (pp. 334–370). New York: MacMillan.
Silver, E. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and prob-
lem posing. ZDM-Zentrallblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik (International Reviews on Mathematics
Education), 97(3), 75–80.
Skemp, R. R. (1979). Intelligence, learning, and action. New York: Wiley.
Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discussions.
Reston VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Philippou, G. N. (2007). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of proof
by mathematical induction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(3), 145–166.
Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Shilling-Traina, L. N. (2013). Prospective teachers’ challenges in
teaching reasoning-and-proving. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(6),
1463–1490.
Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2017). Research-based interventions in the area of proof: The past,
the present, and the future. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(2), 119–127.
Taylor, J., & Garnier, R. (2016). Understanding mathematical proof. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Williams, G. (2002). Identifying tasks that promote creative thinking in Mathematics: a tool. In B. Bar-
ton, K. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch & M. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics Education in the South Pacific.
Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Aus-
tralasia, (Vol. 2, pp. 698-705). Auckland New Zealand: MERG.
Williams, G. (2005). Improving intellectual and affective quality in mathematics lessons: How autonomy
and spontaneity enable creative and insightful thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. http://​repos​itory.​unime​lb.​edu.​au/​10187/​2380
Williams, G. (2007). Abstracting in the context of spontaneous learning. (Abstraction, Special Edition)
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19(2), 69–88.
Williams, G. (2014). Optimistic problem-solving activity: Enacting confidence, persistence, and perse-
verance. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(3), 407–422. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11858-​014-​0586-y
Williams, G. (2020). Attaining mathematical insight during a flow state: Was there scaffolding? Hiro-
shima Journal of Mathematics Education, 13, 1–26.

13
Eliciting mathematical reasoning during early primary problem… 103

Winsler, A., Abar, B., Feder, M., Schunn, C., & Rubio, D. (2007). Private speech and executive function-
ing among high-functioning children with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Devel-
opmental Disorders, 37(9), 1617–1635.
Wood, T., Williams, G., & McNeal, B. (2006). Children’s mathematical thinking in different classroom
cultures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3), 222–255.
Woodside, A. G. (2010). Case study research: Theory, methods and practice. . Emerald: Bingley.
Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. van
den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 9–24). Utrecht, The Netherlands: PME.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13