CONTENT AREA LITERACIES

Literacy in Language and Mathematics

More in Common Than You Think

D ENISSE R . T HOMP SON & RHE TA N. RUBENST EIN

Introduction to column for the volume
I value the opportunity to edit the Content Area
Literacies department for JAAL . As a former secondary
science teacher, it was content area reading that first
convinced me of the value of discipline appropriate lit-
eracy instruction in my classroom. Over the years, I de-
pended on the Journal of Reading, later the Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, for research I could use
in my classroom. Voices published in literacy journals
such as JAAL are most often those of literacy profes-
sionals. In this column, I plan to feature discipline fo-
cused researchers from a variety of content areas. These
authentic voices do not typically publish in JAAL , but
they have valuable perspectives for literacy profession-
als. This issue, I have invited two mathematics edu-
cators, whose work I have followed during the years,
to discuss important issues in mathematical literacy.
I welcome your feedback on this and future columns.
listening to the teacher, watching the teacher work
some examples, and then replicating that work on
similar problems. Current goals (e.g., Common Core
State Standards, 2010) demand that students do
mathematics meaningfully, with reasoning, and justi-
fications. For this to occur,
… classrooms will not be silent places where each
learner is privately engaged with ideas. If students
are to engage in mathematical argumentation
and produce mathematical evidence, they will
need to talk or write in ways that expose their rea-
soning to one another and to their teacher. These
activities are about communication and the use
of language. (Lampert & Cobb, 2003, p. 237)
This focus on communication in the math-
ematics classroom is part of what is called math-
ematical literacy, namely the ability to read, write,

S
speak, and listen to mathematics with understand-
ing (Thompson, Kersaint, Richards, Hunsader, &
ince the latter part of the 20th century, math- Rubenstein, 2008). In addition to reading and writ-
ematics classrooms have been undergoing ing words, mathematical literacy requires building
major change meaning with symbols, contexts, graphs, diagrams,
in terms of curricu- and other models as well as the ability to connect and
lum and instruction translate among these and other mathematical modes
(National Council of of communication.
Teachers of Mathe- As part of this communication focus, we view all
matics, 1989, 1991,
Authors (left to right) students as mathematics language learners (Thompson
Denisse R. Thompson is at the
2000). No longer are University of South Florida, Tampa, et al., 2008). From this perspective, mathematics in-
mathematics class- FL, USA; e-mail denisse@usf.edu. struction shares many similarities with language arts in-
rooms places where Rheta N. Rubenstein is at the struction. In this article, we highlight similarities in the
University of Michigan-Dearborn,
students sit silently Dearborn, MI, USA; e-mail two disciplines with the goal of helping both literacy and
rrubenst@umd.umich.edu.
at their desks just mathematics educators in supporting students’ learning.

The department editor welcomes reader comments. Victoria Language Development Has Many
Gillis is Professor and Wyoming Excellence in Higher
Education Endowed Chair in Literacy Education at the Levels
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA; e-mail
vgillis@uwyo.edu. Like all robust learning, mathematical literacy devel-
ops over time as students work on challenging tasks 105

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 58(2) October 2014 doi:10.1002/jaal.338 © 2014 International Reading Association (pp. 105–108)
 CONTENT AREA LITERACIES

to build networks of meanings around critical con-
cepts. As one example, we cite Herbel-Eisenmann,
Steele, and Cirillo (2013) who propose the idea of a
Language Spectrum (see Table 1) as a way to consider
the formality and nature of the language students may
use or encounter in different teaching and learning
contexts. Like the stages of the writing process typi-
cal in language arts—rough draft, peer editing, revi-
sion, teacher editing, and final publication—students’
mathematical communication can also be nurtured
through their participation in these different contexts.
This table helps us all understand better why reading
mathematics books is challenging for students. As just
one note, if the activities of students’ reporting to the
class and writing solutions are omitted or given little
attention, then the work of reading the voices of ob-
jectified and removed textbook authors is even more
daunting.
There are several researched discourse moves
teachers may use to facilitate students’ mathemati-
cal literacy development (Chapin, O’Conner, &
Anderson, 2009; Herbel-Eisenmann et al., 2013).
These are likely better known and more commonly
practiced by language arts teachers, but are valu-
able to mathematics teachers, particularly related to
standards that expect students to reason and critique
arguments of others as in the Common Core State
Standards (National Governors’ Association and
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
5 8 (2 ) OCTOBER 2014
• Waiting for students to respond after asking a
question, or waiting after a given student re-
sponse for other students to engage with the
given response.
• Revoicing a student ’s response by the teacher to
provide clarification or expansion.
• Inviting students to participate by sharing varied
solutions, thereby changing the locus of authority
from the teacher or the textbook to students and
privileging them as individuals who know math-
ematics. Students may be cued to listen closely
to peers’ responses, to strive to understand, to re-
voice a response, to be ready to ask questions, or
to evaluate what the speaker is saying.
• Probing a student’s thinking from either the
teacher or another student to make the think-
ing visible and clearer.
• Creating opportunities to engage with another’s
reasoning by applying someone else’s solution
approach to a particular problem.
On-going activities using these practices help
transform the mathematics classroom to a math-talk
learning community in which students and the teach-
er co-construct mathematical knowledge. Hufferd-
Ackles, Fuson, and Sherin (2004) provide detailed
analyses of how these communities may become
more student- and less teacher-centered.

TABLE 1 Characteristics of Mathematical Language in Different Contexts

Context Description Audience Characteristics

Talking in a small Language of interaction Others in small group May use pointing and pronouns (this, that),
group informal language, and reference to physical
actions
J OURN AL OF A DOL E SCE NT & ADU LT L ITE RAC Y

Reporting to the Language of Class peers not in original May use somewhat more formal language,
whole class recounting experience group with solutions often retold chronologically
and in first person (“and then we…”)

Writing Language A reader such as a peer or May use “you” as a general actor, more
a solution of generalizing the teacher mathematical language, a timeless present
tense, and reasoning signals like “because”
and “since”

Reading a written Mathematics register Unknown general reader May use passive voice, no person or
description in a action, a focus on relationships, more
textbook symbols, actions transformed into nouns
(nominalization; we don’t bisect but are
given bisectors), dense noun phrases,
formal language

106 Note. Adapted from Herbel-Eisenmann, Steele, and Cirillo (2013), pp. 186–187.
A Definition Tells Only Part of a Word’s Meaning
As in other literacy contexts, meanings rely on much
more than definitions and contain embedded rela-
tionships. Many of these relationships involve words
with few syllables that pack a punch in meaning.
For instance, the word is can be used in mathemat-
ics with different senses (Herbel-Eisenmann et al.,
2013). When is is used for classification, as a square
is a rectangle, a non-reversible descriptive relation-
ship is given. (All squares are rectangles because they
are quadrilaterals with four right angles, but not all
rectangles are squares.) When is is used for a defini-
tion, such as an even number is a number that has a
factor of 2, a reversible identity relationship is given.
(Every number with a factor of 2 is even AND every
even number has a factor of 2.) These two uses of
is illustrate that recognizing the causal relationships
inherent in little words (is, if, then, any, all) is often
complex. This is one example that understanding
mathematical language is more complex than just
studying vocabulary.
Further, in mathematics, relationships are often
implicit, but are expected to be known. For instance,
one can define a rectangle as a four-sided plane fig-
ure whose angles are all 90°. However, a secondary
student who knows a figure is a rectangle should au-
tomatically know the following relationships without
them being explicitly stated:
• Opposite sides are parallel.
• Opposite sides are congruent.
• Diagonals are congruent.
• Each diagonal divides the figure into two
congruent triangles.
• The figure has two lines of symmetry, both
parallel to the sides, but not on diagonals.
In many contexts, students are expected to gener-
ate and use these relationships on their own to solve a
problem, just from the fact that a figure is a rectangle.
As another complexity, in mathematics multiple
definitions of a concept are often possible. For in-
stance, a rectangle could be defined as a parallelo-
gram with one right angle, or as a quadrilateral with
four right angles. Depending on what definition is
used, different attributes need to be proven.
Important Ideas May Be Implied
Just as in reading where there are implicit under-
standings, many aspects of mathematical literacy
involve implied meanings, relations, or structures.
For example, there is an implied structure in some
mathematical notations, such as when two sym-
bols are next to each other. For instance, the sym-
bol 3x represents an implied multiplication while
the symbol 42 3 represents an implied addition
(Rubenstein & Thompson, 2001). With vocabulary,
as well, meanings shift depending on context. Some
words have different meanings in different parts
of mathematics (e.g., cube in geometry vs. algebra
or round in number vs. geometry) (Thompson &
Chappell, 2007; Thompson & Rubenstein, 2000).
Similarly with graphical representations, much of
what needs to be gleaned is within or beyond what
is explicitly represented. Reading strategies, such as
Question-Answer-Response (QAR) (Rafael, 1982),
can be adapted by mathematics teachers to aid stu-
dents in reading these graphical representations
(Rubenstein & Thompson, 2012). Overall, teachers
need to be alert to implicit as well as explicit mean-
ings that words, symbols, graphs, and diagrams
convey.
Justification Is an Essential Ingredient in Learning
Justification, providing reasons why a solution
makes sense, has elevated importance in recent
recommendations of the Common Core Standards
(2010). When learners can provide the reasoning
why procedures work, they are better able to under-
stand, retain, use, and transfer that thinking to nov-
el situations. As one example to support learners’
Literacy in Language and Mathematics: More in Common Than You Think
development of argumentation, Bénéteau, Bleiler,
and Thompson (2014) used samples of student
work based on known misconceptions. Learners
critiqued the sample work, paying attention to
whether the response was correct, clear, and com-
plete. As learners worked in small groups on such
critiques, the instructors found themselves becom-
ing much more facilitators of instruction. Similarly,
learners grew as they dialogued with each other
to identify strengths and weaknesses of arguments
which resulted in improvements in arguments they
produced later.
Conclusion
Although there are certainly unique challenges re-
lated to developing students’ mathematical literacy
as detailed in our references, there are broad literacy
principles that transcend mathematics and language
learning. We hope this article sheds light on a few 107
 CONTENT AREA LITERACIES

critical areas where language arts and mathematics
educators can find common ground, discussing how
to engage and support students in reading, writing,
and talking as critical components to develop mean-
ingful learning.
References
Bénéteau , C., Bleiler, S. K., & Thompson , D. R. (2014 ).
Promoting mathematical reasoning through critiquing stu-
dent work. In K. Karp & A. Roth McDuffie (Eds.), Annual
perspectives in mathematics education 2014: Using research
to improve instruction (pp. 151–160 ). Reston, VA : National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Chapin , S. H., O ’Conner, C., & Anderson , N. C. (2009 ).
Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn,
Grades K–6. Sausalito, CA : Math Solutions.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B.A., Steele, M.D., & Cirillo, M. (2013).
(Developing) teacher discourse moves: A framework for pro-
fessional development. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1(2),
181–196.
Hufferd-Ackles , K., Fuson , K.C., & Sherin , M.G. (2004 ).
Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning
community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
35(2), 81–116.
Lampert , M., & Cobb, P. (2003). Communication and lan-
guage. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds.),
A research companion to Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics (pp. 237–249). Reston, VA : National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (1989 ).
Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA : Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional
standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA : Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles
and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA : Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA Center
and CCSSO) . (2010 ). Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: NGA Center and CCSSO.
(http://www.corestandards.org)
Raphael, T. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children.
The Reading Teacher, 36 (2), 186 –190.
Rubenstein, R.N., & Thompson, D.R. (2001). Learning math-
ematical symbolism: Challenges and instructional strategies.
Mathematics Teacher, 94, 265–271.
Rubenstein, R.N., & Thompson, D.R. (2012). Reading visual rep-
resentations. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 17,
545–550.
Thompson, D.R., & Chappell, M.F. (2007). Communication and
representation as elements in mathematical literacy. Reading
and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,
23(2), 179 –196.
Thompson, D.R., Kersaint , G., Richards, J.C., Hunsader, P.D.,
& Rubenstein, R.N. (2008). Mathematical literacy: Helping
students make meaning in the middle grades. Portsmouth, NH :
Heinemann.
Thompson, D.R., & Rubenstein, R.N. (2000). Learning math-
ematics vocabulary: Potential pitfalls and instructional strate-
gies. Mathematics Teacher, 93, 568 –573.

The Common Core:

Teaching Students in Grades 6–12
to Meet the Reading Standards
5 8 (2 ) OCTOBER 2014

Maureen McLaughlin and Brenda J. Overturf

This essential resource explains the key points of the Common
Core State Standards reading standards, then aligns each Standard
with appropriate research-based strategies, and shows you how to
J OURN AL OF A DOL E SCE NT & ADU LT L ITE RAC Y

use those strategies to teach your middle school and high school
students. Classroom applications and student examples will make
this your go-to CCSS resource.
© 2013 | 248 pp. | ISBN 978-0-87207-706-5
IRA Members $26.35 | Nonmembers $32.95
GET YOUR COPY TODAY!
Preview a sample chapter and order online at www.reading.org/CC612
For priority processing, enter promotion code CC612
Call toll free 800-336-7323 (Outside the U.S. and Canada, call 302-731-1600)
Join IRA and pay the member price—a 20% savings!

Don’t miss Maureen and Brenda’s K–5 and graphic organizers books!
Bundle pricing available at www.reading.org/cc-bundles
108