Student and teacher interventions: a framework for analysing mathematical discourse in the classroom
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Ove Gunnar Drageset
- 关键词：Communication ; Discourse ; Interaction ; Conversation ; IRE ; Focusing ; Funnelling
- 刊名：Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education
- 出版年：2015
- 出版时间：June 2015
- 年：2015
- 卷：18
- 期：3
- 页码：253-272
- 全文大小：423 KB
- 参考文献：Alr?, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education: Intention, reflection, critique. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Brendefur, J., & Frykholm, J. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: Two preservice teachers-conceptions and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(2), 125-53. doi:10.-023/?a:-009947032694 .View Article
Brousseau, G., & Balacheff, N. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann, London.
Cengiz, N., Kline, K., & Grant, T. (2011). Extending students-mathematical thinking during whole-group discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(5), 1-0. doi:10.-007/?s10857-011-9179-7 .
Chamberlin, M. T. (2005). Teachers-discussions of students-thinking: Meeting the challenge of attending to students-thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(2), 141-70.View Article
Drageset, O. G. (2009). Exploring mathematical knowledge for teaching. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou & C. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematical Education (Vol. 2, pp. 473-80).
Drageset, O. G. (2010). The interplay between the beliefs and the knowledge of mathematics teachers. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development Journal, 12(1).
Drageset, O. G. (2013). Different types of student comments in the mathematics classroom (Submitted for review).
Drageset, O. G. (2014). Redirecting, progressing, and focusing actions—a framework for describing how teachers use students-comments to work with mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 281-04.
Fraivillig, J. L., Murphy, L. A., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 148.View Article
Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225-56). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: principles in practice. London: Routledge.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., eta l. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Klette, K. (2010). Blindness to change within processes of spectacular change? What do educational researchers learn from classroom studies? In A. Hargreaves, A. Liebermann, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (Vol. 2, pp. 1001-015). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.View Article
Learning Mathematics for Teaching project. (2006). A coding rubric for measuring the quality of mathematics in instruction. Technical report LMT1.06. Retrieved from http://?sitemaker.?umich.?edu/?lmt/?files/?LMT-QMI_?Description_?of_?codes.?doc .
Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(1), 25-7. doi:10.-007/?s10857-010-9140-1 .View Article
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.View Article
Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255-76.View Article
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 12-1.View Article
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.
NCTM. (2007). Mathematics teaching today: Improving practice, improving student learning (2nd ed.). T. S. Martin (Ed.) Reston, VA: Author.
Newman, D. (1990). Cognition, computing, and cooperation. In S. P. Robertson, W. Zachary, & J. B. Black (Eds.), Cognition, computing, and cooperation (pp. 84-4). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publ. Corp.
O’Keefe, C., & Clarke, D. (2006). Kikan-Shido: Between desks instructions. In D. Clarke, J. Emanuelsson, E. Jablonka, & I. A. C. Mok (Eds.), Making connections: Comparing mathematics classrooms around the world (pp. 73-06). Rotterdam: Sense.
Peterson, B. E., & Leatham, K. R. (2009). Learning to use students-mathematical thinking to orchestrate a class discussion. In L. Knott (Ed.), The role of - 作者单位：Ove Gunnar Drageset (1)
1. UIT, The Arctic University of Norway, Troms?, Norway - 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
- 刊物主题：Education
Teacher Education
Mathematics Education
Philosophy of Education - 出版者：Springer Netherlands
- ISSN：1573-1820
文摘
Mathematical discourse in the classroom has been conceptualised in several ways, from relatively general patterns such as initiation–response–evaluation (Cazden in classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning, Heinemann, London, 1988; Mehan in learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) to concepts for more fine-grained description such as the ‘Advancing Children’s Mathematics-framework (Fraivillig et al. in J Res Math Educ 30(2):148, 1999). This article suggests a framework to be used for detailed studies of mathematical discourse on a turn-by-turn basis. This framework was used to study how single turns affect each other to form patterns in one teacher’s practice. The method used belongs to conversation analysis: studying single turns and characterise these according to their role in the conversation. Two main repeating patterns were identified: one between student explanations and the teacher’s focusing actions, and the other between the teacher’s progressing actions and students-teacher-led responses. The findings also included other connections that demonstrate how various student interventions (explanations, teacher-led responses, unexplained answers, partial answers, and initiatives) are followed by different types of teacher actions. One implication is that, by developing concepts capable of describing qualities of a discourse on a turn-by-turn basis, it then becomes possible to analyse when mathematical talk fosters delivery of facts and when it fosters mathematical argumentation, debate, and critique.