Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Maintaining Cognitively Challenging Discourse Through Student Silence

  • Received : 2020.05.18
  • Accepted : 2020.06.17
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Student engagement in high-level, cognitively demanding instruction is pivotal for student learning. However, many teachers are unable to maintain such instruction, especially in instances of non-responsive students. This case study of three middle school teachers explores prompts that aim to move classroom discussions past student silence. Prompt sequences were categorized into Progressing, Focusing, and Redirecting Actions, and then analyzed for maintenance of high levels of cognitive demand. Results indicate that specific prompt types are prone to either raise or diminish the cognitive demand of a discussion. While Focusing Actions afforded students opportunities to process information on a more meaningful level, Progressing Actions typically lowered cognitive demand in an effort to get through mathematics content or a specific method or procedure. Prompts that raise cognitive demand typically start out as procedural or concrete and progress to include students' thoughts or ideas about mathematical concepts. This study aims to discuss five specific implications on how teachers can use prompting techniques to effectively maintain cognitively challenging discourse through moments of student silence.

Keywords

References

  1. Adhami, M. (2001). Responsive questioning in a mixed‐ability group. Support for learning, 16(1), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.00182
  2. Almeida, P. A. (2010). Can I ask a question? The importance of classroom questioning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 634-638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.116
  3. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. The Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608-645.
  4. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers' classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 119-156.
  5. Brodie, K. (2010). Working with learners' mathematical thinking: Towards a language of description for changing pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 174-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.014
  6. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
  7. Course, S. (2014). ELT students' use of teacher questions in peer teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 331-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.096
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
  9. Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: the importance of the F‐move. ELT Journal, 56(2), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.2.117
  10. Drageset, O. G. (2013). Redirecting, progressing, and focusing actions-a framework for describing how teachers use students' comments to work with mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 281-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9515-1
  11. Drageset, O. G. (2014). Different types of student comments in the mathematics classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 38, 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.01.003
  12. Ellington, A. J. (2006). The effects of non-CAS graphing calculators on student achievement and attitude levels in mathematics: A meta-analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 106(1), 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18067.x
  13. Emanuelsson, J., & Sahlstrom, F. (2008). The Price of participation: Teacher control versus student participation in classroom interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(2), 205-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830801915853
  14. 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. 225-256). Information Age Publishing.
  15. Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students' mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109339906
  16. Gal, H., Lin, F.L., & Ying, J.M. (2009). Listen to the silence: The left-behind phenomenon as seen through classroom videos and teachers' reflections. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 405-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9139-6
  17. Haavold, P. (2010). What characterises high achieving students' mathematical reasoning? The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics. Sense Publishers.
  18. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524-549. https://doi.org/10.2307/749690
  19. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2005). Questioning our patterns of questioning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(9), 484-489. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.10.9.0484
  20. Kessler, A. M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Cognitive demand of model tracing tutor tasks: conceptualizing and predicting how deeply students engage. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9242-4
  21. Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 87-163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_4
  22. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2
  23. Marzban, A., Yaqoubi, B., & Qalandari, M. (2013). ISRF Sequences and their anti-pedagogical value. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 949-955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.143
  24. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  25. Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & Gnisci, A. (2013). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: the many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 414-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02071.x
  26. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
  27. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
  28. Stein, M. K., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455
  29. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1380361960020103
  30. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
  31. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12-17.
  32. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869951
  33. Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80001-4
  34. Wiebe Berry, R. A., & Kim, N. (2008). Exploring teacher talk during mathematics instruction in an inclusion classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(6), 363-378. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.6.363-378
  35. Wilhelm, A. G. (2014). Mathematics teachers' enactment of cognitively demanding tasks: Investigating links to teachers' knowledge and conceptions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 636-674. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.5.0636
  36. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002131
  37. 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.
  38. Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1998). The interactive constitution of mathematical meaning in one second grade classroom: An illustrative example. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(4), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00003-6