Communications of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈E:수학교육논문집)

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

DOI QR Code

Exploration of Teacher Questions and Discourse Types in Chinese Mathematics Classrooms

중국 수학 교실에서 교사 발문과 담화 유형에 대한 탐색

  • Received : 2022.10.17
  • Accepted : 2022.11.30
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze classroom discourse in the math classroom of middle school in China, which has a unique math classroom background of entrance examination for high school. To this end, this study analyzed teacher question statistics and episodes by teacher question type as starting speech in mathematics classroom discourse, and five IRF subtypes were especially identified by class discourse structure analysis. The data were analyzed focusing on a total of 15 transcripts of math classes recorded by three math teachers at H School in Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China, and written interviews of teachers. According to the results of this study, an average of 20 teacher questions were observed for each class, and the teacher question type was classified into confirmation question (understanding confirmation question, explanation request question, and double check question) and information question (information presentation question). In addition, according to classroom discourse analysis, the IRF discourse structure was divided into fragmentary evaluation, evaluation+reason, evidence of explanation, evaluation+student response re-statement, guidance on other thoughts or solutions, and student answer correction or teacher opinion presentation.

본 연구는 고등학교 진학을 위한 입시라는 독특한 수학 교실 배경이 있는 중국 중학교 수학 교실에서 일어나는 교실 담화를 분석하는데 목적이 있다. 이를 위하여 본 연구에서는 수학 교실 담화를 시작 발화로서 교사 발문 통계와 교사 발문 유형별 에피소드를 분석하였고, 교실 담화 구조 분석으로는 특히 다섯 가지 IRF 하위 유형을 밝혀낼 수 있었다. 중국 귀주성 귀양시에 위치한 H학교에 재직 중인 세 명의 수학 교사가 녹화했던 수학 수업 총 15개의 녹취록과 교사 서면 인터뷰 내용을 중심으로 자료를 분석하였다. 본 연구 결과를 보면, 차시별로 평균 20개 교사 발문이 관찰되었고 교사 발문의 사회적 스케폴딩 역할이 있었으며, 교사 발문 유형은 확인형 발문(이해확인 발문, 설명요구 발문, 상세요구 발문, 재확인 발문)과 정보형 발문(정보제시 발문)으로 분류되었다. 그리고 교실 담화 분석에 따르면 IR형 담화 구조는 거의 관찰되지 않았으며, IRF형 담화 구조의 경우는 단편적인 평가, 평가 및 이유, 근거 설명, 평가 및 학생 반응 재진술, 다른 사고나 해법 안내, 그리고 학생 답 수정이나 교사 의견 제시로 구분되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Kwon, N., & Min, Y. (2003). The effects of questioning types on academic achievement by cognitive styles. Korean As ociation for Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 6, 171-190.
  2. Kong, H. (2018). A study on the analysis of teachers' questions in the korean classroom for academic purposes-focusing on problem-based instruction. The Society of Korean Language Education, 29(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.18209/iakle.2018.29.3.1
  3. Kim, D. (2007). Overcoming framing-difference between teacher and students: An analysis of argumentation in mathematics classroom. The Mathematical Education, 46(2), 173-192.
  4. Kim, M., & Song, S. (2011). Analysis on teacher's discourse in math gifted class in elementary schools using Flanders interaction analysis program. Korea Society of Elementary Mathematics Education, 15(2), 385-415.
  5. Kim, S. (2017). A Study on the teachers' questioning type in the lesson scripts. The Convergent Research Society Among Humanities, Sociology, Science, and Technology, 7(12), 205-216.
  6. Kim, S., & Pang, J. (2010). An analysis of mathematics instruction focused on discourse-based communication. Korea Society of Elementary Mathematics Education, 14(3), 523-545.
  7. Kim, Y. (2017). An analysis of teacher questions presented in the elementary English school teachers' guide based on the 2009 revised national curriculum. The Korea English Education Society, 16(1), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.18649/jkees.2017.16.1.107
  8. Kim, J. (2015). A study on the development of the classroom assessment tool for primary teaching English in English: Focus on classroom interaction. Primary English Education, 21(4), 223-245.
  9. Do, J. (2021). An analysis of types and functions of questions presented in data and chance area of elementary school mathematics textbooks. The Mathematical Education, 60(3), 265-279. https://doi.org/10.7468/MATHEDU.2021.60.3.265
  10. Park, D. (2008). Inquiry into directions of classroom discourse analysis through Bakhtin's dialogicality. The Korean Society for the Study of Anthropology of Education, 11(1), 37-72.
  11. Lee, Y. (2007). Redesigning time-lined structure diagram analysis and active learning time diagram analysis for the consulting and self-analysis of teaching. The Korea As ociation of Yeolin Education, 15(2), 21-49.
  12. Jeon, J. (2019). The types and utilization of questions by grade cluster through the analysis of primary English classes. Studies in Foreign Language Education, 33(3), 227-259. https://doi.org/10.16933/sfle.2019.33.3.227
  13. Cho, Y., & Shin, H. (2010). Analysis of pattern of mathematical interaction occurring in the elementary school mathematics classrooms. Korea Society of Elementary Mathematics Education, 14(3), 681-700.
  14. Cho, H., & Kwon, O., & Bae, Y. (2014). Analyzing research trend of interaction in mathematics classroom in Korea. Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction, 14(6), 363-387.
  15. Han, S., & Jung, J. (2011). Classroom discourse analysis between teacher and students in science classroom. Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 159-172.
  16. Choi, M. (2004). A study of the educational beliefs of early childhood teachers according to career and type of institute. The Korean Society for Early Childho d Education, 24(1), 29-47.
  17. Hwang, P., & Sung M. (2020). Classroom discourses in primary English 6th-Grade teachers' guides. Korea Insti ute for Cur iculum and Evaluation, 23(4), 19-38.
  18. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2010). 교육의 질적 연구방법론. (조정수, 역). 경문사. (원문 출판 2007).
  19. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2010). Qualitative research education: A introduction to theories and methods. (Cho, C. Trans). Kyung Moon Sa. (Original work published in 2015).
  20. Cai, J., & Wang, T. (2010). Conceptions of effective mathematics teaching within a cultural context: Perspectives of teachers from China and the United States. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 265-287.
  21. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  22. DeJarnette, A. F., Wilke, E., & Hord, C. (2020). Categorizing mathematics teachers' questioning: The demands and contributions of teachers' questions. International Journal of Educational Research, 104, 1-20.
  23. Delice, A., Aydin, E., & Cevik, K. S. (2013). Mathematics teachers' use of questions: Is there a change of practice after the curriculum change? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(4), 417-427.
  24. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
  25. Fan, L., Wong, N. Y., Cai, J., & Li, S. (Eds.). (2004). How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders. Singapore: World Scientific Publishers.
  26. Fazio, L. K. (2019). Retrieval practice opportunities in middle school mathematics teachers' oral questions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 653-669. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12250
  27. 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). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  28. Hiebert, J., Callimore, R., Garnier, H., Givving, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., & Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMMSS 1999 video study. National Center for Education Statistics.
  29. Imm, K., & Stylianou, D. A. (2012). Talking mathematically: An analysis of discourse communities. J ournal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 130-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.10.001
  30. Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teacher questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long(Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  31. Manouchehri, A., & Lapp, D. A. (2003). Unveiling student understanding: The role of questioning in instruction. Mathematics Teacher, 96(8), 562-566. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.96.8.0562
  32. Mehan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. A. Van Dijk(Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 119-131). London: Academic Press.
  33. Nathan, M. J., & Kim, S. (2009). Regulation of teacher elicitations in the mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 91-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000902797304
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
  35. Neber, H. (2008). Epistemic questions: Fostering knowledge-generation by the students. The Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving. 18(1), 7-20.
  36. Ni, Y., Zhou, D., Li, X., & Li, Q. (2014). Relations of instructional tasks to teacher-student discourse in mathematics classrooms of Chinese primary schools. Cognition and Instruction, 32(1), 2-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.857319
  37. Reinholz, D. L., & Shah, N. (2018). Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying participation patterns in mathematics classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(2), 140-177. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.2.0140
  38. Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers' intentions and use of probing, guiding, and factual questions. J ournal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 221-2412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9071-2
  39. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560127
  40. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Spradley, J. P. (2006). Participant observation (Shin, J. Trans). Sigma Press.(Original work published in 1980).
  42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 272-285). Sage.
  43. Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (2001). Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives. The University of Hong Kong.
  44. Wood, T. (1998). Funneling or focusing? Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics class. In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bussi, A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167-178). NCTM.