Abstract
This chapter proposes an aspect of teacher noticing for equity, bringing together ideas from literature related to educational equity and to the social nature of teacher learning. It argues two points and offers methods for empirical study to investigate them. First, it argues for an important direction for the study of teacher noticing that supports equitable instruction: noticing of the social system of the classroom within which power dynamics operate. Second, it argues that the development of this type of noticing for equity can be supported through purposeful, work-embedded interactions. It offers methods for the study of this development, and exemplifies those methods using data from a case study of teacher learning through conversations with an instructional coach, which take place in the context of an equity-focused professional development project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
These processes are also deeply situated; they are done by individuals (alone or together), each of whom carry particular constellations of resources, orientations, and goals (Schoenfeld, 2010), and whom are embedded in classrooms, schools, local and extra-local cultural and historical contexts, each of which must bear heavily on noticing that takes place in classrooms. This chapter foregrounds processes of noticing as they take place in the context of teachers’ work-embedded interactions, and thus backgrounds psychological or cognitive conditions that undergird the noticing that takes place.
- 2.
Traditionally, researchers who have looked for a low-inference method for segmenting talk have used turns or grammatical structures such as sentences or phrases. Chafe (1994) introduced the idea that breath or meaning groups, segments of talk that take place between breaths taken by a speaker are units of talk that carry meaning for participants in conversation.
- 3.
One might also note that the amount of coded talk in each conversation is not consistent. In particular, there is much less coded talk in the third conversation. This happened because a larger part of the third conversation consisted of talk that did not give clear information related to these codes. Some examples of the types of talk that were not coded are when Mr. Shaw (1) reflected on the structure of the math task he used; (2) discussed individual students and his interpretations of their motivations as they related to his observations of their behaviors in the lesson; (3) talked about his need to plan future instruction and his struggles to meaningfully connect the mathematical content of his lessons to the other work that his students do; (4) brainstormed ideas for math activities for future lessons; and (5) reflected on those aspects of Complex Instruction that he found relatively easy compared with those that were more challenging for him.
References
Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting “relational equity” and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 167–194.
Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 171–200.
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.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, E. G. (1997). Equity in heterogeneous classrooms: A challenge for teachers and sociologists. In E. G. Cohen & R. A. Lotan (Eds.), Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice (pp. 3–14). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (Eds.). (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Scarloss, B. A., & Arellano, A. R. (1999). Complex instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 80–86.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60(3), 135–155.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
Grossman, P. L., Wineburg, S. S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012.
Gutiérrez, R. (2002). Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Toward a new equity research agenda. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 145–187.
Gutiérrez, R. (2007). Context matters: Equity, success, and the future of mathematics education. In T. Lamberg & L. R. Wiest (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 1–18). University of Nevada, Reno.
Gutiérrez, R. (2008). A “Gap-Gazing” fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on the achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 357–364.
Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 37–68.
Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the Job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207–236.
Horn, I. S. (2007). Fast kids, slow kids, lazy kids: Framing the mismatch problem in mathematics teachers’ conversations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 37–79.
Horn, I. S. (2008). Turnaround students in high school mathematics: Constructing identities of competence through mathematical worlds. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(3), 201–239.
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., Philipp, R. A., & Schappelle, B. P. (2011). Deciding how to respond on the basis of children’s understandings. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 97–116). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kazemi, E., Elliott, R., Mumme, J., Carroll, C., Lesseig, K., & Kelley-Petersen, M. (2011). Noticing leaders’ thinking about videocases of teachers engaged in mathematics tasks in professional development. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 188–203). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917–946.
Louie, N. (2016). Tensions in equity- and reform-oriented learning in teachers’ collaborative conversations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53(1), 10–19.
Martin, D. B. (2003). Hidden assumptions and unaddressed questions in mathematics for all rhetoric. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 7–21.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143–179.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003).
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153–222.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic Press.
Pescarmona, I. (2010). Complex instruction: Managing professional development and school culture. Intercultural Education, 21(3), 219–227.
Schoenfeld, A. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.
Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York: Routledge.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. (DGE 1106400) and by the Institute of Education Sciences under Grant No. (R305B090026). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of the Institute of Education Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baldinger, E.M. (2017). “Maybe It’s a Status Problem.” Development of Mathematics Teacher Noticing for Equity. In: Schack, E., Fisher, M., Wilhelm, J. (eds) Teacher Noticing: Bridging and Broadening Perspectives, Contexts, and Frameworks. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46753-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46753-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46752-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46753-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)