Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CGI Teachers’ Patterns of Interacting with Male and Female Students During Their First and Second Years of Practice

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reports on an exploratory study of the shifts of teachers’ interactions with boys from their first to their second year of using cognitively guided instruction (CGI) in their math instruction. Interaction analysis was used to analyze 22 videos, two per each of 11 teachers, who applied CGI instruction in their classrooms (a) after participating in a CGI professional development program (year 1) and (b) after practicing CGI for one year (year 2). In the eleven year 1 videos, some teachers differentiated their attention to boys and girls based on two kinds of interactions: (a) during one-to-one interactions, teachers tended to distribute their attention more to boys as compared to girls; often, that attention was unevenly distributed among boys with some boys receiving more attention than others; and (b) during whole group interactions, teachers tended to ask more boys than girls to share their strategies. In the eleven year 2 videos, some noticeable shifts occurred: (a) during one-to-one interactions, teachers tended to distribute their attention to boys and girls and among students in more balanced patterns than during the previous year; and (b) during whole group interactions, teachers tended to balance how often they called on boys and girls to share. Microanalysis of selected episodes suggests that both shifts coincided with teachers’ adapting their teaching to be more aligned with CGI principles of instruction, such as attending to students’ mathematical thinking processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data and materials support our published claims and comply with the field’s standards.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Al-Shammari, Z. N., Faulkner, P. E., & Forlin, C. (2019). Theories-based inclusive education practices. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(2), 408–414. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.02.73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altermatt, E. R., Jovanovic, J., & Perry, M. (1998). Bias or responsivity? Sex and achievement-level effects on teachers’ classroom questioning practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 516–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, S. M. (1993). The current status of gender equity research in American schools. Educational Psychologist, 28(4), 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2006). Differential teacher attention to boys and girls in the classroom. Educational Review, 58(3), 339–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (2014, April, 28). Changing the conversation about girls and STEM. The White House. Retrieved from. http://www.youcubed.org/wp-content/uploads/Youcubed-STEM-white-house.pdf

  • Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, T. P. (1985). Learning to add and subtract: An exercise in problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 17–40). Routledge.

  • Carpenter, T. P., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Cognitively guided instruction: Challenging the core of educational practice. In T. K. Glennan, S. J. Bodilly, J. Galegher, & K. A. Kerr (Eds.), Expanding the reach of education reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational Interventions (pp. 41–80). Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/461846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction. Heinemann.

  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (2000). Cognitively Guided Instruction: A research-based teacher PD program for elementary school mathematics [Report No. NCISLA-RR-00–3]. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin, School of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED470472

  • Carpenter, T. P., Ansell, E., & Levi, L. (2014). An alternative conception of teaching for understanding: Case studies of two first-grade mathematics classes. In T. Wood, B. S. Nelson, & J. E., Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 41–60). Routledge.

  • Carr, M., & Jessup, D. L. (1997). Gender differences in first-grade mathematics strategy use: Social and metacognitive influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copur-Gencturk, Y., Thacker, I., & Quinn, D. (2021). K-8 teachers’ overall and gender-specific beliefs about mathematical aptitude. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(6), 1251–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10104-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, J., Warren, K., & Walsh, M. (2001). Classroom interactions: Gender of teacher, gender of student, and classroom Subject. Sex Roles, 45(9), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014892408105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S. (1989). Bringing young women to math and science. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 36–58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3588-0_3

  • Felton-Koestler, M. D. (2017). Mathematics education as sociopolitical: Prospective teachers’ views of the What, Who, and How. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9315-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E. (2000). Gender and mathematics: What is known and what do I wish was known. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Forum of the National Institute for Science Education.

  • Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P. (1998). New perspectives on gender differences in mathematics: An introduction. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. L. (1985). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of sex-related differences in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(3), 309–311. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3482624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Lubinski, C. A. (1990). Teachers’ attributions and beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00311015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., & Empson, S. (1996). Learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction: A longitudinal study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. W. (1998a). A longitudinal study of gender differences in young children’s mathematical thinking. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. W. (1998b). New perspectives on gender differences in mathematics: A reprise. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 19–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding teachers’ self-sustaining, generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2005). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Routledge.

  • Gal, H. (2022). Nurturing autonomous learners: From small-step teaching to generic questions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 1247–1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10203-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glock, S., & Kleen, H. (2017). Gender and student misbehavior: Evidence from implicit and explicit measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62(1–2), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grier-Reed, T., & Williams-Wengerd, A. (2018). Integrating universal design, culturally sustaining practices, and constructivism to advance inclusive pedagogy in the undergraduate classroom. Education Sciences, 8(4), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (2016). Interaction analysis approaches to knowledge in use. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & N. J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 72–108). Routledge.

  • Hand, S., Rice, L., & Greenlee, E. (2017). Exploring teachers’ and students’ gender role bias and students’ confidence in STEM fields. Social Psychology of Education, 20(4), 929–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9408-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S., & Jaffee, S. (1998). Perspectives from social and feminist psychology. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 14–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K. (2004). A meta-analytic perspective on sex equity in the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 443–471. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinser-Traut, J. Y., & Turner, E. E. (2020). Shared authority in the mathematics classroom: Successes and challenges throughout one teacher’s trajectory implementing ambitious practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-018-9410-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.

  • Lehman, C. (2012). We’ve come a long way! Maybe! Re-imagining gender and accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(2), 256–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571211198764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCEE (2013, September). Instructional practices and student math achievement: Correlations from a study of math curricula [Report No. NCEE 2013–4020]. IES National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544189.pdf

  • Nodding, N. (1998). Perspectives from feminist philosophy. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 17–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, T. (1992). Ethnomathematics and everyday cognition. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 557–1571). Macmillan.

  • Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teacher’s pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramis-Conde, I., & Hope, A. (2020). PD teachers in maintaining equity in the micro-moments of a mathematical dialogue. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, B. (2008). “The world must stop when I’m talking”: Gender and power relations in primary teachers’ classroom talk. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 609–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2015). Being professional: Accountability and authority in teachers’ responses to science curriculum reform. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 87–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate School. The Phi Delta Kappan, 67(7), 512–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, R. C., Secada, W. G. & Tazaz, A. M. (June, 2015). Results after the first year of a randomized controlled trial of CGI. Paper presented at the biennial Cognitively Guided Instruction National Conference, Lawndale, CA.

  • Schoen, R. C., LaVenia, M., Champagne, Z. M., Farina, K. & Tazaz, A. M. (2016). Mathematics performance and cognition (MPAC) interview: Measuring first-and second-grade student achievement in number, operations, and equality in spring 2015 [Report No. 2016–02]. Florida State University Libraries.

  • Schoen, R. C., LaVenia, M., Tazaz, A., Farina, K., Dixon, J. K. & Secada, W. G. (2020). Replicating the CGI experiment in diverse environments: Effects on grade 1 and 2 student mathematics achievement in the first program year (Research Report No. 2020–02). Florida State University. https://doi.org/10.33009/fsu.1601237075

  • Serbin, L. A., O’Leary, K. D., Kent, R. N., & Tonick, I. J. (1973). A comparison of teacher response to the preacademic and problem behavior of boys and girls. Child Development, 44(4), 796–804. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharrock, D., & Rubenstein, R. (2019). Student–centered practices for student mathematical agency and engagement. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions (pp. 151–168). Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sidnell, J. (2011). Conversation analysis: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/miami/detail.action?docID=534006

  • Sowder, J. T. (1998). Perspectives from mathematics education. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 12–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staats, C. (2016). Understanding implicit bias: What educators should know. American Educator, 39(4), 29–43. http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, D. F. (2001). The Interfacing of Preservice and Inservice Experiences of Reform-Based Teaching: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(2), 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011436116480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, R. M., Empson, S. B., & Carpenter, T. P. (2004). Inquiry into children’s mathematical thinking as a means to teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 237–267. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMTE.0000033083.04005.d3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, J. (2002). A body and its gestures. Gesture, 2(1), 19–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., Carothers, J., & Myers, K. (2018). The preparation experiences of elementary mathematics specialists: Examining influences on beliefs, content knowledge, and teaching practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-016-9354-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swars Auslander, S., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., & Myers, K. (2020). A case study of elementary teacher candidates’ preparation for a high stakes teacher performance assessment. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(3), 269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vander Heyden, K. M., van Atteveldt, N. M., Huizinga, M., & Jolles, J. (2016). Implicit and explicit gender beliefs in spatial ability: Stronger stereotyping in boys than girls. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Turrou, A. C., Johnson, N. C., & Zimmerman, J. (2019). Teacher practices that promote productive dialogue and learning in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 176–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A. E., Balgopal, M. M., & Sample McMeeking, L. B. (2021). Professional growth and identity development of STEM teacher educators in a community of practice. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbeck, L. (1992). Teachers’ thoughts about children during mathematics instruction [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Robert Schoen (PI and Director), Amanda Tazazz, and Kristopher Childs for videotaping the corpus videos used in this study and to thank them for their overall support. Uma Gadge, Naomi Iuhasz, and Qiuqing Zhang have coded the videos; some of these codes helped as anchors for the construction of the visual graphics described in this study. Also, many thanks to Changzhao Wang and Lei Sun for their feedback on the study while the data analyses were being carried out. We are grateful to the three reviewers who dedicated their time and effort towards valuable suggestions, helping us to improve the quality of this manuscript. We’d like to dedicate this study to Elizabeth Fennema upon whose pioneering work on gender differences in mathematics and as a co-creator of CGI this study rests.

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the Institute for Education Sciences through Award Numbers R305A120781 and R305A180429 and by the United States Department of Education through Award Number U423A180115, all to Florida State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Miami, Coral Gables, USA

    Maria Kolovou, Hua Ran & Walter Secada

Authors
  1. Maria Kolovou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hua Ran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Walter Secada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Kolovou.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate

This work was conducted under the oversight of the University of Miami IRB through protocol numbers 20120677, 20181099 and the Florida State University IRB through protocol numbers 2018.23852 and 2019.27476. Informed consent was obtained from all teacher participants included in the study.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kolovou, M., Ran, H. & Secada, W. CGI Teachers’ Patterns of Interacting with Male and Female Students During Their First and Second Years of Practice. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 21, 1451–1472 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10314-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10314-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation