Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 72, Issue 3, pp 307–324 | Cite as

Constructing mathematics in an interactive classroom context

  • Paul Ngee-Kiong LauEmail author
  • Parmjit Singh
  • Tee-Yong Hwa


This paper investigates the nature of the interaction between the teacher and students as they worked on different mathematics activities in a single classroom over a 10-month period. Sociocultural theories and the Vygotskian zone of proximal development provide the main framework for examining the teaching and learning processes and explaining the incorporation of a four-phase lesson plan as increasing participation of the teacher and students in the teaching and learning process. Drawing on the analyses of discourse from videotaped lessons and the interviews with the teacher and students, five different types of interactions that emphasized mathematical sense-making and justification of ideas and arguments were identified. Excerpts from transcriptions of such interactions are provided to illustrate the learning practices, either academic or non-academic, that students developed in response to these interactions.


Interactions Mathematics education Teaching Learning Vygotsky 


  1. Cobb, P., & Whitenack, W. (1996). A method for conducting longitudinal analyses of classroom video-recordings and transcripts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 213–228. doi: 10.1007/BF00304566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative of the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33. doi: 10.2307/749161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 331–343. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(84)90006-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forman, E. A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: Speaking, inscribing and doing mathematics within communities of practice. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 333–352). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  6. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  7. Goos, M. (2004). Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(4), 258–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  9. Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in everyday context (pp. 118–138). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kilpatrick, J. (1987). What constructivism might be in mathematics education. Proceedings of the Eleventh International conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, Montreal, 3–27.Google Scholar
  12. Martin, J. (1985). Reclaiming a conversation: The ideal of the educated woman. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 236–266. doi: 10.2307/749827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Richards, J. (1991). Mathematical discussions. In E. von Glaserfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 13–51). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2000). Purposes and methods of research in mathematics education. Notices of the AMS, 47(6), 641–649.Google Scholar
  18. Schwartz, J. L. (1994). The role of research in reforming mathematics education: A different approach, Chapter 1. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Searle, D. (1984). Scaffolding: Who’s building whose building? Language Arts, 61(5), 480–483.Google Scholar
  20. Sfard, A., Forman, E. A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Learning discourse: Sociocultural approaches to research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 1–11. doi: 10.1023/A:1014097416157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sternberg, R. (1994). Answering questions and questioning answers: Guiding children to intellectual excellence. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(2), 136–138.Google Scholar
  22. Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In C. A. Stone, N. Minick & E. A. Forman (Eds.), Context for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children development (pp. 169–183). New York: University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  24. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Ngee-Kiong Lau
    • 1
    Email author
  • Parmjit Singh
    • 1
  • Tee-Yong Hwa
    • 1
  1. 1.Universiti Teknologi MARAShah AlamMalaysia

Personalised recommendations