Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 497–513 | Cite as

Including students’ diverse perspectives on classroom interactions into video-based professional development for teachers

  • Anna-Marietha Vogler
  • Susanne PredigerEmail author


Video is often used in professional development courses to sensitize mathematics teachers to students’ thinking and issues of classroom interaction. This article presents an approach that incorporates students’ perspectives on mathematics classroom interactions into video-based professional development in order to enhance teachers’ reflection on diverse awareness of students concerning demands within mathematics classroom interactions. This approach is theoretically justified by the empirical research on equal participation in classroom interaction and practically elaborated by video material from Grade 5 students. Empirical snapshots from design experiments with teachers demonstrate that teachers’ sensitivity can be enhanced.


Video-based professional development for teachers Classroom interaction Diverse perspectives Equity 



The research project InterPass (Interactive Procedures for Establishing Matches and Divergences in Linguistic and Microcultural Practices) was funded by the German Minis­try for Education and Research, BMBF in 2012–2016 (Grant 01JC1112; grant holders, Susanne Prediger and Uta Quasthoff). This paper goes beyond InterPass by exploring consequences for professional development. It was conducted in context of the DZLM, the German Center for Mathematics Teacher Education, founded by the Deutsche Telekom Foundation.


  1. Bauersfeld, H., Krummheuer, G., & Voigt, J. (1985). Interactional theory of learning and teaching mathematics and related microethnographical studies. In H. G. Steiner & H. Vermandel (Eds.), Foundations and methodology of the discipline mathematics education (didactics of mathematics) (pp. 174–188). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control (Volume I): Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M. G., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for Education Research Online, 5(1), 90–114.Google Scholar
  4. Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohnsack, R. (2009). The interpretation of pictures and the documentary method. Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung, 34(2), 296–321.Google Scholar
  6. Bourne, J. (2003). Vertical discourse: The role of the teacher in the transmission and acquisition of decontextualised language. European Educational Research Journal, 2(4), 496–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Using video in teacher education. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, D., Clarke, B., & Roche, A. (2011). Building teachers’ expertise in understanding, assessing and developing children’s mathematical thinking: The power of task-based, one-to-one interviews. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(6), 901–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1998). A constructivist perspective on the culture of the mathematics classroom. In F. Seeger, J. Voigt, & U. Waschescio (Eds.), The culture of the mathematics classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. DIME - Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for Learning and Teaching, (2007). Culture, race, power in mathematics education. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 405–433). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  13. Empson, S. B., & Jacobs, V. J. (2008). Learning to Listen to Children’s Mathematics. In T. Wood & P. Sullivan (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 257–281). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  14. Erath, K., & Prediger, S. (2014). Mathematical practices as underdetermined learning goals: The case of explaining diagrams. In S. Oesterle, P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 3, pp. 17–24). Vancouver, Canada: PME.Google Scholar
  15. Gellert, U., & Hümmer, A.-M. (2008). Soziale Konstruktion von Leistung im Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 11(2), 288–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research: The design, development and evaluation of programs, processes and products (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Greeno, J. G., & Gresalfi, M. S. (2008). Opportunities to learn in practice and identity. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 170–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heller, V. (2015). Academic discourse practices in action: Invoking discursive norms in mathematics and language lessons. Linguistics and Education, 31(1), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Choppin, J., Wagner, D., & Pimm, D. (Eds.). (2012). Equity in discourse for mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Steele, M. D., & Cirillo, M. (2013). (Developing) teacher discourse moves: A framework for professional development. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1(2), 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.Google Scholar
  22. Jablonka, E. (2003). The structure of mathematics lessons in german classrooms: Variations on a theme. Paper presented as part of the SIG-symposium “mathematics lessons in Germany, Japan, the USA and Australia: Structure in diversity and diversity in structure” at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April, 2003.Google Scholar
  23. Jungwirth, H., Steinbring, H., Voigt, J., & Wollring, B. (2001). Interpretative classroom research in teacher education. In H. G. Weigand, A. Peter-Koop, N. Neill, K. Reiss, G. Törner, & B. Wollring (Eds.), Developments in mathematics education in Germany (pp. 46–56). Hildesheim: Franzbecker.Google Scholar
  24. Krummheuer, G. (2011). Representation of the notion “learning-as-participation” in everyday situations of mathematics classes. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(1/2), 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lave, W., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morgan, C., Tsatsaroni, A., & Lerman, S. (2002). Mathematics teachers’ positions and practice in discourses of assessment. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23, 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prediger, S., & Erath, K. (2014). Content or Interaction, or both? Synthesizing two German traditions in a video study on learning to explain in mathematics classroom microcultures. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(4), 313–327. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2014.1085a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prediger, S., Quasthoff, U., Vogler, A.-M., & Heller, V. (2015). How to elaborate what teachers should learn? Five steps for content specification of professional development programs, exemplified by “moves supporting participation in classroom discussions". Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 36(2), 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prediger, S., Schnell, S., & Rösike, K.-A. (2016). Design Research with a focus on content-specific professionalization processes: The case of noticing students’ potentials. Paper presented at the ERME Topic Conference on Teacher Education, Berlin. (To appear in HAL Archive, Online under
  33. Quasthoff, U., Heller, V., Prediger, S., & Erath, K. (submitted). Classroom interaction from the perspectives of interactional discourse analysis and subject matter education. Submitted manuscript.Google Scholar
  34. Santagata, R. (2009). Designing video-based professional development for mathematics teachers in low performing schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Santagata, R., & Yeh, C. (2016). The role of perception, interpretation, and decision making in the development of beginning teachers’ competence. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(1), 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scherer, P., & Steinbring, H. (2006). Noticing children’s learning processes—Teachers jointly reflect on their own classroom interaction for improving mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(2), 157–185. doi: 10.1007/s10857-006.Google Scholar
  37. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Noticing matters. A lot. Now what? In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 223–238). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Schütte, M., & Kaiser, G. (2011). Equity and the quality of the language used in mathematics education. In B. Atweh, M. Graven, W. Secada, & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 237–251). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Seago, N. M. (2000). Using video of classroom practice as a tool to study and improve teaching. In E. Silver (Ed.), Mathematics education in the middle grades: Teaching to meet the needs of middle grades learners and to maintain high expectations (pp. 63–74). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sherin, M. G. (2004). New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  41. Sherin, M. G. (2007). The Development of Teachers’ Professional Vision in Video Clubs. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 383–395). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37. doi: 10.1177/0022487108328155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strähler-Pohl, H., Fernández, S., Gellert, U., & Figueiras, L. (2014). School mathematics registers in a context of low academic expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85, 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  47. Vogler, A.-M. (2015). What really counts in mathematical communication. Reconstruction of teachers’ professional vision concerning important aspects of classroom interactions. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), CERME9. Proceedings of the ninth congress of the european society for research in mathematics education (pp. 1510–1516). Prague: Charles University / ERME.Google Scholar
  48. Vogler, A.-M., Prediger, S., Quasthoff U., & Heller, V. (submitted). Students’ and teachers’ focus of attention in classroom interaction – subtle sources for the reproduction of social disparities. Submitted manuscript.Google Scholar
  49. Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergemce of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 163–201). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Language, social class and underachievement in mathematics. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in teaching mathematics (pp. 38–50). London: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty IVUniversity SiegenSiegenGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Development and Research in Mathematics EducationTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations