ZDM

, Volume 47, Issue 7, pp 1269–1283 | Cite as

Combining scaffolding for content and scaffolding for dialogue to support conceptual breakthroughs in understanding probability

Original Article

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the relationship between scaffolding, dialogue, and conceptual breakthroughs, using data from a design-based research study that focuses on the development of understanding of probability in 10–12 year old students. The aim of the study is to gain insight into how the combination of scaffolding for content using technology and scaffolding for dialogue can facilitate conceptual breakthroughs. We analyse video-recordings and transcripts of pairs and triads of students solving problems using the TinkerPlots software with teacher interventions, focusing on moments of conceptual breakthrough. Data show that dialogue scaffolding promotes both dialogue moves specific to the context of probability and dialogue in itself. This paper focuses on episodes of learning that occur within dialogues framed and supported by dialogue scaffolding. We present this as support for our claim that combining scaffolding for content and scaffolding for dialogue can be effective in students’ conceptual development. This finding contributes to our understanding of both scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education by suggesting that scaffolding can be used effectively to prepare for conceptual development through dialogue.

Keywords

Scaffolding Dialogue Probability Technology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme to S. Kazak and R. Wegerif. We would also like to acknowledge the generous support of the schools, teachers and students who worked with us on this project.

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (trans: Emerson, C., & Holquist, M.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (trans: McGee, V. W.) Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Zvi, D. (2006). Scaffolding students’ informal inference and argumentation. In A. Rossman & B. Chance (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference on teaching of statistics (CD-ROM), Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 2–7 July, 2006. Voorburg: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 21–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2000). Thinking together: a programme of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8–11. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds.Google Scholar
  7. Dillon, J. T. (Ed.). (1988). Questioning and discussion: a multidisciplinary study. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  8. Fernández, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. M. (2001). Re-conceptualizing “scaffolding” and the zone proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36, 40–54.Google Scholar
  9. Fitzallen, N., & Watson, J. (2010). Developing statistical reasoning facilitated by TinkerPlots. In C. Reading (Ed.), Proceedings of the eight international conference for teaching statistics. Lbjubjana: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2005). Conditions for promoting reasoning in problem solving: insights from a longitudinal study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horvath, J., & Lehrer, R. (1998). A model-based perspective on the development of children’s understanding of chance and uncertainty. In S. P. LaJoie (Ed.), Reflections on statistics: agendas for learning, teaching, and assessment in K-12 (pp. 121–148). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Kazak, S., Wegerif, R., & Fujita, T. (2013). ‘I get it now!’ Stimulating insights about probability through talk and technology. Mathematics Teaching, 235, 29–32.Google Scholar
  14. Kazak, S., Wegerif, R., & Fujita, T. (2015). The importance of dialogic processes to conceptual development in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics,. doi:10.1007/s10649-015-9618-y.Google Scholar
  15. Konold, C. (1989). Informal conceptions of probability. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 59–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Konold, C., Harradine, A., & Kazak, S. (2007). Understanding distributions by modeling them. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Konold, C. & Kazak, S. (2008). Reconnecting data and chance. Technology innovations in statistics education, vol. 2. http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclastat/cts/tise/vol2/iss1/art1. Accessed 10 December 2008.
  18. Konold, C. & Miller, C. D. (2011). TinkerPlots2.0: dynamic data exploration. Emeryville: Key Curriculum.Google Scholar
  19. Konold, C., Pollatsek, A., Well, A., Lohmeier, J., & Lipson, A. (1993). Inconsistencies in probabilistic reasoning of novices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 392–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, H. S., Angotti, R. L., & Tarr, J. (2010). Making comparisons between observed data and expected outcomes: students’ informal hypothesis testing with probability simulation tools. Statistics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 68–96.Google Scholar
  21. Makar, K., Bakker, A., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2011). The reasoning behind informal statistical inference. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13, 152–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polaki, M. V. (2002). Using instruction to identify key features of Basotho elementary students’ growth in probabilistic thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pratt, D. (2000). Making sense of the total of two dice. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 602–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pratt, D., Johnston-Wilder, P., Ainley, J., & Mason, J. (2008). Local and global thinking in statistical inference. Statistics Education Research Journal, 7(2), 107–129.Google Scholar
  27. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rojas-Drummond, S. M., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smit, J. & Van Eerde, H. A. A. (2011). A teacher’s learning process in dual design research: learning to scaffold language in a multilingual mathematics classroom, ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43, 889–900.Google Scholar
  31. Smit, J., Van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39, 817–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (trans: Kozulin, A.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Watson, J. M., & Moritz, J. B. (2003). A longitudinal study of students’ beliefs and strategies for making judgments. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 270–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic, education and technology: expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wegerif, R. (2011). From dialectic to dialogic: a response to Wertsch and Kazak. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theorizing practice: theories of learning and research into instruction practice (pp. 201–222). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: education for the internet age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationPamukkale UniversityDenizliTurkey
  2. 2.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations