Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 65–80 | Cite as

How are questions that students ask in high level mathematics classes linked to general giftedness?

  • Roza Leikin
  • Boris Koichu
  • Avi Berman
  • Sariga Dinur
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper presents a part of a larger study, in which we asked “How are learning and teaching of mathematics at high level linked to students’ general giftedness?” We consider asking questions, especially student-generated questions, as indicators of quality of instructional interactions. In the part of the study presented in this paper, we explore instructional interactions in two high-school classes for mathematically promising students with specific focus on questions that students ask. The first class included generally gifted students (IQ ≥130) who were motivated to study mathematics at a high level (hereafter, a gifted class), and the second class included students characterized by high motivation regardless of their IQs (hereafter, motivation class). We analysed questions asked by the students during algebra and geometry lessons. Two types of questions are considered: elaboration and clarification. We found that students in a gifted class mostly asked elaboration questions, whereas students in a motivation class mostly asked clarification questions. We connect the revealed inclination to ask elaboration questions with intellectual curiosity that characterizes generally gifted students. Accordingly, we suggest that in classes of students who are motivated to study mathematics at high level, students who are generally gifted may create mathematical discourse of higher quality. We also argue that the identified differences in students’ questions observed in classes of different types are not only student-dependent (i.e. depend on the students’ levels of general giftedness) but can also be teacher-related and content-related.

Keywords

Students’ questions Mathematical promise Motivation General giftedness Learning mathematics at high level 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Almeida, A. P. (2012). Can I ask a question? The importance of classroom questioning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 634–638.Google Scholar
  2. Bauersfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematicsteaching (Vol. 1, pp. 27–46). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  3. Chin, C. (2004). Students’ questions: Fostering a culture of inquisitiveness in science classrooms. School Science Review, 86(314), 107–112.Google Scholar
  4. Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2005). What do pupils think of open science investigations? A study of Singaporean primary 6 pupils. Educational Research, 47(1), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and BacOn.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and BacOn.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Forman, E. A., & Ansell, E. (2001). The multiple voices of a mathematics classroom community. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. House, P. A. (Ed.). (1987). Providing opportunities for the mathematically gifted K—12. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  14. Intel Teach Program (2016). Designing effective projects: questioning—The Socratic questioning technique. Retrieved on May 14, 2016 from http://www.intel.com/
  15. Kilpatrick, J. (2014). History of research in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 267–272). Berlin: Springer (Electronic Version).Google Scholar
  16. Knuth, E. (2002). Fostering mathematical curiosity. Mathematics Teacher, 95, 126–130.Google Scholar
  17. Leder, G. (2012). Looking for gold: Catering for mathematically gifted students within and beyond ZDM. In H. Forgasz & S. F. Rivera (Eds.), Toward equity: Gender, culture, and diversity (pp. 389–406). Advances in Mathematics Education Series, Part 3. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Leikin, R. (2005). Qualities of professional dialog: Connecting graduate research on teaching and the undergraduate teachers’ program. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(1–2), 237–256.Google Scholar
  19. Leikin, R. (2014). Giftedness and high ability in mathematics. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Electronic Version: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Leikin, R. & Berman, A. (2015). Mathematics for students with high mathematical potential in Israel. In B. R. Vogeli (Ed.), Special secondary schools for the mathematically talented: An international panorama (pp. 117–143). Series on Mathematics Education (Vol. 12). Denver: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  21. Leikin, R., & Dinur, S. (2007). Teacher flexibility in mathematical discussion. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(4), 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2013). Mathematical creativity in generally gifted and mathematically excelling adolescents: What makes the difference? ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leikin, R., Waisman, I., & Leikin, M. (2016). Does solving insight-based problems differ from solving learning-based problems? Some evidence from an ERP study. ZDM, 48(3), 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankine, S. C., et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  25. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mönks, F. J., Pflüger, R., & Nijmegen, Radboud Universiteit. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European countries: Inventory and perspective. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
  27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1995). Report of the NCTM task force on the mathematically promising. NCTM News Bulletin, 32.Google Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  29. Pedrosa de Jesus, M. H., Teixeira-Dias, J. J. C., & Watts, M. (2003). Questions of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1015–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332–357). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce’s claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1), 13–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheffield, L. J. (Ed.). (1999). Developing mathematically promising students. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  37. Sheffield, L. J. (2012). Mathematically gifted, talented, or promising: What difference does it make? The paper presented at the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education.Google Scholar
  38. Shodell, M. (1995). The question-driven classroom. American Biology Teachers, 57(5), 278–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Subotnik, R. F., Pillmeier, E., & Jarvin, L. (2009). The psychosocial dimensions of creativity in mathematics: Implications for gifted education policy. In R. Leikin, A. Berman & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 165–179).‏ The Netherland: Sense.Google Scholar
  41. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–21). Washington, DC: AAAS Press.Google Scholar
  42. Vogeli, B. R. (Ed.). (2015). Special secondary schools for the mathematically talented: An international panorama. Series on Mathematics Education (Vol. 12). Denver: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  43. Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interactions and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), Emergence of mathematical meaning: Interactions in classroom culture (pp. 163–201). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Watts, D. M. & Alsop, S. (1996). The QUESTCUP Project: a study of pupils’ questions for conceptual understanding. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York, AprilGoogle Scholar
  46. Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing. In H. Steinbring, A. Sierpinska & M. G. Bartolini-Bussi (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  47. Zoller, U. (1987). The fostering of question-asking capability: A meaningful aspect of problem-solving in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 510–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roza Leikin
    • 1
  • Boris Koichu
    • 2
  • Avi Berman
    • 3
  • Sariga Dinur
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Faculty of Education in Science and TechnologyTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Faculty of MathematicsTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  4. 4.Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options