Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 183–199 | Cite as

Using collective argumentation to engage students in a primary mathematics classroom

  • Raymond Brown
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article focuses on using sociocultural theory to support student engagement with mathematics. The sociocultural approach used, collective argumentation (CA), is based on interactive principles necessary for coordinating student engagement in the discourse of the classroom. A goal of the research was to explore the affordances and constraints of using CA to enrich student engagement with mathematics. The design of the research was based on a teaching experiment that sought to capture the influence of social and cultural processes on learning and development. Participants included primary and secondary school teachers and their mathematics classes. This article focuses on the practice of one female primary school teacher. Data sources included interview transcripts, report writings, journal entries and observational records. Data were analysed using a participation framework. Findings suggest that aspects of CA such as students explaining and justifying ideas and presenting ideas to the whole class can be used by teachers to promote student engagement with mathematics.

Keywords

Engagement Sociocultural Collective argumentation Teacher perceptions Primary classroom mathematics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 167–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobis, J., Anderson, J., Martin, A., & Way, J. (2011). A model for mathematics instruction to enhance students’ motivation and engagement. In D. J. Brahier (Ed.), Motivation and disposition: pathways to learning mathematics, volume 73 (pp. 31–42). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, R.A.J. (1994). Collective mathematical thinking in the primary classroom: A conceptual and empirical analysis within a sociocultural framework. Unpublished Bachelor of Educational Studies (Hons) Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, R. A. J. (2001). A sociocultural study of the emergence of a classroom community of practice. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane. http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:105702
  5. Brown, R. (2005a). Learning communities and the nature of teacher participation in a learning community. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 13(2), 8–15.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, R. (2005b). Learning collaboratively. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 181–195). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, R. (2007). Exploring the social positions that students construct within a classroom community of practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, R. (2009a). Engaging in collaborative activity when the teacher isn’t there: who regulates the learning? Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 9(2), 12–18.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, R. (2009b). Teaching for social justice: exploring the development of student agency through participation in the literacy practices of a mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(3), 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, R. (2010). Collaborative learning. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 223–237). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, R. (2011). Engaging potential in the mathematics classroom: moving from practising to be numerate towards practicing mathematical literacy. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 275–293). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, R., Heck, D., Pendergast, D., & Kanasa, H. (2014). Middle-years teachers’ conceptions and adaptive responses to student diversity in the culture of schooling. Journal of the Middle Years of Schooling Association, 14(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, R., & Hirst, E. (2005). Mathematical literacy: promoting literate practice in a year 7 classroom. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 13(3), 29–38.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, R., & Hirst, E. (2007). Developing an understanding of the mediating role of talk in the elementary mathematics classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 41(2).Google Scholar
  15. Brown, R., & Hirst, E. (2010). Co-constructing potentials in literacy. In M. Hyde, L. Carpenter, & B. Conway (Eds.), Diversity and inclusion in Australian schools (pp. 119–136). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, R., & Redmond, T. (2015). Coming to do mathematics in the margins. In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins: proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the mathematics education research Group of Australasia (pp. 125–132). Sunshine Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  17. Brown, R., Redmond, T., Sheehey, J., & Lang, D. (2015). Mathematical modelling—an example from an inter-school modelling challenge. In N. G. Kit Ee Dawn & N. H. Lee (Eds.), Mathematical modelling—from theory to practice (pp. 143–160). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown, R. A. J., & Renshaw, P. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: a sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: the meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52–66). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: a chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(3), 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chubb, I., & Chubb, I. W. (2012). Mathematics, engineering & science in the national interest. Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, Canberra: Australia.Google Scholar
  21. Civil, M., & Hunter, R. (2015). Participation of non-dominant students in argumentation in the mathematics classroom. Intercultural Education, 26(4), 296–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). Emergence of mathematical meaning: interaction in class- room cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., & Bowers, J. (2011). Part IV classroom mathematical practices: chapter 8: introduction. In E. Yackel, K. Gravemeijer, & A. Sfard (Eds.), A journey in mathematics education research: insights from the work of Paul Cobb (pp. 109–115). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & McNeal, B. (1992). Characteristics of classroom mathematics traditions: an interactional analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 573–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1989). Young children’s emotional acts while engaged in mathematical problem solving. In D. B. McLeod, & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: a new perspective (pp. 117–148). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: a comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goos, M. (2014). Creating opportunities to learn in mathematics education: a sociocultural perspective. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(3), 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hirst, E. W., & Brown, R. A. J. (2008). Pedagogy as dialogic relationship. In M. Hellstén & A. Reid (Eds.), Researching international pedagogies (pp. 179–202). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Leatham, K. R. (2006). Viewing mathematics teachers’ beliefs as sensible systems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Makar, K., Bakker, A., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2015). Scaffolding norms of argumentation-based inquiry in a primary mathematics classroom. ZDM, 47(7), 1107–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marshman, M., & Brown, R. (2014). Coming to know and do mathematics with disengaged students. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(2), 71–88.Google Scholar
  39. Martin, A. J., Anderson, J., Bobis, J., Way, J., & Vellar, R. (2012). Switching on and switching off in mathematics: an ecological study of future intent and disengagement among middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meade, P., & Mc Meniman, M. (1992). Stimulated recall—an effective methodology for examining successful teaching in science. Australian Educational Researcher, 19(3), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller, M. (1987). Argumentation and cognition. In M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought (pp. 225–249). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Newmann, F. (1991). Student engagement in academic work: expanding the perspective on secondary school effectiveness. In J. R. Bliss & W. A. Firestone (Eds.), Rethinking effective schools: research and practice (pp. 58–76). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: the effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  44. O'Brien, J. (1993). Action research through stimulated recall. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 214–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189–1208.Google Scholar
  46. Redmond, T., Brown, R., & Sheehy, J. (2013). Exploring the relationship between mathematical modelling and classroom discourse. In S. G. A., G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. Brown (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: connecting to practice—teaching practice and the practice of applied mathematicians. Netherlands: Springer Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Renshaw, P. D., & Brown, R. A. J. (1997). Learning partnerships: the role of teachers in a community of learners. In L. Logan & J. Sachs (Eds.), Meeting the challenges of primary schools (pp. 200–211). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Renshaw, P., & Brown, R. (2007). Formats of classroom talk for integrating everyday and scientific discourse: replacement, interweaving, contextual privileging and pastiche. Language and Education, 21(6), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singh, P., Brown, R., & Märtsin, M. (2012). Negotiating pedagogic dilemmas in non-traditional educational contexts. An Australian case study of teachers’ work. In H. Daniels (Ed.), Vygotsky and sociology (pp. 93–113). London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  50. Stough, M. (2001). Using stimulated recall in classroom observation and professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  51. Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching mathematics: using research-informed strategies. Australian Education Review. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  52. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: How Australia measures up: the PISA 2012 assessment of students’ mathematical, scientific and reading literacy. Melbourne: ACER.Google Scholar
  53. Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2006). Engaging young people: learning in informal contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, volume 1: problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wiltshire, K., McMeniman, M., & Tolhurst, T. (1994). Report of the review of the Queensland school curriculum: shaping the future (Vol. 1). Queensland: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  59. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith University, Gold CoastSouthportAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options