Abstract
The concept of teacher noticing has been a powerful methodological tool for understanding teachers’ decision-making and professional judgment. In this line of inquiry, researchers usually try to identify elements of classroom practice salient to teachers. Data about teacher noticing and decision making can be collected at scale through the use of scenario-based instruments, but these instruments have been described in the literature as inherently ambiguous because they do not contain all the information necessary to make a decision. We contribute to understanding this ambiguity so as to help connect teacher noticing to their professional judgment by introducing the concept of conditional construals—moments when teachers require additional context in order to judge whether a given teaching action is appropriate. Furthermore, we locate conditional construals in a large corpus of responses to scenario-based items by identifying occurrences of a linguistic marker. Our identification of these moments allows us to study the type of reasoning (analytical or intuitive) evoked by these scenarios and gives us insight into the information teachers require to make decisions.
Résumé
Le concept d’« enseignant remarquant» constitue un outil méthodologique puissant pour comprendre le processus décisionnel et le jugement professionnel des enseignants. Dans ce champ de réflexion, les chercheurs tentent normalement d’identifier les aspects, issus de la pratique en salle de classe qui sont pertinents aux enseignants. Des données sur la qualité d’« enseignant remarquant» et le processus décisionnel des enseignants peuvent être recueillies à l’échelle en utilisant des instruments fondés sur des scénarios, toutefois, la littérature considère ces instruments comme étant intrinsèquement ambigus dans la mesure où ils n’apportent pas toute l’information nécessaire à la prise de décision. Afin de faciliter l’établissement de liens entre la qualité d’« enseignant remarquant» et le jugement professionnel des enseignants, nous contribuons à mieux cerner cette ambiguïté en présentant le concept d’« interprétations conditionnelles», correspondant aux moments où les enseignants ont besoin de plus de contexte pour déterminer si un acte pédagogique est requis. En repérant les marqueurs linguistiques se trouvant dans un vaste corpus de réponses touchant les aspects relatifs aux scénarios, nous découvrons en outre des « interprétations conditionnelles». Le repérage de ces moments nous permet d’analyser le type de raisonnement (analytique ou intuitif) évoqué par ces scénarios et nous donne un aperçu de l’information dont les enseignants ont besoin pour prendre leurs décisions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This work was done with the support of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) through grant DRL- 0918425 to P. Herbst. All opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Foundation.
Goodwin’s and Mason’s notions of professional vision as a kind of “seeing” and understanding a situation encompasses a larger category of perceptions beyond the visual. Some of those perceptions, such as those that rely on one’s sense of smell or sound, are beyond the scope of this mode of data collection that relies on a mostly visual representation of the situation.
By false positive, we refer to those instances where a linguistic marker for circumstances of contingency is present, and yet no conditional construal is present. By false negative, we refer to those instances where none of the linguistic markers for circumstances of contingency are present, and yet a conditional construal is present.
For instance, the following example illustrates how a false positive can be produced with the linguistic marker assum-: “Students need to take risks and see if there [sic] assumptions are correct.” (data drawn from a disciplinary sub-obligation item, italics ours).
References
Albaum, G. (1997). The Likert scale revisited: An alternate version. Journal of the Market Research Society, 39(2), 331-332.
Herbst, P. G. (2003). Using novel tasks in teaching mathematics: Three tensions affecting the work of the teacher. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 197-238.
Herbst, P., Boileau, N., Clark, L., Milewski, A., Chieu, V. M., Gürsel, U., & Chazan, D. (2017, October). Directing focus and enabling inquiry with representations of practice: Written cases, storyboards, and teacher education. In Galindo, E., & Newton, J., (Eds.). Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (pp. 789-796). Indianapolis, IN: Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.
Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2012). On the instructional triangle and sources of justification for actions in mathematics teaching. ZDM, 44(5), 601-612.
Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2015). Using multimedia scenarios delivered online to study professional knowledge use in practice. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 38(3), 272-287.
Herbst, P., Dimmel, J., Erickson, A., Ko, I., & Kosko, K. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ recognition of an obligation to the discipline and its role in the justification of instructional actions. In C. Nicol, P. Liljedahl, S. Oesterle, & D. Allen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 273-280). Vancouver, Canada: Simon Fraser University.
Berliner, D. C., Stein, P., Sabers, D. S., Clarridge, P. B., Cushing, K. S., & Pinnegar, S. (1988). Implications of research on pedagogical expertise and experience in mathematics teaching. In D. A. Grouws and T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp. 67–95). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Berliner, C. D. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. N. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students (pp. 161–186). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Brooks, M. E., & Highhouse, S. (2006). Can good judgment be measured? In J. A. Weekley and R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement and application (pp. 39-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Buchmann, M. (1986). Role over person: Morality and authenticity in teaching. The Teachers College Record, 87(4), 529-543.
Calderhead, J. (1981). A psychological approach to research on teachers' classroom decision-making. British Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 51-57.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
Dyer, E. B., & Sherin, M. G. (2016). Instructional reasoning about interpretations of student thinking that supports responsive teaching in secondary mathematics. ZDM, 48(1-2), 69-82.
Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1990). Medical problem solving: a ten-year retrospective. Evaluation and The Health Professions, 13(1), pp. 5–36
Galton, M. (2001). The missing foundation of teacher education. In Y. Cheong, K.W. Chow, and K.T. Tsui (Editors) New Teacher Education for the Future: International Perspectives, 69–88. Netherlands: Kluwer.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London England: Routledge.
Hilbert, D. (1899). Grundlagen der Geometrie. In Festschrift zur Feier der Enth¨ullung des Gauss-Weber-Denkmals in G¨ottingen, pages 1–92. Teubner, Leipzig, 1st edition, 1899. reprinted in [Hilbert, 2004].
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Wagner, D., & Cortes, V. (2010). Lexical bundle analysis in mathematics classroom discourse: The significance of stance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 23-42.
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181-217.
Jacobs, V., Lamb, L., & Philipp, R. (2010). Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169-202.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515.
Kennedy, M. M. (1999). Approximations to indicators of student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(4), 345-363.
Klein, G. A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., & Zsambok, C. E. (1993). Decision making in action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lampert, M. (2003). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Court, CT: Yale University Press.
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: Routledge- Falmer.
Much, N. C., & Shweder, R. A. (1978). Speaking of rules: The analysis of culture in breach. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1978(2), 19-39.
Rossi, P. H. (1979). Vignette analysis: Uncovering the normative structure of complex judgments. In Merton, R.K., Coleman, J.S. and Rossi P.H. (Eds.), (pp. 176–186). Qualitative and quantitative social research: Papers in honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld. London, England: Collier Macmillan.
Rowland, T. (1995). Hedges in mathematics talk: Linguistic pointers to uncertainty. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 327-353.
Russ, R., Sherin, B., & Sherin, M. (2011). Images of expertise in mathematics teaching. In Y. Li & G. Kaiser (Eds.) Expertise in mathematics instruction: An international perspective (pp. 41–60). New York, NY: Springer.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of human decision-making with educational applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shaffer, D.W. (2017). Quantitative Ethnography. Madison, WI: Cathcart Press.
Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163–183.
Sherin, M. G., & Russ, R. (2014). Teacher noticing via video: The role of interpretive frames. In B. Calandra & P. Rich (Eds.) Digital video for teacher education: Research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.
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.
Stecher, B., Le, V. N., Hamilton, L., Ryan, G., Robyn, A., & Lockwood, J. R. (2003). Using structured classroom vignettes to measure instructional practices in mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 101-130.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). Closing the teaching gap. New York, NY: Free Press
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers' interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-595.
Weekley, J. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.). (2006). Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Milewski, A., Erickson, A. & Herbst, P. “It Depends …”: Using Ambiguities to Better Understand Mathematics Teachers’ Decision-making. Can. J. Sci. Math. Techn. Educ. 21, 123–144 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00141-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00141-x