Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 51–66 | Cite as

Teachers’ professional practice conducting mathematical discussions

Article

Abstract

This paper seeks to identify actions that can be regarded as building elements of teachers’ classroom practice in mathematical discussion and how these actions may be combined to provide fruitful learning opportunities for students. It stands on a framework that focuses on two key elements of teaching practice: the tasks that teachers propose to students and the way teachers handle classroom communication. Tasks are appraised concerning their level of challenge. Teachers’ actions in discussions are classified as informing/suggesting, guiding, and challenging. The methodology is qualitative with data collected from video recording of the classroom. The analysis of classroom episodes dealing with rational numbers but with different agendas, such as providing students opportunities for learning about representations, concepts, connections, and procedures and for developing reasoning suggests that some degree of challenge promotes fruitful learning situations. However, such situations tend to require preparation and follow-up with guiding and even informing/suggesting actions so that the students can learn what has been set in the teacher’s agenda.

Keywords

Teacher practice Classroom communication Challenge Rational numbers 

References

  1. Bartolini Bussi, M., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom. In L. English (Ed.), International research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 750–787). New York: Rutledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, A., & Goffree, F. (1986). Classroom organization and dynamics. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 309–365). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Brendefur, J., & Frykholm, J. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: Two preservice teachers’ conceptions and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 125–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cengiz, N., Kline, K., & Grant, T. J. (2011). Extending students’ mathematical thinking during whole-group discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243–307). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Understanding teaching and classroom practice in mathematics. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–256). Greenwich: Information Age.Google Scholar
  8. NCTM. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  9. NCTM. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  10. Ponte, J. P. (2005). Gestão curricular em Matemática. In GTI (Ed.), O professor e o desenvolvimento curricular (pp. 11–34). Lisboa: APM.Google Scholar
  11. Ponte, J. P., & Chapman, O. (2006). Mathematics teachers’ knowledge and practices. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 461–494). Roterdham: Sense.Google Scholar
  12. Ponte, J. P., Mata-Pereira, J., & Quaresma, M. (2013). Ações do professor na condução de discussões matemáticas. Quadrante, 22(2), 55–81.Google Scholar
  13. Potari, D., & Jaworski, B. (2002). Tackling complexity in mathematics teaching development: Using the teaching triad as a tool for reflection and analysis. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 351–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Quaresma, M. (2010). Ordenação e comparação de números racionais em diferentes representações: Uma experiência de ensino (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon. Google Scholar
  15. Ruthven, K. (1989). An exploratory approach to advanced mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruthven, K., Hofmann, R., & Mercer, N. (2011). A dialogic approach to plenary problem synthesis. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 81–88). Ankara, Turkey: PME.Google Scholar
  17. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Rutledge.Google Scholar
  18. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sherin, M. G. (2002). A balancing act: Developing a discourse community in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 205–233Google Scholar
  20. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–369). Greenwich: Information Age.Google Scholar
  21. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wood, T. (1999). Creating a context for argument in mathematics class. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de EducaçãoUniversidade de LisboaLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations