Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 363–381 | Cite as

Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of effective teacher talk: their critical reflections on a sample teacher-student dialogue

Article

Abstract

This study aimed to explore pre-service elementary teachers’ (PSTs’) conceptions of effective teacher talk in mathematics instruction, which were interpreted primarily based on the concept of communicative approach. This was accomplished through a task that involves analyzing and evaluating a sample teacher-student dialogue. This study specifically investigated: (a) aspects of the sample dialogue that PSTs attended to in critiquing the teacher talk, (b) PSTs’ espoused conceptions of effective teacher talk in an authoritative-dialogic approach framework, and (c) comparison between PSTs’ interpretations and the researchers’ interpretation. Forty-six elementary PSTs engaged in the task and their responses were analyzed using the inductive content analysis approach. Findings showed that PSTs attended to various features of effective teacher-student dialogue; however, they paid more attention to the form of teacher talk than the function of it in context. PSTs’ justifications used in evaluating the sample teacher-student dialogue showed some glaring differences from researchers’ evaluations in regards to how the presented teacher talk would function in terms of the dialogic-authoritative spectrum. PSTs underscored affective support and clarity of teacher talk at its surface level, while showing strong resistance to the intentional vagueness within teacher talk, which might accommodate more dialogic engagement. This study suggests that initial teacher training programs should include more specific investment in PSTs’ insights into effective use of classroom dialogue for learning.

Keywords

Pre-service teacher education Communicative approach Classroom talk Teacher conceptions 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

None

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants

This study involves human participants. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) in the corresponding author’s institution reviewed the IRB application and approved it. The IRB has determined this study is exempt from the IRB review according to federal regulations.

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Since the corresponding author of this study was also the instructor of participants, several recommended procedures for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning projects were employed to minimize the possibility of undue influence (e.g., Burman & Kleinsasser, 2004). Provided consent forms that asked for permission to analyze their course activities after the completion of the course were collected and sealed in an envelope until the end of the semester after course grading was completed. Participants were informed that their decision would not be revealed to the instructor until after the course grading was completed. The data from PSTs who did not give permission were excluded from data analysis.

References

  1. Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 174–193.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  3. Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review. ZDM–The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 47, 1047–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers’ ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., Artigue, M., & Haspekian, M. (2014). Topaze effect: A case study on networking of IDS and TDS. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs & S. Prediger (Eds.), Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education (pp. 201–221). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Blosser, P. E. (2000). How to ask the right questions. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  7. Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature and impact of teacher questions. In D. E. McDougall, & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th PMENA Conference (Vol.2, pp. 773–782). Toronto: PMENA.Google Scholar
  8. Bräuning, K., & Steinbring, H. (2011). Communicative characteristics of teachers’ mathematical talk with children: From knowledge transfer to knowledge investigation. ZDM–The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43, 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brousseau, G. (1984). The crucial role of the didactical contract in the analysis and construction of situations in teaching and learning mathematics. In H. G. Steiner (Ed.), Theory of mathematics education: ICME 5—topic area and miniconference (pp. 110–119). Bielefeld: Institutfuer Didaktik der Mathematik der Universitaet Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  10. Brousseau, G. (1997). In N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield (Eds.), Theory of didactical situations in mathematics 1970–1990. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, N., Morehead, P., & Smith, J. B. (2008). But I love children: Changing elementary teacher candidates’ conceptions of the qualities of effective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 169–184.Google Scholar
  12. Burman, M. E., & Kleinsasser, A. (2004). Ethical guidelines for use of student work: Moving from teaching’s invisibility to inquiry’s visibility in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Journal of General Education, 53(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2013). Classroom discussions in math: A teacher’s guide for using talk moves to support the Common Core and more. Sausalito: Math Solutions.Google Scholar
  14. Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students’ engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86, 401–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An ongoing investigation of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 293–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23, 136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards-Groves, C., & Hoare, R. (2012). “Talking to learn”: Focussing teacher education on dialogue as a core practice for teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(8), 82–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, R., & Larkin, S. (2008). Pedagogy or ideological struggle? An examination of pupils’ and teachers’ expectations for talk in the classroom. Language and Education, 22, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster, C. (2011). Productive ambiguity in the learning of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(2), 3–7.Google Scholar
  20. Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 380–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures, and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Henning, J. E., McKeny, T., Foley, G. D., & Balong, M. (2014). Mathematics discussions by design: Creating opportunities for purposeful participation. Journal of Mathematics teacher Education, 15, 453–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2012). On the instructional triangle and sources of justification for actions in mathematics teaching. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44, 601–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 81–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knuth, E., & Peressini, D. (2001). Unpacking the nature of discourse in mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6, 320–325.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leatham, K. R., & Peterson, B. E. (2010). Secondary mathematics cooperating teachers’ perceptions of the purpose of student teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lim, W., Moseley, L. J., Son, J., & Seelke, J. (2014). A snapshot of teacher candidates’ readiness for incorporating academic language in lesson plans. Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 19(2), 1–8.Google Scholar
  30. Love, K. (2009). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in secondary teacher education: Reflecting on oral language and learning across the disciplines. Language and Education, 23, 541–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 25–48.Google Scholar
  32. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Penso, S., Shoman, E., & Shiloah, N. (2001). First steps in novice teachers’ activity. Teacher Development, 5, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterson, B. E., & Williams, S. R. (2008). Learning mathematics for teaching in the student teaching experience: Two contrasting cases. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robertson, D. A., Ford-Connors, E., & Paratore, J. R. (2014). Coaching teachers’ talk during vocabulary and comprehension instruction. Language Arts, 91, 416–428.Google Scholar
  38. Rowland, T. (1995). Hedges in mathematics talk: Linguistic pointers to uncertainty. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  40. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  41. Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: Rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 42–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive whole-class teaching in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  44. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Helping teachers learn to better incorporate student thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tainio, L., & Laine, A. (2015). Emotion work and affective stance in the mathematics classroom: The case of IRE sequences in Finnish classroom interaction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning Science, 6, 227–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Development and Educational StudiesOakland UniversityRochesterUSA
  2. 2.College of Central FloridaOcalaUSA

Personalised recommendations