Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of effective teacher talk: their critical reflections on a sample teacher-student dialogue
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.
KeywordsPre-service teacher education Communicative approach Classroom talk Teacher conceptions
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
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.
- 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
- Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching. York: Dialogos.Google Scholar
- 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
- Blosser, P. E. (2000). How to ask the right questions. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Foster, C. (2011). Productive ambiguity in the learning of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(2), 3–7.Google Scholar
- Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Knuth, E., & Peressini, D. (2001). Unpacking the nature of discourse in mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6, 320–325.Google Scholar
- 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
- Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 25–48.Google Scholar
- Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
- Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar