Theorizing reciprocal noticing with non-dominant students in mathematics

  • Higinio DominguezEmail author


In this paper, I theorize reciprocal noticing as a relational practice through which teachers and students exchange roles as knowers by reciprocating each other’s noticing as they study mathematics concepts. Findings from a unit on measuring time implemented in two classrooms with non-dominant students illustrate how teachers and students—through their reciprocal noticing—mobilize concepts back to previous understandings and forward to possible new meanings. These findings serve to recalibrate the focus on professionalization of the teaching practice by considering how an inclusive understanding of noticing permits to appreciate the process of teachers and students sharing the process of learning mathematics in relationships.


Reciprocal noticing Theory-practice connection Non-dominant students 


Funding information

This article is based on research supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 1253822. Any findings, claims, or recommendations included in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.


  1. Bakhtin, M. (1990). Author and hero in aesthetic activity (V. Liapunov, trans.). In M. Holquist & V. Liapunov (Eds.), Art and answerability: Early philosophical essays (pp. 4–256). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L. (2011). Foreword. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. xx–xiv). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., & Hill, H. C. (2008). Measuring teacher quality in practice. In D. H. Gitomer (Ed.), Measurement issues and assessment for teaching quality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193.Google Scholar
  5. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253.Google Scholar
  8. Civil, M., & Hunter, R. (2015). Participation of non-dominant students in argumentation in the mathematics classroom. Intercultural Education, 26(4), 296–312.Google Scholar
  9. Civil, M., & Planas, N. (2004). Participation in the mathematics classroom: Does every student have a voice? For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(1), 7–12.Google Scholar
  10. Clearfield, M. W., & Mix, K. S. (2001). Amount versus number: Infants’ use of area and contour length to discriminate small sets. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2(3), 243–260.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, B. (2008). Is 1 a prime number? Developing teacher knowledge through concept study. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(2), 86–91.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2005). Challenging images of knowing: Complexity science and education research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3), 305–321.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Dietiker, L. C., Gonulates, F., & Smith, J. P., III. (2011). Understanding linear measure. Teaching Children Mathematics, 18(4), 252–259.Google Scholar
  16. Dominguez, H. (2011). Using what matters to students in bilingual mathematics problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(3), 305–328.Google Scholar
  17. Dunfield, K. A., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2010). Intention-mediated selective helping in infancy. Psychological Science, 21(4), 523–527.Google Scholar
  18. Eagleton, T. (1990). The significance of theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. London, UK: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  20. Goldenberg, B. M. (2014). White teachers in urban classrooms: Embracing non-white students’ cultural capital for better teaching and learning. Urban Education, 49(1), 111–144.Google Scholar
  21. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.Google Scholar
  22. Hand, V. (2012). Seeing culture and power in mathematical learning: Toward a model of equitable instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1–2), 233–247.Google Scholar
  23. Hiebert, J. (2013). The constantly underestimated challenge of improving mathematics teaching. In K. R. Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions for mathematics education research (pp. 45–56). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Irwin, K. C. (2001). Using everyday knowledge of decimals to enhance understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(4), 399–420.Google Scholar
  25. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 169–202.Google Scholar
  26. James, A. (2012). Seeking the analytic imagination: Reflections on the process of interpreting qualitative data. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 562–577.Google Scholar
  27. Jilk, L. M. (2016). Supporting teacher noticing of students’ mathematical strengths. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 4(2), 188–199.Google Scholar
  28. Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289.Google Scholar
  29. Lobato, J., Hohensee, C., & Rhodehamel, B. (2013). Students’ mathematical noticing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(5), 809–850.Google Scholar
  30. Louie, N. L. (2018). Culture and ideology in mathematics teacher noticing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 97, 55–69.Google Scholar
  31. Manning, E. (2007). Politics of touch: Sense, movement, sovereignty. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mason, J. (1991). Epistemological foundations for frameworks which stimulate noticing. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Groups for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Volume 2) (pp. 36–42). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.Google Scholar
  33. Mason, J. (1998). Enabling teachers to be real teachers: Necessary levels of awareness and structure of attention. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(1), 243–267.Google Scholar
  34. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  35. Mason, J. (2016). Rising above a cause-and-effect stance in mathematics education research. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19, 297–300.Google Scholar
  36. Mason, J. (2018). Qualitative researching (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Mason, J., & Davis, B. (2013). The importance of teachers’ mathematical awareness for in-the-moment pedagogy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(2), 182–197.Google Scholar
  38. Metz, M. L., & Simmt, E. S. M. (2015). Researching mathematical experience from the perspective of an empathic second-person observer. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 197–209.Google Scholar
  39. Olson, K. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2008). Foundations of cooperation in young children. Cognition, 108(1), 222–231.Google Scholar
  40. Paradise, R., & de Haan, M. (2009). Responsibility and reciprocity: Social organization of Mazahua learning practices. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(2), 187–204.Google Scholar
  41. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100.Google Scholar
  42. Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the child. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  43. Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Popkewitz, T. S. (1994). Professionalization in teaching and teacher education: Some notes on its history, ideology, and potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  45. Radford, L. (2008). Connecting theories in mathematics education: Challenges and possibilities. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 317–327.Google Scholar
  46. Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220(4596), 477–478.Google Scholar
  47. Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography. Madison, WI: Cathcart Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. (2011). Situating the study of teacher noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental Science, 10(1), 121–125.Google Scholar
  50. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–735.Google Scholar
  51. van Es, E. A. (2011). A framework for learning to notice student thinking. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 134–151). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Varela, F. (2000). Three gestures of becoming aware: Conversation with Francisco Varela/Interviewer: C. O. Scharmer. Retrieved from
  53. Watson, C. W. (1999). Introduction. In C. W. Watson (Ed.), Being there: Fieldwork in anthropology (pp. 1–24). London, UK: Pluto Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations