Advertisement

AN ANALYSIS OF TALKING ALOUD DURING PEER COLLABORATIONS IN MATHEMATICS

  • Donna KotsopoulosEmail author
Article

Abstract

Utilizing video study methodology where participants, as well as the researcher, analyzed their own video data, this research examined the nature of students talking aloud during peer collaborations in mathematics. The findings suggest that students engage in three types of talking aloud: (1) clarification of thinking (i.e. spontaneous utterances related to the mathematical task); (2) expressions of confusion (i.e. “I don’t understand!”), with the explicit intent of eliciting support from peers; or (3) a combination of (1) and (2). The findings also show that students do not perceive other students’ talking aloud as an inter-communicative gesture. This research highlights the importance emphasizing to students that talking aloud during peer collaborations should be viewed as a potential antecedent to communicative interaction and the importance of teaching students how to listen to one another.

Key words

collaborations listening mathematics peer talking aloud video study methodology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler, J. (1999). The dilemma of transparency: Seeing and seeing through talk in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Yehuda, M., Lavy, I., Linchevski, L., & Sfard, A. (2005). Doing wrong with words: What bars students’ access to arithmetical discourses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(3), 176–247.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, M. (2004). The functional use of a mathematical sign. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnett, P. C. (1999). Children’s self-talk and academic self-concepts: The impact of teachers’ statements. Educational Psychologist, 15(3), 195–200.Google Scholar
  5. Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information. Instructional science, 29, 443–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, E. G. (1984). Talking and working together: Status, interaction, and learning. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes (pp. 171–187). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
  8. Curcio, F. R., & Artzt, A. F. (1998). Students communicating in small groups: Making sense of data in graphical form. In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 179–190). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. New York: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  10. DeVries, R. (2000). Vygotsky, Piaget, and education: A reciprocal assimilation of theories and educational practices. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
  12. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Witrock (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Expert Panel on Student Success in Ontario (2004). Leading math success: Mathematical literacy grades 7–12. The report of the Expert Panel on Student Success in Ontario. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education, Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
  16. Glassman, M. (1994). All things being equal: The two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky. Developmental Review, 14, 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glassman, M. (1995). The difference between Piaget and Vygotsky: A response to Duncan. Developmental Review, 15, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenfield, L. B. (1987). Teaching thinking through problem solving. In J. E. Stice (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning, no. 30. Developing critical thinking and problem solving (pp. 5–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Gustafson, B. J., & MacDonald, D. (2004). Talk as a tool for thinking: Using professional discourse practices to frame children’s design technology talk. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(3), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garneir, H., Bogard Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2004). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study (NCES 2003-13 revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, S. D., & Chung, S-p. (1999). The effect of thinking aloud pair problem solving (TAPPS) on the troubleshooting ability of aviation technician students. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MI: Interaction Book.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom. Edina, MI: Interaction Book.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  25. Klibanoff, R. S., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2006). Preschool children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher “math talk”. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kotsopoulos, D. (2007). Communication in mathematics: A discourse analysis of peer collaborations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  27. Kotsopoulos, D. (2008). Beyond teachers’ sight lines: Using video modeling to examine peer discourse. Mathematics Teacher, 101(6), 468–472.Google Scholar
  28. Lochhead, J., & Whimbey, A. (1987). Teaching analytical reasoning through thinking aloud pair problem solving. In J. E. Stice (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning, no 30. Developing critical thinking and problem solving abilities (pp. 73–92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Monaghan, F. (2006). Thinking aloud together. Mathematics Teaching, 198, 12–15.Google Scholar
  32. Moschkovich, J. (2003). What counts as mathematical discourse? In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint meeting of PME and PMENA(Vol. 3, pp. 325–331). Honolulu, Hawai’i, USA: University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics/NCTM (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  34. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training/OMET (2005). The Ontario curriculum Grades 1–8 mathematics, revised. Toronto, ON, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
  35. Piaget, J. (1962). Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  36. Piaget, J. (2002). Language and thought of the child (M. Gabain & R. Gabain, Trans) (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  38. Pirie, S. E. B. (1998). Crossing the gulf between thought and symbol: Language as (slippery) stepping-stones. In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 7–29). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  39. Richards, J. (1991). Mathematical discussions. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 13–51). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness and generalisation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 19–26.Google Scholar
  41. Setati, M. (2003). Language use in a multilingual mathematics classroom in South Africa: A different perspective. Paper presented at the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PME-NA, Honolulu, USA.Google Scholar
  42. 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(1), 42–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sfard, A., Nesher, P., Streefland, L., Cobb, P., & Mason, J. (1998). Learning mathematics through conversation: Is it as good as they say? [1]. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(1), 41–51.Google Scholar
  44. Short, E. J., Schatschneider, C., Cuddy, C. L., Evans, S. W., Dellick, D. M., & Basili, L. A. (1991). The effect of thinking aloud on the problem-solving performance of bright, average, learning disabled, and developmentally handicapped students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sinclair, M. P. (2005). Peer interactions in a computer lab: Reflections on results of a case study involving web-based dynamic geometry sketches. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher preparation for historically underserved children. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education 25, 2000–2001 (pp. 209–250). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  47. Stice, J. E. (Ed.). (1987). New directions for teaching and learning, no. 30. Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  48. van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1994). The Vygotsky reader. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Zolkower, B., & Shreyar, S. (2007). A teacher’s medication of thinking-aloud discussion in a 6th grade classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations