Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 433–456 | Cite as

Decentering: A construct to analyze and explain teacher actions as they relate to student thinking

  • Dawn Teuscher
  • Kevin C. Moore
  • Marilyn P. Carlson
Article

Abstract

Mathematics educators and writers of mathematics education policy documents continue to emphasize the importance of teachers focusing on and using student thinking to inform their instructional decisions and interactions with students. In this paper, we characterize the interactions between a teacher and student(s) that exhibit this focus. Specifically, we extend previous work in this area by utilizing Piaget’s construct of decentering (The language and thought of the child. Meridian Books, Cleveland, 1955) to explain teachers’ actions relative to both their thinking and their students’ thinking. In characterizing decentering with respect to a teacher’s focus on student thinking, we use two illustrations that highlight the importance of decentering in making in-the-moment decisions that are based on student thinking. We also discuss the influence of teacher decentering actions on the quality of student–teacher interactions and their influence on student learning. We close by discussing various implications of decentering, including how decentering is related to other research constructs including teachers’ development and enactment of mathematical knowledge for teaching.

Keywords

Decentering Student thinking Secondary mathematics teachers Mathematical knowledge for teaching Pedagogical actions 

References

  1. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 94(4), 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The structuring of the structures: Development and function of mathematizing as a social practice. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 137–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. 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 annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 773–781). Toronto, Ontario: Institute of Studies in Education/University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  4. Brodie, K. (2004). Working with learner contributions: Coding teacher responses. In D. E. McDougall & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 690–698). Toronto, Ontario: Institute of Studies in Education/University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  5. Brodie, K. (2011). Working with learners’ mathematical thinking: Towards a language of description for changing pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson, M. (1995). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Department of Mathematics, University of Kansas, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, M. (1998). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (Vol. 7, pp. 114–162). Rhode Island: Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, M., & Bloom, I. (2005). The cyclic nature of problem solving: An emergent multidimensional problem-solving framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(1), 45–75.Google Scholar
  9. Carlson, M., Bowling, S., Moore, K. C., & Ortiz, A. (2007). The role of the facilitator in promoting meaningful discourse among professional learning communities of secondary mathematics and science teachers. In T. Lamberg & L. R. Wiest (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meetings of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 841–848). Reno, University of Nevada: PME–NA.Google Scholar
  10. Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352–378.Google Scholar
  11. Carlson, M. P., Moore, K. C., Teuscher, D., Slemmer, G., Underwood, K., & Tallman, M. (2012). Affecting and documenting shifts in secondary precalculus teachers’ instructional effectiveness and students’ learning. In Paper Presented at the 2012 Math and Science (MSP) Learning Network Conference (LNC). Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, M., & Oehrtman, M. (2010). Precalculus: Pathways to calculus: A problem solving approach. Rational Reasoning.Google Scholar
  13. Carlson, M. P., Oehrtman, M., & Moore, K. (2013). Precalculus: Pathways to calculus: A problem solving approach (4th ed.). Rational Reasoning.Google Scholar
  14. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (2000). Cognitively guided instruction: A research-based teacher professional development program for mathematics (Vol. 03). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
  15. Chapman, M. (1988). Constructive evolution: Origins and development of Piaget’s thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clarke, B. (2008). A framework of growth points as a powerful teacher development tool. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 235–256). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, P. G., Moore, K. C., & Carlson, M. P. (2008). Documenting the emergence of “speaking with meaning” as a sociomathematical norm in professional learning community discourse. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(4), 297–310.Google Scholar
  18. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational views of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franke, M. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding teachers’ self-sustaining change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franke, M. L., Turrou, A. C., & Webb, N. (2011). Teacher follow-up: Communicating high expectations to wrestle with the mathematics. In L. R. Wiest & T. Lamberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Groups for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Reno, NV: PME-NA.Google Scholar
  22. 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, 380–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goos, M. (2004). Learning mathematics a classroom community of inquiry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 258–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester Jr (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 371–404). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  26. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, E. M. S., & Larsen, S. P. (2012). Teacher listening: The role of knowledge of content and students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lamon, S. J. (2005). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal for Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  34. Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lesson: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore, K. C. (2013). Making sense by measuring arcs: A teaching experiment in angle measure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(2), 225–245. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9450-6.
  38. Moore, K. C., & Carlson, M. P. (2012). Students’ images of problem contexts when solving applied problems. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 48–59.Google Scholar
  39. Nathan, M. J., & Knuth, E. J. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  41. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  42. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  43. National Governors Associations Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA Center and CCSSO). (2010). Common core standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
  44. O’Connor, M. C. (1998). Language socialisation in the mathematics classroom: Discourse practices and mathematical thinking. In M. Blunk (Ed.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 17–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Piaget, J. (1955). The language and thought of the child. Cleveland: Meridian Books.Google Scholar
  46. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  47. Rittenhouse, P. S. (1998). The teacher’s role in mathematical conversation: Stepping in and stepping out. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 163–189). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 Practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  51. Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2010). Children’s fractional knowledge. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Interaction or intersubjectivity? A reply to Lerman. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steffe, L. P., von Glasersfeld, E., Richards, J., & Cobb, P. (1983). Children’s counting types: Philosophy, theory, and application. New York, NY: Praeger Scientific.Google Scholar
  54. Thompson, P. W. (2000). Radical constructivism: Reflections and directions. In L. P. Steffe & P. W. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glaserfeld (pp. 412–448). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  55. Thompson, P. W. (2008). Conceptual analysis of mathematical ideas: Some spadework at the foundations of mathematics education. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Cortina, T. Alatorre, T. Rojano & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 45–64). Morelia, Mexico: PME.Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (2003). Fractions and multiplicative reasoning. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), Research companion to the principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 95–113). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  57. Truxaw, M. P., & DeFranco, T. (2007). Lessons from Mr. Larson: An inductive model of teaching for orchestrating discourse. Mathematics Teacher, 101(4), 268–272.Google Scholar
  58. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teachers’ role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–550. doi:10.3102/0034654308320292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing. In H. Steinbring, M. G. B. Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  62. Woodward, J., & Irwin, K. C. (2005). Language appropriate for the New Zealand numeracy project. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, et al. (Eds.), Building connections: Theory, research and practice. Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 799–806). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dawn Teuscher
    • 1
  • Kevin C. Moore
    • 2
  • Marilyn P. Carlson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics EducationBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations