# Introducing a symbolic interactionist approach on teaching mathematics: the case of revoicing as an interactional strategy in the teaching of probability

## Abstract

This study examines an interactional view on teaching mathematics, whereby meaning is co-produced with the students through a process of negotiation. Further, teaching is viewed from a symbolic interactionism perspective, allowing the analysis to focus on the teacher’s role in the negotiation of meaning. Using methods inspired by grounded theory, patterns of teachers’ interaction are categorized. The results show how teachers’ actions, interpretations and intentions form interactional strategies that guide the negotiation of meaning in the classroom. The theoretical case of revoicing as a teacher action, together with interpretations of mathematical objects from probability theory, is used to exemplify conclusions from the proposed perspective. Data are generated from a lesson sequence with two teachers working with known and unknown constant sample spaces with their classes. In the lessons presented in this article, the focus is on negotiations of the meaning of chance. The analysis revealed how the teachers indicate their interpretations of mathematical objects and intentions to the students to different degrees and, by doing so, create opportunities for the students to ascribe meaning to these objects. The discussion contrasts the findings with possible interpretations from other perspectives on teaching.

### Keywords

Interactional teaching strategy Teaching Symbolic interactionism Revoicing Probability### References

- Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.),
*Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics*(pp. 83–104). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar - Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?
*Journal of Teacher Education,**59*(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Barwell, R. (2013). Discursive psychology as an alternative perspective on mathematics teacher knowledge.
*ZDM,**45*(4), 595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Blumer, H. (1986).
*Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method*. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar - Brousseau, G., Brousseau, N., & Warfield, V. (2001). An experiment on the teaching of statistics and probability.
*The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,**20*(3), 363–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Burgess, T. A. (2006).
*A framework for examining teacher knowledge as used in action while teaching statistics.*Paper presented at the working cooperatively in statistics education:*Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics*. Salvador, Brazil.Google Scholar - Burgess, T. A. (2008).
*Teacher knowledge for teaching statistics through investigations.*Paper presented at The Joint ICMI/IASE Study:*Teaching statistics in school mathematics*:*Challenges for teaching and teacher education,*Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar - Charmaz, K. (2006).
*Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis*. London: Sage.Google Scholar - Charmaz, K. (2008a). A future for symbolic interactionism.
*Studies in Symbolic Interaction,**32*, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Charmaz, K. (2008b). The legacy of Anselm Strauss in constructivist grounded theory.
*Studies in Symbolic Interaction,**32*, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices.
*Journal of the Learning Sciences,**10*(1), 113–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An ongoing investigation of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**61*(3), 293–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research.
*Qualitative Inquiry,**12*(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998a). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom.
*Learning and Instruction,**8*(6), 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Forman, E. A., Mccormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (1998b). Learning what counts as a mathematical explanation.
*Linguistics and Education,**9*(4), 313–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gellert, A. (2014). Students discussing mathematics in small-group interactions: Opportunities for discursive negotiation processes focused on contentious mathematical issues.
*ZDM,**46*(6), 855–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Groth, R. E. (2013). Characterizing key developmental understandings and pedagogically powerful ideas within a statistical knowledge for teaching framework.
*Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal,**15*(2), 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Drake, C., & Cirillo, M. (2009). “Muddying the clear waters”: Teachers’ take-up of the linguistic idea of revoicing.
*Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies,**25*(2), 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement.
*American Educational Research Journal,**42*(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Jaworski, B. (1994).
*Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry*. London: Falmer.Google Scholar - Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., & Mooney, E. S. (2007). Research in probability: Responding to classroom realities. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(Vol. 2, pp. 909–956). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.Google Scholar - Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985).
*Naturalistic inquiry*. California: Sage.Google Scholar - Liu, Y., & Thompson, P. (2007). Teachers’ understandings of probability.
*Cognition & Instruction,**25*(2/3), 113–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ma, L. (1999).
*Knowing and teaching mathematics: Teachers understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States*. Mahwah: Lawrence Eribaum.Google Scholar - Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994).
*Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook*. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar - Nilsson, P. (2007). Different ways in which students handle chance encounters in the explorative setting of a dice game.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**66*(3), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Nilsson, P., & Lindström, T. (2013). Prolifing Swedish teachers’ knowledge base in probability.
*Nomad,**18*(4), 51–72.Google Scholar - O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing—analysis of a classroom discourse strategy.
*Anthropology & Education Quarterly,**24*(4), 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ordbok över svenska språket. (1893). Lund: Svenska akademien.Google Scholar
- Petrou, M., & Goulding, M. (2011). Conceptualising teachers’ mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.),
*Mathematical knowledge in teaching*(pp. 9–26). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?
*Educational Researcher,**29*(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi.
*Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,**8*(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication.
*Bell System Technical Journal,**27*(3), 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
*Educational Researcher,**15*(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
*Harvard Educational Review,**57*(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Speer, N., King, K., & Howell, H. (2014). Definitions of mathematical knowledge for teaching: Using these constructs in research on secondary and college mathematics teachers.
*Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,**18*(2), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Steinbring, H. (1991). The concept of chance in everyday teaching: Aspects of a social epistemology of mathematical knowledge.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**22*(6), 503–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Steinbring, H. (1993). The context for the concept of chance—everyday experiences in classroom interactions.
*Acta didactica Universitatis Comenianae Mathematics,**2*, 20–32.Google Scholar - Steinbring, H. (1998). Elements of epistemological knowledge for mathematics teachers.
*Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,**1*(2), 157–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stohl, H., & Tarr, J. E. (2002). Developing notions of inference using probability simulation tools.
*Journal of Mathematical Behavior,**21*(3), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1997).
*Grounded theory in practice*. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar - Voigt, J. (1996). Negotiation of mathematical meaning in classroom processes: Social interaction and learning mathematics. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.),
*Theories of mathematical learning*. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Watson, J. M. (2001). Profiling teachers’ competence and confidence to teach particular mathematics topics: The case of chance and data.
*Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,**4*(4), 305–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar