ZDM

, Volume 48, Issue 1–2, pp 69–82 | Cite as

Instructional reasoning about interpretations of student thinking that supports responsive teaching in secondary mathematics

Original Article

Abstract

Basing instruction on the substance of student thinking, or responsive teaching, is a critical strategy for supporting student learning. Previous research has documented responsive teaching by identifying observable teaching practices in a broad range of disciplines and classrooms. However, this research has not provided access to the teacher thinking that is at play leading to these responsive practices. In this study, we use an innovative methodology to explore the cognitive dimensions of responsive teaching as they take place during the moments of instruction. Data include 17 point-of-view observations in which two high school mathematics teachers saved video of important moments in real time and discussed the moments during an interview immediately following instruction. Both teachers were observed to use sophisticated responsive teaching practices, providing a window into consequential teacher thinking around student thinking. An open coding of teachers’ comments about the moments they selected to capture during instruction was used to identify three types of instructional reasoning about interpretations of student thinking used by the teachers: (a) making connections between multiple specific moments of student thinking, (b) considering the relation between the mathematics of student thinking and the structure of a mathematical task, and (c) developing tests of student thinking. We provide contextualized examples of each of the types of instructional reasoning and discuss how these findings relate to current theory on responsive teaching. We conclude by considering the implications of this study for the necessary mathematical and pedagogical expertise required to engage in responsive teaching, and consider how this instructional reasoning can be supported through professional development.

Keywords

Responsive teaching Teacher cognition Teacher noticing Teacher learning 

References

  1. Ball, D. L. (2001). Teaching, with respect to mathematics and students. Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 11–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
  4. Brantlinger, A., Sherin, M. G., & Linsenmeier, K. A. (2011). Discussing discussion: a video club in the service of math teachers’ national board preparation. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.-P., & Franke, M. L. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: an experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, S. (2004). Teachers’ professional development and the elementary mathematics classroom: bringing understandings to light. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Colestock, A., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Teachers’ sense-making strategies while watching video of mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 7–29.Google Scholar
  10. Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: prospective teachers’ interpretations of students’ mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(2), 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dyer, E. B. (2015). Exploring teachers’ in-the-moment reasoning in experimentation around responsive teaching in secondary mathematics. In: Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of PME-NA, East Lansing.Google Scholar
  12. Empson, S. B., & Jacobs, V. R. (2008). Learning to listen to children’s mathematics. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education: tools and processes in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 257–281). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. 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(4), 380–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: the clinical interview in psychological research and practice (1st ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6(1), 51–72.Google Scholar
  16. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2012). On the instructional triangle and sources of justification for actions in mathematics teaching. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(5), 601–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lineback, J. E. (2012). Mrs. Miller’s evolution in teaching science as inquiry: a case study of a teacher’s change in responsiveness (unpublished dissertation). University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: an indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences (in press).Google Scholar
  22. Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. A. (2012). Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices: a case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pierson, J. L. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning (unpublished dissertation). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Sherin, M. G. (2001). Developing a professional vision of classroom events. In T. Wood, T. S. Nelson, & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 75–93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2011a). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Sherin, M. G., Louis, D., & Mendez, E. P. (2000). Students’ building on one another’s mathematical ideas. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(3), 186–190.Google Scholar
  28. Sherin, M. G., Russ, R. S., & Colestock, A. A. (2011b). Accessing mathematics teachers’ in-the-moment noticing. In: Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 79–94).Google Scholar
  29. Sherin, M. G., Russ, R., Sherin, B. L., & Colestock, A. (2008). Professional vision in action: an exploratory study. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 27–46.Google Scholar
  30. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: an analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Steinberg, R. M., Empson, S. B., & Carpenter, T. P. (2004). Inquiry into children’s mathematical thinking as a means to teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 237–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tyminski, A. M., Zambak, V. S., Drake, C., & Land, T. J. (2014). Using representations, decomposition, and approximations of practices to support prospective elementary mathematics teachers’ practice of organizing discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(5), 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilhelm, A. G. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ enactment of cognitively demanding tasks: investigating links to teachers’ knowledge and conceptions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 636–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: a case study. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 587–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yeh, C., & Santagata, R. (2015). Preservice teachers’ learning to generate evidence-based hypotheses about the impact of mathematics teaching on learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations