## Abstract

Teachers play a critical role in supporting students’ mathematical engagement. There is evidence that meaningful student engagement occurs more often in student-centered classrooms, in which the teacher and the students mutually share mathematical authority. However, teacher-centered instruction continues to dominate classroom discourse, and teachers struggle to effectively support student inquiry. This paper presents a framework of teacher moves specific to inquiry-oriented instruction, the *Teacher Moves for Supporting Student Reasoning* (TMSSR) framework. Based on the analysis of four instructors’ implementations of a middle grades (ages 12–14) research-based unit on ratio and linear functions, the TMSSR framework organizes pedagogical moves into four categories, *eliciting*, *responding*, *facilitating*, and *extending*, and then places individual moves within each category on a continuum according to their potential for supporting student reasoning. In this manner, the TMSSR framework characterizes how multiple teacher moves can work together to foster an inquiry-oriented environment. We detail the framework with data examples and then present a classroom episode exemplifying the framework’s operation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

## References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2015).

*Australian Curriculum: Mathematics*. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/.Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.),

*A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics*(pp. 27–44). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11*, 23–41.Brousseau, G. (1997). In N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield (Eds.),

*Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathematiques, 1970–1990*. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Cady, J., Meier, S. L., & Lubinski, C. A. (2006). The mathematical tale of two teachers: A longitudinal study relating mathematics instructional practices to level of intellectual development.

*Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18*(1), 3–26.Cazden, C. (2001).

*Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning*(2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.Cengiz, N., Kline, K., & Grant, T. J. (2011). Extending students’ mathematical thinking during whole-group discussions.

*Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14*, 355–374.Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder.

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28*, 258–277.Cuban, L. (1993). The lure of curricular reform and its pitiful history.

*Phi Delta Kappan, 75*(2), 182–185.Driscoll, M. (1999).

*Fostering algebraic thinking: A guide for teachers, grades 6–10*. Newton: Education Development Center, Inc..Ellis, A. B. (2007). Connections between generalizing and justifying: Students’ reasoning with linear relationships.

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38*(3), 194–229.Ellis, A. B., Ozgur, Z., Kulow, T., Williams, C. C., & Amidon, J. (2015). Quantifying exponential growth: Three conceptual shifts in creating multiplicative rates of change.

*The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 39*, 135–155.Ellis, A. B., Ozgur, Z., Kulow, T., Dogan, M. F., & Amidon, J. (2016). An exponential growth learning trajectory: Students’ emerging understanding exponential growth through covariation.

*Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18*(3), 151–181.Engeström, Y. (1987).

*Learning by expanding*. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.),

*Perspective on activity theory*(pp. 19–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.Evans, S., & Dawson, C. (2017). Orchestrating productive whole class discussions: The role of designed student responses.

*Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 19*(2), 159–179.Forman, E. A., McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (1998). Learning what counts as a mathematical explanation.

*Linguistics and Education, 9*(4), 313–339.Frailvillig, J. L., Murphy, L. A., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms.

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30*(2), 148–170.Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematics thinking in elementary classrooms.

*Journal of Teacher Education, 60*(4), 380–392.Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Identifying instructional moves during guided learning.

*The Reading Teacher, 64*(2), 84–95.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).

*The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research*. Chicago: Aldine.Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring.

*American Educational Research Journal, 31*, 104–137.Harry, B., Surges, K. M., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis.

*Educational Researcher, 34*(2), 3–13.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, 25*, 268–277.Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Steele, M. D., & Cirillo, M. (2013). (Developing) teacher discourse moves: A framework for professional development.

*Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1*(2), 181–196.Herbert, S. (2014). A framework for teachers’ knowledge of mathematical reasoning. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.),

*Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice (Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia)*(pp. 702–705). Sydney: MERGA.Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community.

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35*(2), 81–116.Hunter, R. (2008). Facilitating communities of mathematical inquiry. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.).

*Navigating currents and charting directions (Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia*, Vol. 1, pp. 31–39). Brisbane: MERGA.Hunter, R. (2012). Coming to ‘know’ mathematics through being scaffolded to ‘talk and do’ mathematics

*. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 13*. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/hunter2.pdf.Hunter, R., Hunter, J., Jorgensen, R., & Choy, B. H. (2016). Innovative and powerful pedagogical practices in mathematics education. In K. Makar et al. (Eds.),

*Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2012–2015*(pp. 213–234). Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.Jeannotte, D., & Kieran, C. (2017). A conceptual model of mathematical reasoning for school mathematics.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96*(1), 1–12.Knuth, E., & Peressini, D. (2001). A theoretical framework for examining discourse in mathematics classrooms.

*Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 23*(2), 5–22.Krussel, L., Edwards, B., & Springer, G. T. (2004). The teacher discourse moves: A framework for analyzing discourse in mathematics classrooms.

*School Science and Mathematics, 104*(7), 307–312.Lampert, M., & Cobb, P. (2003). Communication and language. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.),

*A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics*(pp. 237–249). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., et al. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitions teaching.

*Journal of Teacher Education, 64*(3), 226–243.Lannin, J., Ellis, A. B., & Elliott, R. (2011).

*Essential understandings project: Mathematical reasoning (gr. K – 8)*. Reston: National Council of the Teachers of Mathematics.Larsson, M., & Ryve, A. (2012). Balancing on the edge of competency-oriented versus procedural-oriented practices: Orchestrating whole-class discussions of complex mathematical problems.

*Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24*(4), 447–465.Leach, G., Hunter, R., & Hunter, J. (2014). Teachers repositioning culturally diverse students as doers and thinkers of mathematics. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia*(pp. 381–388). Sydney: MERGA.Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptualizing mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on student thinking.

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46*(1), 88–124.Leikin, R., & Dinur, S. (2007). Teacher flexibility in mathematical discussion.

*Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18*(3), 328–247.Leikin, R., & Rosa, S. (2006). Learning through teaching: A case study on the development of a mathematics teacher’s proficiency in managing an inquiry-based classroom.

*Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18*(3), 44–68.Lobato, J., Clarke, D., & Ellis, A. B. (2005). Initiating and eliciting in teaching: A reformulation of telling.

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36*(2), 101–136.Mata-Pereira, J., & da Ponte, J. P. (2017). Enhancing students’ mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Teacher actions facilitating generalization and justification.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96*(2), 169–186.Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.),

*Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction*. Cambridge: MIT Press.Nathan, M., & Knuth, E. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change.

*Cognition and Instruction, 21*(2), 175–207.Reiten, L., Ozgur, Z., & Ellis, A. B. (2015). Students engaging in mathematical practices: As the gears turn.

*Wisconsin Teacher of Mathematics, 68*(1), 7–11.Rittenhouse, P. S. (1998). The teachers’ role in mathematical conversation: Stepping in and out. In M. Lampert & M. Blunk (Eds.),

*Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning*(pp. 163–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Russell, S. J. (1999). Mathematical reasoning in the elementary grades. In L. V. Stiff & R. R. Curcio (Eds.),

*Developing Mathematical Reasoning in Grades K-12, 1999 yearbook*(pp. 1–12). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Saldaña, J. (2009).

*The coding manual for qualitative researchers*. Los Angeles: SAGE.Simon, M., Saldanha, L., McClintock, E., Akar, G., Watanabe, T., & Zembat, I. (2010). A developing approach to studying students’ learning through their mathematical activity.

*Cognition and Instruction, 28*(1), 70–112.Smith, M., & Stein, M. K. (2011).

*Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions*. Reston: NCTM.Speer, N. M. (2008). Connecting beliefs and practices: A fine-grained analysis of a college mathematics teacher’s collections of beliefs and their relationship to his instructional practices.

*Cognition and Instruction, 26*(2), 218–267.Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom.

*Cognition and Instruction, 25*(2), 161–217.Steen, L. (1999). Twenty questions about mathematical reasoning. In L. V. Stiff (Ed.),

*Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12*. (1999 Yearbook (pp. 270–285). Reston: NCTM.Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.),

*Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education*(pp. 267–306). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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.Strauss, A. (1987).

*Qualitative analysis for social scientists*. New York: Cambridge University Press.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).

*Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques*. Newbury Park: Sage.Sullivan, P., Aulert, A., Lehmann, A., Hislop, B., Shepherd, O., & Stubbs, A. (2013). Classroom culture, challenging mathematical tasks and student persistence. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.),

*Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia)*(pp. 618–625). Melbourne: MERGA.Towers, J., & Prouex, J. (2013). An enactivist perspective on teaching mathematics: Reconceptualising and expanding teaching actions.

*Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 15*(1), 5–28.Truxaw, M. P., & DeFranco, T. (2008). Mapping mathematics classroom discourse and its implications for models of teaching.

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39*(5), 489–525.Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.),

*The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures*(pp. 165–201). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Webb, N., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berlmer & R. Calfee (Eds.),

*Handbook of educational psychology*(pp. 841–873). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Wertsch, J., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.),

*Constructivism in education*(pp. 159–174). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Wood, T. (1994). Patterns of interaction and the culture of mathematics classrooms. In S. Lerman (Ed.),

*The culture of the mathematics classroom*(pp. 149–168). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing? In H. Steinbring, M. Bartolini Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.),

*Language and communication in the mathematics classroom*(pp. 167–178). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Yackel, E., & Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.),

*A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics*(pp. 227–236). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Ellis, A., Özgür, Z. & Reiten, L. Teacher moves for supporting student reasoning.
*Math Ed Res J* **31, **107–132 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0246-6

Received:

Revised:

Accepted:

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0246-6

### Keywords

- Mathematics teacher education
- Classroom discussion
- Teacher moves
- Algebra