“Can any fraction be turned into a decimal?” A case study of a mathematical group discussion

Article

Abstract

This case study examines two days of teacher-led large group discussion in a fifth grade about a mathematical question intended to support student exploration of relationships among fraction and decimal representations and rational numbers. The purpose of the analysis is to illuminate the teacher’s work in supporting student thinking through the use of a mathematical question embedded in a position-driven discussion. The focus is an examination of the ways that the emergence of mathematical ideas is partially shaped by complex interactions among the mathematical contents of the question, the inherent properties of the discourse format and participant structure, and the available computational methods. The teacher’s work is conceptualized in terms of actions and practices that coordinate these diverse tools, in constant response to students’ concurrent use of them.

classroom discourse group discussion mathematical discourse representation of rational number teacher discourse 

REFERENCES

  1. Cajori, F.: 1993/1928, A History of Mathematical Notations. Volume One: Notations in Elementary Mathematics, Dover Publications, New York. Originally published in 1928 by Open Court Publishing Company, LaSalle, Illinois.Google Scholar
  2. Chafe, W.: 1996, ‘Inferring identifiability and accessibility’, in T. Fretheim and J.K. Gundel (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility, John Benjamins Publishing Co, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 37–46.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, H.H.: 1996, Using Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P. and Bauersfeld, H. (eds.): 1995, The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom Cultures, Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J.Google Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., Yackel, E. and McClain, K. (eds.): 2000, Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and Instructional Design, Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, P. and Hersh, R.: 1981, ‘The creation of new mathematics’, in The Experience of Mathematics, Birkhauser, Boston, pp. 291–298.Google Scholar
  7. Gee, J.P., Michaels, S. and O'Connor, M.C.: 1992, ‘Discourse analysis’, in M.D. Le-Compte, W.L. Millroy and J. Preissle (eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, Academic Press, New York, pp. 227–282.Google Scholar
  8. Godfrey, L. and O'Connor, M.C.: 1995, ‘The vertical handspan: non-standard units, expressions, and symbols in the classroom’, Journal of Mathematical Behavior 14(3), 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hatano, G. and Inagaki, K.: 1991, ‘Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity’, in L. Resnick, J. Levine and S. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, APA Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 331–348.Google Scholar
  10. Hiebert, J.A.: 1993, ‘Benefits and costs of research that links teaching and learning mathematics’, in T.P. Carpenter, E. Fennema and T.A. Romberg (eds.), Rational Numbers: An Integration of Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 219–238.Google Scholar
  11. Inagaki, K., Morita, E. and Hatano, G.: 1999, ‘Teaching-learning of evaluative criteria for mathematical arguments through classroom discourse: A cross-national study’, Mathematical Thinking and Learning 1(2), 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kieren, T.E.: 1993, ‘Rational and fractional numbers: from quotient fields to recursive understanding’, in T.E. Carpenter, E. Fennema and T.A. Romberg (eds.), Rational Numbers: An Integration of Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 49–84.Google Scholar
  13. Lampert, M., Rittenhouse, P. and Crumbaugh, C.: 1996, ‘Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse’, in D.R. Olson and N. Torrance (eds.), The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 731–764.Google Scholar
  14. Lampert, M.: 2001, ‘Teaching problems: A study of classroom practice’, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Michaels, S. and Sohmer, R.: 1999, ‘Discourses that promote academic identities’, Keynote address, LERN Conference. September 1999. Alice Springs, Australia.Google Scholar
  16. Mishler, E.G.: 1990, ‘Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies’, Harvard Educational Review 60(4), 415–442.Google Scholar
  17. Nelson, K.: 1991, ‘The matter of time: Interdependencies between language and thought in development’, in S.A. Gelman and J.P. Byrnes (eds.), Perspectives on Language and Thought: Interrelations in Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 278–318.Google Scholar
  18. O'Connor, M.C.; May, 1999, ‘Is this square a rectangle? The linguistic sign and the contexts of classroom discussion’, Paper presented at the Conference on Problems in Discourse Analysis in Mathematics and Science Classrooms, Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  19. O'Connor, M.C., Godfrey, L. and Moses, R.P.: 1998, ‘The missing data point: negotiating purposes in classroom mathematics and science’, in J. Greeno and S. Goldman (eds.), Thinking Practices in Mathematics and Science, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 89–125.Google Scholar
  20. O'Connor, M.C. and Michaels, S.: 1996, ‘Shifting participant frameworks: orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion’, in D. Hicks (ed.), Child Discourse and Social Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 63–102.Google Scholar
  21. Prince, E.: 1992, ‘The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status’, in William C. Mann and S.A. hompson (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raisin Text, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 295–325.Google Scholar
  22. Sfard, A.: 2000a, ‘Steering (dis)course between metaphors and rigor: Using focal analysis to investigate an emergence of mathematical objects’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 31(3), 296–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sfard, A.: 2000b, ‘Symbolizing mathematical reality into being-or how mathematical discourse and mathematical objects create each other’, in P. Cobb, E. Yackel and K. McClain (eds.), Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms - Perspectives on Discourse Tools, and Instructional Design, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 37–98.Google Scholar
  24. Stein, M.K., Smith, M.S., Henningsen, M.A. and Silver, E.A.: 2000, Implementing Standards-Based Mathematics Instruction: A Casebook for Professional Development, Teachers College Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Weame, D. and Kouba, V.L.: 2000, ‘Rational numbers’, in E. Silver and P.A. Kenney (eds.), Results from the 7th Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NCTM, Reston, VA, pp. 163–192.Google Scholar
  26. Vallduví, E. and Engdahl, E.: 1996, ‘The linguistic realization of information packaging’, Linguistics 34(3), 459–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boston UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Boston UniversityBoston

Personalised recommendations