Advertisement

Competences of Mathematics Teachers in Diagnosing Teaching Situations and Offering Feedback to Students: Specificity, Consistency and Reification of Pedagogical and Mathematical Discourses

  • Irene BizaEmail author
  • Elena Nardi
  • Theodossios Zachariades
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Teacher Education book series (MTEN, volume 11)

Abstract

In the study we report in this chapter, we investigate the competences of mathematics pre- and in-service teachers in diagnosing situations pertaining to mathematics teaching and in offering feedback to the students at the heart of said situations. To this aim we deploy a research design that involves engaging teachers with situation-specific tasks in which we invite participants to: solve a mathematical problem; examine a (fictional yet research-informed) solution proposed by a student in class and a (fictional yet research-informed) teacher response to the student; and, describe the approach they themselves would adopt in this classroom situation. Participants were 23 mathematics graduates enrolled in a post-graduate mathematics education programme, many already in-service teachers. They responded to a task that involved debating the identification of a tangent line at an inflection point of a cubic function through resorting to the formal definition of tangency or the function graph. Analysis of their written responses to the task revealed a great variation in the participants’ diagnosing and addressing of teaching issues – in this case involving the role of visualisation in mathematical reasoning. We describe this variation in terms of a typology of four interrelated characteristics that emerged from the data analysis: consistency between stated beliefs/knowledge and intended practice, specificity of the response to the given classroom situation, reification of pedagogical discourses, and reification of mathematical discourses. We propose that deploying the theoretical construct of these characteristics in tandem with our situation-specific task design can contribute towards the identification – as well as reflection upon and development – of mathematics teachers’ diagnostic competences in teacher education and professional development programmes.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study is partially supported by the grant of an annual Erasmus Teaching Staff Mobility programme that has been in place between our institutions since 2002.

References

  1. Artigue, M., & Perrin-Glorian, M.-J. (1991). Didactic engineering, research and development tool: Some theoretical problems linked to this duality. For the Learning of Mathematics, 11(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D., Thames, H. M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biza, I., Christou, C., & Zachariades, T. (2008). Student perspectives on the relationship between a curve and its tangent in the transition from Euclidean Geometry to Analysis. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biza, I., Nardi, E., & Joel, G. (2015). Balancing classroom management with mathematical learning: Using practice-based task design in mathematics teacher education. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 17(2), 182–198.Google Scholar
  5. Biza, I., Nardi, E., & Zachariades, T. (2007). Using tasks to explore teacher knowledge in situation-specific contexts. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biza, I., Nardi, E., & Zachariades, T. (2009). Teacher beliefs and the didactic contract on visualization. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3), 31–36.Google Scholar
  7. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston, MA/London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, K. (1999). What is a case? What is not a case? In M. A. Lundeberg, B. B. Levin, & H. L. Harrington (Eds.), Who learns what from cases and how? The research base for teaching and learning with cases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Castela, C. (1995). Apprendre avec et contre ses connaissances antérieures: Un example concret, celui de la tangente. Recherches en Didactiques des Mathématiques, 15(1), 7–47.Google Scholar
  10. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Christiansen, B., & Walter, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A.-G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education: Papers submitted by members of the Bacomet Group (pp. 243–307). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reide.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreher, A., Nowinska, E., & Kuntze, S. (2013). Awareness of dealing with multiple representations in the mathematics classroom – A study with teachers in Poland and Germany. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 249–256). Kiel, Germany: PME.Google Scholar
  13. Erens, R., & Eichler, A. (2013). Belief systems’ change – from preservice to trainee high school teachers on calculus. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 281–288). Kiel, Germany: PME.Google Scholar
  14. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2003). Exploring the practical rationality of mathematics teaching through conversations about videotaped episodes: The case of engaging students in proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(1), 2–14.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 330–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leont'ev, A. (1975). Dieyatelinocti, soznaine, i lichynosti [Activity, consciousness, and personality]. Moskva, Russia: Politizdat.Google Scholar
  18. Mamolo, A., & Pali, R. (2014). Factors influencing prospective teachers’ recommendations to students: Horizons, hexagons, and heed. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Markovits, Z., & Smith, M. S. (2008). Cases as tools in mathematics teacher education. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education, Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 39–65). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2006). Designing and using mathematical tasks. New York, UK: QED Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nardi, E., Biza, I., & Zachariades, T. (2012). Warrant’ revisited : Integrating mathematics teachers’ pedagogical and epistemological considerations into Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nardi, E., Healy, L., Biza, I., & Hassan AhmadAli Fernandes, S. (2016). Challenging ableist perspectives on the teaching of mathematics through situation-specific tasks. In C. Csíkos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitányi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. 3, pp. 347–354). Szeged, Hungary: PME.Google Scholar
  23. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. Human development, the growth of discourse, and mathematizing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sierpinska, A. (1987). Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sierpinska, A. (2003). Research in mathematics education: Through a keyhole. In E. Simmt & B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group. Acadia University. Wolfville, Nova Scotia: CMESG/GCEDMGoogle Scholar
  27. Speer, M. N. (2005). Issues of methods and theory in the study of mathematics teachers’ professed and attributed beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(3), 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson, A. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 122–127). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Tirosh, D., & Wood, T. (Eds.). (2009). The international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Turner, F., & Rowland, T. (2011). The knowledge quartet as an organizing framework for developing and deepening teachers’ mathematics knowledge. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 195–212). London, UK/New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 65–81). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. In L. Verschaffel & S. Vosniadou (Guest Eds.), The conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching, Special Issue of Learning and Instruction, 14, 445–451.Google Scholar
  34. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2007). Taken-as-shared: A review of common assumptions about mathematical tasks in teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4–6), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zachariades, T., Nardi, E., & Biza, I. (2013). Using multi-stage tasks in mathematics education: Raising awareness, revealing intended practice. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. 4, pp. 417–424). Kiel, Germany: PME.Google Scholar
  37. Zaslavsky, O., & Sullivan, P. (Eds.). (2011). Constructing knowledge for teaching: Secondary mathematics tasks to enhance prospective and practicing teacher learning. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Zaslavsky, O., Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2007). Special issue: The nature and role of tasks in mathematics teachers’ education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4–6), 201–440.Google Scholar
  39. Zazkis, R., Sinclair, N., & Liljedahl, P. (2013). Lesson play in mathematics education: A tool for research and professional development. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Biza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elena Nardi
    • 1
  • Theodossios Zachariades
    • 2
  1. 1.University of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations