A Teacher’s Use of Revoicing in Mathematical Discussions

  • Kaouthar BoukafriEmail author
  • Marta Civil
  • Núria Planas
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)


This study explores how a teacher’s use of revoicing promotes students’ mathematical thinking and, more generally, mathematical learning opportunities. We analyzed four lessons where 12-year-old students solved geometry problems. We identified episodes that illustrate how the teacher’s actions supported students’ explanations during mathematical discussions. In this chapter we show two examples, from one of the lessons, where the teacher’s use of revoicing created spaces where students strengthened their understanding of the concept of distance between two points and its relation with the Pythagorean Theorem. Our theoretical approach to revoicing leads us to distinguish and examine three dimensions: linguistic, discursive and mathematical. The integrated view of such dimensions serves to find emergent relationships among talk, classroom discourse, and learning opportunities.


Revoicing Mathematical discussions Teachers’ discourse Linguistic form Discursive function 



This investigation is developed in the context of the Programa de Doctorat en Educació de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, of which the first author is a student. We thank the school, the students and the teacher. Our funding comes from Project EDU2015-65378-P and Grants FPI BES-2013-063859 and EEBB-I-15-10216, Spain, and GIPEAM 2014 SGR 972, Catalonia.


  1. Barwell, R. (2012). Heteroglossia in multilingual mathematics classrooms. In H. Forgazs & F. Rivera (Eds.), Towards equity in mathematics education. Gender, culture, and diversity (pp. 315–332). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Empson, S. (2003). Low-performing students and teaching fractions for understanding: An interactional analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 305–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Enyedy, N., Rubel, L., Castellón, V., Mukhopadhyay, S., Esmonde, I., & Secada, W. (2008). Revoicing in a multilingual classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 134–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Forman, E. A., & Ansell, E. (2001). The multiple voices of a mathematics classroom community. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forman, E. A., & Ansell, E. (2002). Orchestrating the multiple voices and inscriptions of a mathematics classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Moschkovich, J. (2015). Scaffolding student participation in mathematical practices. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1067–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smith, M., & Stein, M. (2012). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  13. Stein, M., Engle, R., Smith, M., & Hughes, E. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vallès, BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations