Advertisement

Feedback: Expanding a Repertoire and Making Choices

  • Dave Hewitt
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Teacher Education book series (MTEN, volume 5)

Abstract

The issue of responding to pupils in-the-moment is one of many complex issues which teachers face in the classroom. I followed a set of student teachers who were given particular activities designed to widen their repertoire of possible ways to respond to pupils’ contributions in the classroom. These activities were a mix of particular lessons to teach along with sessions given at university. There was a significant shift in awareness of different ways of responding which involved less explaining and more use of a variety of techniques such as waiting to allow other pupils to give their thoughts, using body language, asking questions, listening and allowing time for pupils to work things out for themselves. Quite sophisticated techniques were demonstrated by two of these students whose lessons were video recorded and a sense of personal clarity was shown which guided the way in which they responded to pupils in their classrooms. This clarity brought with it a sense of continued development of their teaching skills through a combination of learning from their pupils and their own developing set of beliefs.

Keywords

Student Teacher Pedagogic Content Knowledge Equal Length Experienced Teacher Obtuse Angle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ainley, J., & Luntley, M. (2007). The role of attention in expert classroom practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 10, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauersfeld, H. (1988). ‘Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematics education’. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp. 27–46). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, L., & Coles, A. (2008). Hearing silence: Steps to teaching mathematics. Cambridge: Black Apollo Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, L., & Waddingham, J. (1982). An addendum to Cockroft, Bristol: Resources for Learning Development Unit.Google Scholar
  5. Calderhead, J. (1984). Teachers’ classroom decision-making. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  6. Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19, 2–10.Google Scholar
  7. Doerr, H. M. (2006). Teachers’ ways of listening and responding to students’ emerging mathematical models, ZDM, 38, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffin, P. (1989). Teaching takes place in time, learning takes place over time. Mathematics Teaching, 126, 12–13.Google Scholar
  9. Hewitt, D. (1994). The principle of economy in the teaching and learning of mathematics, Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Open University, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
  10. Hewitt, D. (1999). Arbitrary and necessary: Part 1 a way of viewing the mathematics curriculum. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19, 2–9.Google Scholar
  11. Iannone, P., & Nardi, E. (2005). On the pedagogical insight of mathematicians: ‘Interaction’ and ‘transition from the concrete to the abstract’. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kluger, N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 19, 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9, 2–8.Google Scholar
  14. Mason, J. (1998). ‘Researching from the inside in mathematics education’. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: a search for identity (Book 2, pp. 357–378.) Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The Discipline of Noticing. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  16. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1985). Thinking mathematically. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Scherer, P., & Steinbring, H. (2006). Noticing children’s learning processes – teachers jointly reflect on their own classroom interaction for improving mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 157–185.Google Scholar
  18. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, T. J. (2003). Connecting theory and reflective practice through the use of personal theories. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (PME) and PME North America chapter (PME-NA) (Vol. 4, pp. 215–222). Honolulu, USA: College of Education, University of Hawai'i.Google Scholar
  20. Tahta, D. (1981). Some thoughts arising from the new Nicolet films. Mathematics Teaching, 94, 25–29.Google Scholar
  21. Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interactions and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), Emergence of mathematical meaning: Interactions in classroom culture (pp. 163–201). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Wheeler, D. (1998). The commonsense of teaching. In Y. Pothier (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1998 annual meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 93–99). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Mount Saint Vincent University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. (1982). Students’ and teachers’ views of thinking processes for classroom learning. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 493–519.Google Scholar
  24. Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing. In H. Steinbring, A. Sierpinska, & M. G. Bartolini-Bussi (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations