Developing an Understanding of the Mediating Role of Talk in the Elementary Mathematics Classroom
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classroom talk is regarded as essential in engaging and developing student understandings in the domain of mathematics. The processes of classroom talk may occur in quite different ways, ways that shape particular opportunities for learning mathematics. Little is known about how the talk produced in innovative approaches to education mediates the teaching/learning process and promotes student engagement in the practices of mathematics. Situated within a larger study that employed multiple forms of data collection to determine whether a sociocultural approach to teaching and learning could be employed by a sample of teachers to enrich the teaching and learning of mathematics, this paper examines how two teachers used talk to scaffold student learning and how this talk provided students with different opportunities for learning. In the analyses of talk produced in Year 7 classrooms we use Renshaw and Brown’s (in press) discourse characterizations to make visible how different forms of talk were being used in the classrooms as thinking devices and as means to explain and generate understanding. We also employ Bakhtin’s notion of ‘voice’ to consider whether the formats of talk used in each classroom facilitate learning in the domain of mathematics. We conclude that the intentional and reflective use of classroom talk affords students a range of opportunities to develop their mathematical thinking and to facilitate engagement with the practices of mathematics. IntroDuCtIon: the Contexts oF teaChIng anD learnIng MatheMatICs In studying a representative sample of Queensland primary schools, Ainley and Perry (1994a) sought Year 7 students’ views about the primary school curriculum by asking them to nominate their most and least preferred subject lesson in the school day. Thirty-five percent of respondents nominated mathematics as their least preferred lesson of the day. In an associated study, Ainley and Perry (1994b) sought Year 9 and Year 11 students’ views of their curricular experiences through the use of a Likerttype scale survey. Of the 42 Queensland secondary schools surveyed, only 54% of Year 9 students and 48% of Year 11 students agreed that learning mathematics is fun, with less than 50% of respondents from each year level agreeing that they like to do extra work in mathematics—an indicator of continuing motivation in the subject. The results of these surveys imply that many students in Queensland schools find their involvement in school mathematics to be unrewarding both in terms of their personal and civic aspirations—an implication given voice in national documents such as A National Statement on Mathematics for Australian Schools (Australian Education Council, 1991). Coming to know and do school mathematics in ways that challenge students to become involved in the sociocultural practices of mathematics has been the focus of a wide range of curriculum initiatives (see for example, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2004; Queensland Studies Authority, 2004). However, the idea of viewing the teaching and learning of school mathematics as occurring in classrooms, which provide students with access to the practices and ways of interacting adopted by mature mathematical communities, has gained less currency. Sentiments, echoed in reports that call for mathematics reform such as the Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991), have prompted educators operating within distinct, but complementary theoretical frameworks to accept the challenge of investigating the interrelationship between students’ activity, the microculture of the classroom, and the established practices of mature communities of mathematicians. For example, researchers such as Cobb (see for example, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, Nicholls, Wheatley, Tirgatti, & Perlwitz, 1991) and Lampert (see for example, Lampert,1990) have conducted studies into classroom mathematics instruction. As a result of these studies, insights have been gained into the role that classroom talk plays in assisting students to learn grade school mathematics as members of a classroom Journal of Classroom Interaction, ISSN 0749-4025. © 2007, Vol 41.2, Vol 42.1, pages 18 28
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it