International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education
The role of teacher actions for students’ productive interaction solving a linear function problem
APA
In-text citation: (Hansen & Naalsund, 2022)
Reference: Hansen, E. K. S., & Naalsund, M. (2022). The role of teacher actions for students’ productive interaction solving a linear function problem. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(3), em0685. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11921
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Hansen EKS, Naalsund M. The role of teacher actions for students’ productive interaction solving a linear function problem. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(3), em0685. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11921
Chicago
In-text citation: (Hansen and Naalsund, 2022)
Reference: Hansen, Ellen Kristine Solbrekke, and Margrethe Naalsund. "The role of teacher actions for students’ productive interaction solving a linear function problem". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2022 17 no. 3 (2022): em0685. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11921
Harvard
In-text citation: (Hansen and Naalsund, 2022)
Reference: Hansen, E. K. S., and Naalsund, M. (2022). The role of teacher actions for students’ productive interaction solving a linear function problem. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(3), em0685. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11921
MLA
In-text citation: (Hansen and Naalsund, 2022)
Reference: Hansen, Ellen Kristine Solbrekke et al. "The role of teacher actions for students’ productive interaction solving a linear function problem". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 17, no. 3, 2022, em0685. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11921
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Hansen EKS, Naalsund M. The role of teacher actions for students’ productive interaction solving a linear function problem. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(3):em0685. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11921

Abstract

Many studies in mathematics education have emphasized the importance of attending to students’ interactions, particularly, their mathematical reasoning when collaborating on solving problems. However, the question of how teachers can facilitate students’ productive interactions for learning mathematics, is still a challenging one. This case study aims to provide detailed insights into opportunities and limitations related to teachers’ actions for the productivity of students’ interactional patterns solving a linear function problem together. Four student-pairs in the first year of upper secondary school (11th grade) serve as a background on students’ interactional patterns, which in this study focused on three interactional aspects: collaborative processes, mathematical reasoning, and exercised agency. The student-pairs’ three teachers provide insights on teacher actions observed as different funneling and focusing actions, which elucidated opportunities and limitations in several situations influencing the productivity of students’ interactional patterns. The study used purposive sampling in selecting the particular school and three teachers, which were chosen based on acquaintances and willingness to participate in the study. The students’ interaction when solving the mathematical problem and the teachers’ interaction with the pairs were video recorded and observed by the researchers. The analysis method was a deductive analytical strategy, where specific events of interactions were identified, based on the three interactional aspects combined with teacher actions. Coding schemes on students’ interactions were used, as well as on teacher actions. The findings indicate that teachers’ actions and questions influenced students’ interactions, but mainly their reasoning, and particularly the primary agent’s reasoning. Moreover, students who were engaged in interactional patterns called bi-directional and one-directional did not change their ways of interacting after a teacher interaction. Thus, the teachers’ actions did not impact students’ collaborative processes and agencies in the same way as their reasoning. This study adds to the field of mathematics education by illuminating the importance of teachers being aware of students’ roles when they work together, for facilitating a productive interaction for both students in dyads. The study highlights the importance of further research on teacher actions and teacher awareness for facilitating collaborative situations of bi-directional interactions for students’ shared understanding of mathematical concepts and ideas.

References

  • Akkoç, H., & Tall, D. (2005). A mismatch between curriculum design and student learning: the case of the function concept. In D. Hewitt & A. Noyes (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth British Congress of Mathematics Education held at the University of Warwick (pp. 1-8). Citeseer. http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip25-1/
  • Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education: Intention, reflection, critique. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48016-6
  • Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2004). Dialogic learning in collaborative investigation. Nordisk Matematikkdidaktikk [Nordic Mathematics Didactics], 9(2), 39-62.
  • Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29-40.
  • Ayalon, M., & Even, R. (2016). Factors shaping students’ opportunities to engage in argumentative activity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), 575-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9584-3
  • Ayalon, M., & Hershkowitz, R. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ attention to potential classroom situations of argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 49, 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.11.010
  • Baker, M. J. (2015). Collaboration in collaborative learning. Interaction Studies, 16(3), 451-473. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.3.05bak
  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2
  • Best, M., & Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2017). The function concept at the transition to upper secondary school level: Tasks for a situation of change. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(6), 865-880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0880-6
  • Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature, and impact of teacher questions. In D. E. McDougall, & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 773-781). OISE/UT.
  • Boesen, J., Helenius, O., Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., Palm, T., & Palmberg, B. (2014). Developing mathematical competence: From the intended to the enacted curriculum. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 72-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.10.001
  • Brousseau, G. (2006). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970-1990. Springer.
  • Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Cengiz, N., Kline, K., & Grant, T. J. (2011). Extending students’ mathematical thinking during whole-group discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 355-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9179-7
  • Child, S. F. J., & Shaw, S. (2018). Towards an operational framework for establishing and assessing collaborative interactions. Research Papers in Education, 34(3), 276-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1424928
  • Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small-group interaction: Four case studies. In P. Cobb, & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. (pp. 25-129). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Cobb, P., Gresalfi, M., & Hodge, L. L. (2009). An interpretive scheme for analyzing the identities that students develop in mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(1), 40-68. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.40.1.0040
  • Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J. L., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452884
  • Drageset, O. G. (2014). Redirecting, progressing, and focusing actions—A framework for describing how teachers use students’ comments to work with mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 281-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9515-1
  • Drageset, O. G. (2015). Different types of student comments in the mathematics classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 38, 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.01.003
  • Drageset, O. G. (2019). How teachers use interactions to craft different types of student participation during whole-class mathematical work. In Jankvist, U. T., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Veldhuis, M. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp.3622-3629). Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University and ERME.
  • Francisco, J. M. (2013). Learning in collaborative settings: students building on each other’s ideas to promote their mathematical understanding. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), 417-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9437-3
  • Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225-256). Information Age Publishing.
  • Granberg, C., & Olsson, J. (2015). ICT-supported problem solving and collaborative creative reasoning: Exploring linear functions using dynamic mathematics software. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.11.001
  • Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5
  • Hall, J., & Chamblee, G. (2013). Teaching algebra and geometry with GeoGebra: Preparing pre-service teachers for middle grades/secondary mathematics classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 30(1-2), 12-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.764276
  • Hansen, E. K. S. (2021). Students’ agency, creative reasoning, and collaboration in mathematical problem solving. Mathematics Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00365-y
  • Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Information Age Publishing.
  • Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Livingston, K., Jessiman, E., & Donaldson, C. (2007). Group work in elementary science: Towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 549-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.004
  • Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81-116. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034933
  • Krummheuer, G. (2007). Argumentation and participation in the primary mathematics classroom: Two episodes and related theoretical abductions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 60-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.02.001
  • Küchemann, D. (1978). Children’s understanding of numerical variables. Mathematics in School, 7(4), 23-26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30213397
  • Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15569530
  • Lai, E., DiCerbo, K., & Foltz, P. (2017). Skills for today: What we know about teaching and assessing collaboration. Pearson.
  • Langer-Osuna, J. (2018). Exploring the central role of student authority relations in collaborative mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(6), 1077-1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0965-x
  • Langer-Osuna, J., Munson, J., Gargroetzi, E., Williams, I., & Chavez, R. (2020). “So what are we working on?”: How student authority relations shift during collaborative mathematics activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 104, 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09962-3
  • Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice: Linking theory and social research. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209946
  • Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
  • Lepak, J. R., Wernet, J. L. W., & Ayieko, R. A. (2018). Capturing and characterizing students’ strategic algebraic reasoning through cognitively demanding tasks with focus on representations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 50, 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.01.003
  • Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2
  • Lithner, J. (2017). Principles for designing mathematical tasks that enhance imitative and creative reasoning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(6), 937-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0867-3
  • Maher, C. A., Sigley, R., Sullivan, P., & Wilkinson, L. C. (2018). An international perspective on knowledge in teaching mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 51, 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.05.002
  • Malik, M. A. (1980). Historical and pedagogical aspects of the definition of function. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 11(4), 489-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739800110404
  • Martin, L., & Towers, J. (2015). Growing mathematical understanding through collective image making, collective image having, and collective property noticing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9552-4
  • Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137-168. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v1.i2.137
  • Michelsen, C. (2006). Functions: a modelling tool in mathematics and science. ZDM Mathematics Education, 38(3), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02652810
  • Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2012). A framework for analyzing the collaborative construction of arguments and its interplay with agency. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9354-x
  • NCTM. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.
  • Norqvist, M., Jonsson, B., Lithner, J., Qwillbard, T., & Holm, L. (2019). Investigating algorithmic and creative reasoning strategies by eye tracking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 55, 100701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.03.008
  • OECD. (2013). PISA 2015: Draft collaborative problem solving framework. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf
  • Olsson, J. (2018). The contribution of reasoning to the utilization of feedback from software when solving mathematical problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(4), 715-735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9795-x
  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226668253.001.0001
  • Powell, A. (2006). Social cognition emerging from student-to-student discursive interactions during mathematical problem solving. In Novotná, J., Moraová H., Krátká, M, & Stehlíková, N. (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 361-368).
  • Powell, A., Francisco, J., & Maher, C. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.09.002
  • Preiner, J. (2008). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to mathematics teachers: The case of GeoGebra [Doctoral thesis, University of Salzburg].
  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5
  • Sarmiento, J. W., & Stahl, G. (2008). Extending the joint problem space: Time and sequences as essential features of knowledge building. In G. Kanselaar, Jonker, V., Kirschner, P. A., & Prins, F. J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for the Learning Sciences–ICLS 2008 (pp. 295-302). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  • Schoenfeld, A. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(4), 607-621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0483-1
  • Seidouvy, A., & Schindler, M. (2019). An inferentialist account of students’ collaboration in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32, 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00267-0
  • Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670
  • Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative Iinquiry (pp. 134-164). SAGE.
  • Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2-3), 161-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701301125
  • Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
  • Stockero, S. L., Leatham, K. R., Ochieng, M. A., Van Zoest, L. R., & Peterson, B. E. (2019). Teachers’ orientations toward using student mathematical thinking as a resource during whole-class discussion. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23, 237-267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-018-09421-0
  • Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 1, 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1090/cbmath/004/02
  • van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2018). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258
  • Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X380772
  • Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing. In H. Steinbring, M. G. B. Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167-178). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 9-24).
  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877
  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.