Preparing Teachers to Lead Mathematics Discussions

Abstract

Background/Context

Discussion is central to mathematics teaching and learning, as well as to mathematics as an academic discipline. Studies have shown that facilitating discussions is complex work that is not easily done or learned. To make such complex aspects of the work of teaching learnable by beginners, recent research has focused on approaches to teacher education that decompose practice into smaller tasks or routines that can be articulated, unpacked, studied, and rehearsed.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

Drawing on the elements of Grossman et al.'s (2009) framework for pedagogies of practice in professional education, this article describes an approach to analyzing teaching practice that supports the design of teacher education in which novices to learn how to engage in high-leverage teaching practices and simultaneously develop a sense of why the work is done.

Setting

The context for the study is a mathematics methods course for prospective elementary teachers.

Research Design

The study involved qualitative analysis of both the design of the course and its implementation.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Results from this study suggest that: (1) Decomposing teaching into nested practices of varying grain sizes that maintain the connection between techniques and domains can support beginning teachers in attending simultaneously to the how and the why of practice, as well as provide a map of teaching that teacher educators can use to support the learning of teaching. (2) Nesting early approximations of practice inside subsequent ones is a way to support beginning teachers in building toward recom-posed teaching practice. As practices are nested, teacher educators can increase the complexity of the approximations by adjusting the content and authenticity of the context of practice as well as by decreasing the amount scaffolding provided. (3) Assessment is vital to pedagogies of practice. Decompositions, approximations, and representations of practice need to be developed in ways that support assessment for the array of teacher education purposes. (4) Because subject matter is at the heart of teaching, it is crucial to attend to the ways in which the content interacts with pedagogies of practice.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bahr

, & Garcia

(2010). Elementary mathematics is anything by elementary: Content and methods from a developmental perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ball

D. L.

(2001). Teaching, with respect to mathematics and students. In Woods

, Nelson

, & Warfield

(Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics. (pp. 11–22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ball

D. L.

, & Bass

(2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In Phillips

(Ed.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Constructivism in education. (pp. 193–224). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ball

D. L.

, Hill

H. C.

, & Bass

(2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29(3), 14–17, 20–22, 43–46.

Ball

D. L.

, Hoover

, Lewis

, Bass

, & Wall

(2003, April). In attention to equity in teaching elementary mathematics? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Ball

D. L.

, Sleep

, Boerst

, & Bass

(2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109, 458–474.

Boerst

, & Sleep

(2007, April). Uses and meanings of “practice” in learning to do the work of mathematics teaching. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Boerst

, Sleep

, Cole

, & Ball

D. L.

(2008, April). Learning practice through practice: Design considerations of a practice-based course. Presentation made at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research presession, Salt Lake City, UT.

Carpenter

T. P.

, Fennema

, Franke

M. L.

, Levi

, & Empson

(1999). Children's mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

10.

Chapin

S. H.

, O'Connor

, & Anderson

N. C.

(2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.

11.

Confrey

(1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Monograph No., 4, 107–124.

12.

Danielson

(1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

13.

DIAS Project. (2009). Leading a discussion scoring guide. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.

14.

Ghousseini

, & Sleep

(2011). Making practice studyable. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(1), 147–160.

15.

Grossman

, Compton

, Igra

, Ronfeldt

, Shahan

, & Williamson

(2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111, 2055–2100.

16.

Grossman

, & McDonald

(2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184–205.

17.

Grossman

, & Shahan

(2005, April). The anatomy of practice: The use of decomposition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

18.

Heaton

(2000). Teaching mathematics to new standards: Relearning the dance. New York: Teachers College Press.

19.

Hiebert

, Carpenter

, Fennema

, Fuson

, Wearne

, Murray

(1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

20.

Hoyles

(1985). What is the point of group discussions in mathematics? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 205–214.

21.

INTASC. (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

22.

Lampert

(2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

23.

Lampert

(2005, April). Preparing teachers for ambitious instructional practice: Learning to listen and to construct an appropriate response. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

24.

Lampert

(2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 21–34.

25.

Lampert

, & Cobb

(2003) Communication and learning in the mathematics classroom. In Kilpatrick

, & Shifter

(Eds.), Research companion to the NCTM standards. (pp. 237–249). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

26.

Lewis

J. L.

(2007). Teaching as invisible work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

27.

MacLeod

(1987). Microteaching: End of a research era? International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 531–541.

28.

Martino

, & Maher

(1999) Teacher questioning to promote justification and generalization in mathematics: What research practice has taught us. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 53–78.

29.

Michaels

, O'Connor

, & Resnick

(2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education. 27, 283–297.

30.

Morris

, & Hiebert

(2009). Introduction: Building knowledge bases and improving systems of practice. Elementary School Journal, 109, 429–441.

31.

Moss

(2010). Thinking systematically about assessment practice. In Kennedy

(Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook. (pp. 355–374). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Moss

, Boerst

, & Duckor

(2008, April). Developing an Integrated Assessment System (DIAS) in elementary mathematics teacher education: Constructing and interpreting records of practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

33.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2001). Middle childhood generalist standards. (2nd ed.) Arlington, VA: Author.

34.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

35.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

36.

O'Connor

M. C.

, & Michaels

(1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly. 24, 318–335.

37.

Perrone

(2000). Lessons for new teachers. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

38.

Pimm

(1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge.

39.

Rittenhouse

(1998). The teacher's role in mathematical conversation: Stepping in and stepping out. In Lampert

, & Blunk

(Eds.), Talking mathematics in school. (pp. 163–189). New York: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Sherin

(2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 119–150.

41.

Shulman

(1999, June/August). Taking learning seriously. Change. pp. 11–17.

42.

Sleep

(2009). Teaching to the mathematical point: Knowing and using mathematics in teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

43.

Smith

, Hughes

, Engle

, & Stein

(2009). Orchestrating discussions. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14, 549–556.

44.

Teacher Education Initiative. (2009). High-leverage teaching practices (report revised 3/27/09). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Curriculum Group.

45.

TERC. (1998). Investigations in number, data, and space. White Plains, NY: Dale Seymour.

46.

Yackel

, & Cobb

(1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–476.