Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
by
MARIA LYNN BLANTON
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
North Carolina State University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
Raleigh
1998
APPROVED BY:
DEDICATION
To my family.
PERSONAL BIOGRAPHY
The author was born August 7, 1967, to Tommy and Patricia Blanton.
She was raised in Willard, NC. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in
mathematics with secondary teacher certification and Master of Arts degree in
mathematics from the University of North Carolina-Wilmington (UNCW).
After teaching at UNCW, she moved to Raleigh, NC, to attend graduate
school at North Carolina State University. Here, she received her Ph. D. in
Mathematics Education in 1998. While a student, she worked as a teaching
assistant in the Mathematics Department and as a research assistant in the
Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my family for their continued support through all
my years of school. I am especially grateful to have parents that I can count on
for anything and everything. They have always provided a weekend haven
from the rigors of graduate school. Lisa and Joey have helped maintain my
perspective through laughter. My niece, Rachel, and nephew, Joseph, have
reminded me that the most important things in life are not always measured by
academic success.
I thank Dr. Wendy Coulombe for paving the way for me. She has been
a valued friend and mentor. I thank Dr. Draga Vidakovic and Dr. Susan
Westbrook for being unofficial committee members. Their advice has always
been insightful and challenging.
I would like to thank members of my committee, Dr. Lee V. Stif, Dr. JoAnn Cohen, and Dr. Glenda Carter, for being a part of this process. I extend a
special thanks to Dr. Carter for our numerous impromptu discussions on
Vygotsky. She was a tremendous more knowing other.
I would like to thank my co-chair, Dr. Karen Norwood, for her unique
contribution. She motivates me to pursue my own practice with unapologetic
enthusiasm. To this end, she was always willing to extend her expertise, as well
as her classroom supplies.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. Sally
Berenson. She introduced me to a national and international research
community in mathematics education through an extensive apprenticeship in
the Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education. It has been an
invaluable experience. Most especially, she placed an intellectual trust in me
throughout the dissertation process. I sincerely appreciate that trust, as well as
the guidance and encouragement that accompanied it.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................x
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1
PART I: LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................8
Theoretical Framework....................................................................................8
Vygotskys Sociocultural Theory of Learning.............................................9
General Genetic Law of Cultural Development..................................10
Psychological Tools and Signs..................................................................11
The Role of Language.................................................................................12
Social Interactions.......................................................................................13
The Zone of Proximal Development......................................................14
Implications of Vygotskys Sociocultural Theory
for this Study............................................................................16
Teacher Education............................................................................................17
Teachers Beliefs and Knowledge.............................................................17
Learning How to Teach Mathematics.....................................................20
Teacher Development in Context............................................................21
Classroom Interactions....................................................................................23
Implications.......................................................................................................26
The Nature of Qualitative Inquiry................................................................27
In-Depth Interviewing................................................................................28
Participant Observation..............................................................................29
Teaching Experiments................................................................................30
PART II: METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................33
Methodological Framework...........................................................................33
Participants.........................................................................................................35
Data Collection..................................................................................................35
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................38
Role of the Researcher.....................................................................................40
PART III: MATHEMATICAL DISCOURSE IN A PROSPECTIVE
TEACHERS CLASSROOM: THE CASE OF A DEVELOPING
PRACTICE......................................................................................................................42
Abstract...............................................................................................................43
Introduction......................................................................................................44
Teacher Learning Through Classroom Discourse....................................46
Process of Inquiry.............................................................................................49
The Research Setting..................................................................................49
Collecting the Data......................................................................................50
Analyzing Classroom Discourse...................................................................51
Pattern and Function in Teacher-Student Talk....................................51
Process of Analysis......................................................................................54
Findings and Interpretations.........................................................................56
Early Pattern and Function in Classroom Discourse...........................56
Early Pattern and Function in Resolving Students
Mathematical Dilemmas.......................................................57
Early Pattern and Function in Teaching a New Concept...............63
On Early Discourse and Mary Anns Practice....................................73
Indications of an Emerging Practice: Change in Pattern
and Function............................................................................75
The Problem-Solving Day.....................................................................75
Moving Forward in Classroom Discourse: Learning
to Listen.....................................................................................87
Mary Anns Students: More Knowing Others?....................................93
Discussion..........................................................................................................95
References..........................................................................................................98
Appendix..........................................................................................................102
PART IV: THE CYCLE OF MEDIATION: A TEACHER EDUCATORS
EMERGING PEDAGOGY..........................................................................................107
Abstract.............................................................................................................108
Introduction....................................................................................................109
Rethinking the Role of Supervision: Education or Evaluation?........110
Collecting the Data: The Cycle of Mediation.......................................113
Pedagogy of the Teaching Episodes.......................................................116
Data Analysis...................................................................................................118
Findings and Interpretations.......................................................................119
Instructional Conversation in Teaching Episodes
with Mary Ann.....................................................................119
Activating, Using, or Providing Background Knowledge
and Relevant Schemata......................................................120
Thematic Focus for the Discussion...................................................120
Direct Teaching, as Necessary.............................................................123
Minimizing Known-Answer Questions in the Course of
the Discussion.......................................................................124
Teacher Responsivity to Student Contributions...........................124
Connected Discourse, with Multiple and Interactive
Turns on the Same Topic...................................................127
LIST OF TABLES
Page
PART IV: THE CYCLE OF MEDIATION: A TEACHER
EDUCATORS EMERGING PEDAGOGY
1.
2.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
PART I: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.
ABSTRACT
This study also explored the pedagogy of educative supervision and the
consequent role of the university supervisor in opening the prospective
teachers zone of proximal development. Classroom observations by the
supervisor, teaching episode interviews between the supervisor and the
prospective teacher, and focused journal reflections by the prospective teacher,
were coordinated in a process of supervision postulated here as the cycle of
mediation.
Understanding what interactions between the university supervisor and
prospective teacher might resemble in order to promote the prospective
teachers development within her zone was central to this study. The resulting
pedagogy of the teaching episodes was consistent with instructional
conversation (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 1992). In this case, instructional
conversation seemed to open the prospective teachers zone so that her
understanding of teaching mathematics could be mediated with the assistance
of a more knowing other. This, together with the cycle of mediation, suggests
an alternative model for helping teachers develop their craft in the context of
practice.
INTRODUCTION
Historically, mathematics education has entertained diverse views in an
almost eclectic move toward a unified theory of learning. Indeed, advances in
Lappan, & Lanier, 1989; Shulman, 1986; Simon, 1997). One such program has
identified seven domains that constitute teachers professional knowledge as
content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, general pedagogical
knowledge, knowledge of educational contexts, knowledge of curriculum,
knowledge of learners, and knowledge of educational aims (Shulman, 1987).
Shulmans model continues to provide a conceptual framework for other
studies on teaching. Indeed, a number of researchers in mathematics education
(e. g., Ball, 1990; Berenson, et al., 1997; Borko, Eisenhart, Brown, Underhill,
Jones, & Agard, 1992; Even & Tirosh, 1995; McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson, 1989)
recognize that understanding of these knowledge domains, as well as the
consequent role of teacher education programs in teacher preparation, is
currently underdeveloped. They have accepted the challenge this ofers by
studying various strands within each domain as well as the connections that
exist among them.
Of the seven components of this knowledge base for teaching,
pedagogical content knowledge was the focus of this study. Shulman (1987)
defines such knowledge as
that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the
province of teachers.... [It is] the blending of content and pedagogy into
an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are
organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities
of learners, and presented for instruction (p. 8).
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter begins with a discussion of the social construction of
knowledge as a theory of learning. It includes a detailed examination of the
sociocultural theory of Lev Vygotsky, which provided the theoretical
framework for this study. Attention is given to the basic tenets of Vygotskys
theory as well as various constructs associated with it. Linkages between his
theory and this study are established. A review of current literature on the
preparation and development of teachers follows this. In connection with this,
the role of classroom interactions in the social construction of knowledge is
examined. Implications of this study in addressing the limitations of existing
research in teacher education are discussed. Finally, the process of qualitative
inquiry is described to support this choice of research paradigm for the study.
Theoretical Framework
Shulman (1992) wrote that knowledge is socially constructed because it
is always emerging anew from the dialogues and disagreements of its
inventors (p. 27). This suggests an inherent complexity of social
constructivism. That is, social constructivism is difficult to precisely define
because it is subject to the varied experiences and biases of its inventors. Ernest
(1994) comments that there is a lack of consensus about what is meant by the
term, and what its underpinning theoretical bases are (p. 63). He recognizes
that both social processes and individual sense making are central to a social
constructivist theory, and that the emphasis given to either domain will vary
depending on ones theoretical assumptions concerning the nature of mind. In
particular, the social constructivists view of mind will often have Piagetian or
Vygotskian roots, although one may rely on other perspectives more or less
compatible with these traditions. A Piagetian view prioritizes the individual act
of knowledge construction by interpreting social processes as either secondary,
or separate, but equal. Ernest maintains that a Vygotskian theory of mind
views individual subjects and the realm of the social as indissolubly
interconnected (p. 69). He further explains that
mind is viewed as social and conversational because....first of all,
individual thinking of any complexity originates with, and is formed by,
internalized conversation; second, all subsequent individual thinking is
structured and natured by this origin; and third, some mental
functioning is collective (p. 69).
In this study, I have assumed a Vygotskian theory of mind. As such, the
remainder of this section will be used to outline the basic tenets of such a theory
and how it serves as the framework for this study.
Vygotskys Sociocultural Theory of Learning
According to Wertsch (1988), Vygotskys theory of mind consists of three
major themes. First, Vygotsky maintained that any component of mental
functioning is understood only by understanding its origin and history. As
Luria, a protg of Vygotsky, summarized,
in order to explain the highly complex forms of human consciousness
one must go beyond the human organism. One must seek the origins of
conscious activity....in the external processes of social life, in the social
the child has appropriated this skill, he or she then uses it in his or her own
mathematical activity and sometimes to influence the activity of peers. In this
scenario, the childs development occurs within the context of social
interactions. While this illustration implies human-human interaction as a
defining characteristic of social interactions, participants in social interactions
are interpreted more broadly here to include representations of ideas, such as
those embodied in reading materials. In this situation, the readers thinking is
mediated through written speech. Wilson, Teslow, and Taylor (1993) address
this, suggesting that the interactions between teacher and student can be
extended to include interactions between learners and technology-based tools
and agents (p. 81).
The Zone of Proximal Development
The zone of proximal development is one of the central propositions of
Vygotskys sociocultural theory. Daniels (1996) describes this theoretical
construct as the setting in which the social and individual domains meet.
Wertsch and Tulviste (1996) further explain that the zone of proximal
development has powerful implications for how one can change intermental,
and hence intramental, functioning (p. 57). Change results from tool-mediated
activity such as instruction, that is, assistance by a more knowing other ofered
through social interactions with the student. In turn, instruction creates the
zone of proximal development, which stimulates inner developmental
processes (Hedegaard, 1996). The teachers task is to provide meaningful
instructional experiences that enable the student to bridge his or her zone of
a tension was echoed by the stated beliefs and actions of the student teachers
support personnel. The researchers concluded that teaching for conceptual
knowledge should enjoy consistent support from all of the professional
participants in the student teachers experience in order to resolve these
tensions.
Teacher Development in Context
Included in this review of research on teacher preparation and
development is a research program for inservice teachers known as the SecondGrade Classroom Teaching Project (Cobb, et al., 1991). This study is of
particular interest because of its emphasis on knowledge construction in the
context of classroom interactions. Additionally, the researchers use of a
classroom teaching experiment to efect changes in teaching practices supports
the use of such methodology in this study. Embedded within a theoretical
framework of constructivism that equally emphasizes the social negotiation of
classroom norms, the Second-Grade Classroom Teaching Project addresses
second-grade students construction of mathematical knowledge, as well as the
development of a constructivist-based curriculum and the preparation of
elementary teachers to teach in a manner consistent with such a curriculum.
Concerning teacher development, Cobb and colleagues speculate that
the phenomena of implicit routines and dilemmas suggest that teachers
should be helped to develop their pedagogical knowledge and beliefs in
the context of their classroom practice. It is as teachers interact with their
students in concrete situations that they encounter problems that call for
reflection and deliberation. These are the occasions where teachers can
learn from experience. Discussions of these concrete cases with an
observer who suggests an alternative way to frame the situation or
simply calls into question some of the teachers underlying assumptions
can guide the teachers learning (p. 90).
They also recognize that models of teachers constructions of pedagogical
content knowledge are needed. Furthermore, from looking within the
classroom to determine models of childrens constructions of mathematical
knowledge, they suggest that the appropriate setting in which to ascertain
teachers models is also the classroom. Their investigation of one teachers
learning that occurred in the mathematics classroom indicated that the teachers
beliefs about the nature of mathematics and learning were afected as she
resolved conflicts between her existing teaching practices and the projects
emphasis on teaching practices that promoted students constructions of
mathematical knowledge.
Classroom Interactions
Given the recent attention to social constructivism as an epistemological
orientation, it follows that social interactions should be represented in the
research literature. In education, the idea of social interactions in the classroom
is intrinsically bound to such an orientation. The purpose of this section is to
inform the reader of studies on classroom interactions, as well as discussions in
the literature concerning relevant theoretical perspectives.
the piecing together of a puzzle whose picture is not known in advance, but
rather is constructed as the researcher gathers and analyzes the parts. To
accomplish this, the qualitative researcher is uniquely positioned within the
very process of the research, a role which necessitates that any observations be
filtered through the researchers own interpretive lens. Understanding involves
the assumption that the world of inquiry is a complex system in which every
detail could further explain the reality under investigation.
Typically in qualitative research, an explanation for some type of
behavior is sought through an inductive process of spontaneous, unstructured
data collection (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). A variety of methods are available to
the researcher for this purpose, any of which may generate copious data that
must be coded and analyzed for presentation in a manageable form. The most
prevalent of these methods are in-depth interviewing and participant
observation, supplemented at times by artifact reviews. Although used less
frequently, teaching experiments ofer a unique contribution to qualitative
research methodology as well.
In-Depth Interviewing
In-depth, open-ended interviewing is an essential tool of qualitative
research in which the researcher is bent on understanding, in considerable
detail, how people such as teachers, principals, and students think and how
they came to develop the perspectives they hold (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 2).
It is the foremost medium through which the researcher gains access to events
in ones mind that are not directly observable.
Methodological Framework
A naturalistic mode of inquiry was adopted to address the questions of
this study. In particular, case studies incorporating some of the design elements
from the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) provided the
methodological framework. The constant comparative method can be described
as a series of steps that begins with collecting data and identifying key issues
from the data that become categories of focus. More data are collected to
explore the dimensions of such categories and to describe incidents associated
with them as an explanatory model emerges. The data and emerging model are
then analyzed to understand attendant social processes and relationships. This
is followed by a process of coding and writing as the analysis focuses on core
categories. The entire process is repeated continuously throughout the data
collection as developing themes are refined (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). The
resulting explanation of the phenomenon under investigation is often
characterized as grounded theory in that it emerges inductively from the data.
Here, the case studies of prospective middle school mathematics teachers
were treated as microethnographies. That is, the studies were characterized by
a sociocultural interpretation of the data (Merriam, 1988), with the added
assumption that each of the prospective teachers classrooms would develop
unique practices for doing and talking about mathematics and mathematics
teaching (Underwood-Gregg, 1995). Additionally, the task of understanding
prospective teachers constructions of pedagogical content knowledge during
the professional semester called for a teaching experiment. This was envisioned
Data Analysis
The descriptive data corpus generated in this study was analyzed
inductively for themes emerging throughout the process of data collection and
as a result of working with the collected data. Analysis in a qualitative research
study is a systematic process of sense-making that begins in the field (i. e., the
place of data collection). At this point, the purpose is to narrow the focus of the
study, to refine research questions, and plan sessions of data collection in light
of emerging themes. In this study, issues concerning the prospective teachers
pedagogical content knowledge arising within episodes of discourse in the
mathematics classroom served to narrow the focus of inquiry during the data
collection. Given the dynamic process of becoming a teacher, it was expected
that the focus of research with each of the three participants would be diferent.
This, coupled with the extensive data corpus generated by the study, required
selecting one of the prospective teachers for complete analysis after data
collection. Hereafter, I will refer to that participant as Mary Ann (pseudonym).
The analysis that occurred after the data had been collected involved
arranging the data into manageable pieces in order to search for patterns,
discover what was important, and decide what to tell others (Bogdan & Biklen,
1992). This is often described by qualitative researchers as finding the story in
the data. To accomplish this, transcripts from the audiovisual recordings of
observations and interviews with Mary Ann were reviewed for episodes of
meaningful interactions between Mary Ann and her students or her university
supervisor. Such episodes were noted and further analyzed for the mediating
role of conversation, or discourse, in learning to teach mathematics. From this,
appropriate segments were selected for further analysis. Additionally, written
artifacts (e. g., journal reflections) supplementing these data were combed for
confirming or disconfirming evidence of assertions about Mary Anns
pedagogical content knowledge. Coding categories developed from the analysis
were refined through multiple sorts of the data. The data were then analyzed
longitudinally to determine how Mary Anns ideas about teaching mathematics
developed during the professional semester as a result of social interactions.
The process of analysis as it relates to the specific questions of this study is
outlined more extensively in Part III and Part IV.
Role of the Researcher
Abstract
This investigation is a microethnographic study of a prospective middle
school mathematics teachers emerging practice during the professional
semester. In particular, a Vygotskian (1986) sociocultural perspective on
learning is assumed to examine the nature of classroom discourse and its role in
a teachers construction of pedagogical content knowledge.
Classroom observations, teaching episode interviews, and artifact
reviews were used to document the practice of Mary Ann (pseudonym) during
the student teaching practicum. From the data corpus, mathematical discourse
embedded in classroom interactions was analyzed with respect to pattern and
function. Analysis of early classroom interactions indicated that students
awareness of classroom norms for doing mathematics positioned them as Mary
Anns more knowing others, thereby contributing to a reciprocal affirmation of
the traditional roles of teacher and student. Moreover, discourse seemed to play
a dialectical role in Mary Anns construction of pedagogical content knowledge,
as her obligations in the classroom transitioned from funneling students to her
interpretation of a problem to arbitrating students ideas.
The influence of Mary Anns interactions with her students on her
understanding of how to teach mathematics presents a challenge to teacher
educators to help teachers develop their craft in the context of the classroom.
Introduction
In recent years, the preeminence of constructivism as an epistemological
orientation in mathematics education has directed much attention toward
understanding how students construct mathematical knowledge (e. g.,
Bartolini-Bussi, 1991; Cobb 1995; Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1992; Lo, Wheatley, &
Smith, 1991; Stefe & Tzur, 1994; Thompson, 1994). This focus has often led to
interpretive inquiries into classroom discourse as researchers seek to explicate
the nature of students mathematical thinking (e. g., Cobb, 1995; Cobb, Boufi,
McClain, & Whitenack, 1997). Since the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School
Mathematics (1989) has prioritized classroom communication as a facilitator of
students mathematical understanding, an ongoing research interest in
discourse seems assured. Indeed, a continued emphasis on classroom discourse
is pivotal to current reforms in mathematics education because it informs not
only our understanding of students thinking about mathematics, but also
teachers thinking about teaching mathematics. Recent studies in the
professional development of mathematics teachers (e. g., Cobb, Yackel, &
Wood, 1991; Peressini & Knuth, in press; Wood, 1994; Wood, Cobb, & Yackel,
1991) have broadened our vision of classroom discourse as a catalyst for teacher
learning. Cobb, Yackel, and Wood (1991) maintain that it is as teachers interact
with their students in concrete situations that they encounter problems that call
for reflection and deliberation. These are the occasions where teachers learn
from experience (p. 90). However, the nature of classroom discourse and its
well as the students) is being mediated in the context of this interaction. What
emerges for the teacher is a new awareness of how to address a students
difficulty at some level of generality, an awareness that is reflected through
variations in the teachers speech. The teachers practice should increasingly
reflect a depth of experience born out of interactions with students.
Process Of Inquiry
I adopted an interpretive approach (Erickson, 1986) to consider the
developing practice of Mary Ann (pseudonym), a prospective middle school
science and mathematics teacher. Mary Ann was in her final year of a four-year
teacher education program when asked to participate in this study. From our
first meeting in which I explained the purpose of my research, the professional
contribution that she could make, and my role as her university supervisor,
Mary Anns enthusiasm promised a partnership from which we both could
learn.
The Research Setting
I treated the case study of Mary Ann as a microethnography. That is,
viewing the classroom as a socially and culturally organized setting, I was
interested in the meanings that teacher and student brought to discourse and
how this shaped the teachers practice (Erickson, 1986). Since such an approach
presumes that classrooms will develop as separate microcultures, I introduce
the reader here to the school community into which Mary Ann was
acculturated as a student teacher.
The county in which Mary Ann was assigned a student teaching position
is situated in a large urban area that supports 19 public middle schools,
enrolling about 20,000 sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students. Mary Anns
assigned school reflected a relatively diverse student population of 1200.
Progressive discipline, site-based management, and the cooperation of parents
and community were hallmarks of its infrastructure. Outside of the classroom,
teachers worked in interdisciplinary teams to integrate the various content
areas. Within this system, Mary Ann was assigned to a seventh-grade
mathematics classroom in which she taught general mathematics and prealgebra. She was paired with a cooperating teacher who provided a nurturing
atmosphere for Mary Ann.
Collecting the Data
Although my focus here is on discourse in the prospective teachers
classroom, the data corpus reflects broader issues in Mary Anns developing
practice. Specifically, participant observation, in-depth interviews, and artifact
reviews were selected as tools of inquiry. Weekly visits with Mary Ann during
the practicum were a three-hour interval that consisted of a classroom
observation, followed immediately by a teaching episode interview, and finally,
a second classroom observation. Both observations were of Mary Ann teaching
general mathematics. Each visit was documented through field notes and audio
and audiovisual recordings.
Mary Ann was also asked to provide a copy of her lesson plan along
with any supporting materials, such as quizzes or activity sheets, at each visit.
Although these documents were viewed as secondary data sources, I could not
assume that key issues might not later emerge from them. Additionally, Mary
Ann was asked to keep a personal journal in which she reflected on what she
had learned about her students, about mathematics, and about teaching
mathematics through the course of each visit. After each visit, I audiotaped
personal reflections about emerging pedagogical content issues and how future
visits could incorporate these themes as learning opportunities for Mary Ann.
In all, I had eight visits with Mary Ann, followed by a separate exit interview.
Finally, I conducted two clinical interviews with the cooperating teacher to
obtain a more complete picture of Mary Anns classroom community (see
Appendix).
Analyzing Classroom Discourse
Pattern And Function In Teacher-Student Talk
I have outlined a process of data collection that is inclusive of multiple
influences in a teachers development. To examine the questions posed in this
study about classroom discourse, I focused on classroom observations as the
primary data source. Having previously established the theoretical motivation
for an analysis of classroom discourse as a window into the student teachers
developing practice, I now turn to the specifics of such an analysis. Discourse
analysis rests upon the details of passages of discourse, however fragmented
and contradictory, and with what is actually said or written (Potter &
Wetherell, 1987, p. 168). The tendency to read for gist, or to reconstruct the
meaning in someones words so that it makes sense to the reader or listener,
is likely that students initiating and maintaining dialogic interactions may run
counter to typical (American) classroom norms, thereby making it the
responsibility of teachers and teacher educators to cultivate dialogic functioning
in the intermental context of the classroom.
Process of Analysis
Teasing out pattern and function from discourse data seemed arduous at
the outset. I began by transcribing audiovisual recordings of classroom
observations, inserting comments and questions as they arose in transcription.
In retrospect, these memorandums initiated my sense-making of the data
corpus. Using the conversational turn as the basic unit of analysis, I combed the
early transcripts to identify a preliminary coding scheme that would describe
the purpose of Mary Anns utterances. For example, her questions Whats the
common denominator between six and two? and How did you figure out
that six was the common denominator? were coded as Request for
Computation [RFC] and Request for Procedure [RFP], respectively. Such
codes reflected Mary Anns expectations of students as participants in
mathematical discourse, thereby providing insight into her thinking about
teaching mathematics. From this preliminary scheme, codes were refined or
discarded and new codes were added as subsequent data were analyzed. (See
Appendix for this coding scheme.)
To code the transcripts, each classroom observation was divided into
manageable sections based on naturally occurring divisions in the sequence of
classroom events. Such divisions were signaled by a change in theme or
Teacher:
Allyson:
Make it a zero?
Teacher:
O. K., whats the very first thing? Whats the very first
step yesterday? What did we want to do with that
variable?
Allyson:
Isolate it.
Teacher:
want to rewrite it, and just switch, you can just switch it
around like this (Mary Ann illustrates on the OP.). Thats
the same thing. O. K., so now we want to isolate the
variable, but what have we got to do before we isolate the
variable? (A student indicates that they should evaluate
the exponent.) O. K., we want to get rid of that exponent.
So what is nine squared?
6
Students:
Teacher:
Student:
Teacher:
and in this case you write nine down twice. O. K., so then
youve got one hundred and twenty-one. O. K., so now
how do we isolate the variable? (Allysons response is
inaudible to me.) O. K., so subtract eighty-one, and I
want you to start using the term. When I ask, How do
you isolate the variable?, you say, Subtract eighty-one
from both sides. So you dont have to say, Subtract it
from this side, then subtract it over here. Just tell me
subtract eighty-one from both sides. O. K., so eightyeighty-one?
you
one minus
10
Allyson:
Zero.
11
Teacher:
Allyson:
Five.
13
Teacher:
14
Allyson:
Zero.
15
Teacher:
Allyson:
Four.
17
Teacher:
The appearance of the correct solution signaled an end to the episode and Mary
Ann moved on to the next question.
Mary Ann began the dialogue outlined above by establishing her
approach for working the exercise, supplying Allyson with non-mathematical,
referent-laden hints that would prompt Allysons recall of the procedure she
needed to follow (1, 3). Allysons unsuccessful attempt (2) to give the response
that Mary Ann wanted prompted Mary Ann to enact a giving hints routine
(3). Allysons obligation in this interaction was to guess the desired response,
upon which Mary Ann could move to the next phase. At this point, Mary Ann
teacher writes the problem/exercise on the OP and sets the direction for
solving the problem by giving information and asking leading questions
With the exception of the first step, a variation of this pattern typically repeated
until a correct solution appeared.
This episode between Mary Ann and her students seemed to indicate a
predominantly univocal functioning of text. For example, Allysons incorrect
response (2) led Mary Ann to assume that her original question (1) was either
inaccurately transmitted or received. This signaled Mary Ann to retransmit the
message with more accuracy, that is, give more suggestive hints (3). Allysons
correct response (4) then suggested that the message had been accurately
received and Mary Ann could continue (5). As Mary Ann concentrated on
demonstrating her thinking (e. g., 9, 11, 15), she peppered her explanations with
questions that served to check accuracy in transmission (e. g., 13). Neither Mary
Ann nor her students seemed to treat a speakers utterance as something to be
questioned for the purpose of generating new thinking. In other words, a
respondents passive interpretation of a speakers utterance designated the
function of that utterance as univocal. Although Mary Ann did question one
students response (6) in a seemingly dialogic fashion (7), her purpose was to
dispel discrepant thinking (9).
The obligation that Mary Ann felt to clarify Allysons thinking
positioned Mary Ann as the filter of discourse. That is, Mary Ann initiated the
exchange, decided what type of questions to ask, when and to whom to ask
these questions, and when an answer was acceptable. The norm was for
students to respond to the teachers questions, not one anothers ideas.
Orchestrating all of this is quite a challenge, especially for the novice teacher.
Although Mary Ann seemed quite adept, the risk was in her controlling the
discourse as if somehow students were marionettes and she their puppeteer.
Rather than exploring students thinking, their ideas and strategies, Mary Ann
was intent on showing how she would have worked the problem, fishing for
student responses that would support her interpretation. At this early stage in
her practice, it seemed inherent in her beliefs about teaching to be the center of
information for her students, weeding out responses that did not follow a
teacher-selected path for solving the problem at hand. As did all of her eforts,
this approach stemmed from an earnest desire to be a good teacher.
Early pattern and function in teaching a new concept. On my second
visit with Mary Ann, I observed her teaching a lesson on adding and
subtracting algebraic expressions. I have included lengthy transcripts from this
lesson in order to preserve its integrity. Mary Ann often tried to motivate new
topics with a mathematical activity that would pique students interest. Her
opening activity for this particular lesson reflected these eforts.
18
Teacher:
Laura:
No.
20
Teacher:
Teacher:
O. K., shes had one days pay with a three dollar bonus.
(Mary Anns intonation indicates Diannes response
Dianne:
Yes.
23
Teacher:
right?
24
Dianne:
Yes.
25
Teacher:
O. K., Laura has one days pay and we know that Debbie
has one days pay plus three dollars. (She begins to write
information on the OP.) O. K., (to Laura) I want you to
open up your envelope and see what you have.
26
Laura:
Twenty dollars.
27
Teacher:
28
Students:
Twenty-three.
29
Teacher:
30
Students:
Yeah.
31
Teacher:
Student:
One could justifiably argue that Mary Ann, not her students, was the
central player in this activity. A quick glance at teacher and student routines
confirms this. To her credit, Mary Ann seemed to value the use of physical
referents such as integer chips, geoboards, graphing calculators, or her own
creations, as a bridge to abstract ideas. However, her exposition left little room
for dialogic interactions in the classroom.
From this activity, Mary Ann transitioned into the second phase of her
lesson, a review of the defining characteristics of equations and expressions.
33
Teacher:
John:
An unfinished problem...
35
Teacher:
Sharon
It was...
37
Teacher:
turns
can you
Allyson:
Equal sign?
39
Teacher:
me.)
40
Teacher:
Chris:
Uhm...expression?
42
Teacher:
43
Chris:
44
Teacher:
Students:
Addition.
46
Teacher:
Teacher:
can
48
Teacher:
Tom:
Addition.
50
Teacher:
51
Tom:
52
Teacher:
expression (e. g., five more than s) aloud, students with the corresponding parts
(i. e., 5, +, and s) arranged themselves at the front of the room. Occasionally
prompted by Mary Ann, they held their cards to indicate the expression s + 5.
53
Teacher:
we
(indicating
We made a what?
An expression or equation?
54
Students:
Equation.
As with the opening activity of this lesson, Mary Ann again purposed to
situate an abstract idea in a concrete setting, this time using students as visual
referents to personify evaluating expressions. Also as before, she assumed the
responsibility of explaining the process as well as the conclusions, leaving
students with only minimal input. Even so, this activitys inclusion signaled the
importance Mary Ann attached to concrete experiences in making mathematics
meaningful for students.
On early discourse and Mary Anns practice. The early pattern in
classroom interactions that unfolded when Mary Ann taught new concepts was
equivalent in structure to the pattern exhibited when she addressed students
homework questions, outlined earlier in this section. That is, whether Mary
Ann or a student asked a question or posed a task to be solved, Mary Ann
typically established the solution approach by giving information, asking
leading questions, or both (cf. 1, 44), then proceeded to direct students to the
correct solution through questions and hints (cf. 3-5, 37-39). Moreover, the selfperceived roles of teacher and students in mathematical discourse, manifested
through their routine actions, led almost exclusively to univocal classroom
interactions.
What I observed in these early patterns of discourse is not unlike those
outlined elsewhere in the literature. In what Bauersfeld (1988) describes as a
funnel pattern, the teacher asks questions to which he or she already has an
answer. If a student gives an incorrect response, the teacher then tells the
correct response or directs the student step-by-step to the correct answer.
Underwood-Gregg (1995) describes what Voigt has identified as an elicitation
pattern. In this, the teacher vaguely poses a question for which students are
obligated to ofer a variety of answers. The teachers need to direct how the
question is to be answered creates the obligation to follow students ideas that
match those of the teacher, or give hints in order to move students toward the
teachers thinking.
Such patterns of interaction in the classroom, as well as discourse that is
in essence univocal, have been documented in the case of inservice mathematics
teachers (e. g., Underwood-Gregg, 1995; Peressini & Knuth, in press; Wood,
1995). It is the occurrence of such discourse from the outset of a prospective
teachers practice that is of note here. The student teacher undergoes a cultural
metamorphosis from learner of mathematics to teacher of mathematics during
the professional semester. If that student teachers intramental thinking about
mathematics is predominantly say, univocal, then his or her initial teaching
practice would reflect this. That is, how one teaches mathematics is grounded in
how one thinks about mathematics. Mary Anns comments about the role of
problem solving in mathematics during an early teaching episode identified a
consistent link between her thinking about mathematics and her early practice:
I know that math is one big word problem in itself, because one thing
builds on another. But I dont look at it like that. I look at math as just
operations you go through, just like a series of steps. You have to step on
this step before you get to the next one.
In this sense, Mary Anns early languaging in the classroom seemed to
be an external representation of her intramental thinking about mathematics.
This, coupled with the claim by Wertsch and Toma (1995) that 80 percent of
American classrooms bequeath univocality to their students intramental
thinking about mathematics, made it likely that univocal discourse would
dominate Mary Anns early practice. Moreover, it seemed that the inertia
generated by univocal teacher-student interactions in Mary Anns early practice
held implications for her development. This intensified the need to address her
pedagogical content knowledge in its infancy, in the context of her practice.
Indications of an Emerging Practice: Change in Pattern and Function
The problem-solving day. Although the pattern and function that
typified early languaging in Mary Anns classroom persisted throughout the
practicum, later discourse did substantiate emerging patterns in her
interactions with students, as well as a shift from discourse grounded almost
exclusively in univocal functioning. My third visit with Mary Ann, later
monikered the problem-solving day because of the lessons focus, revealed
such changes. I reiterate that the purpose of the present study is not to address
the role of contexts external to the classroom on changes in Mary Anns
practice. Clearly, such contexts (e. g., interactions with the university supervisor
or cooperating teacher) shape the prospective teachers thinking about teaching
mathematics, as they did with Mary Ann. Rather, the purpose here is to explore
the nature of interactions in Mary Anns classroom and how those interactions
mediated her pedagogical content knowledge.
The lesson on the problem-solving day dealt with the strategy working
backwards as a way to solve simple word problems. Mary Ann had earlier
insisted that she was uncomfortable with word problems and did not want to
teach this particular lesson, yet she took considerable risks in an attempt to
move from her previous teaching paradigm. After addressing students
questions from the homework, she then asked students to work in dyads to
solve the following problem:
Problem 1: Im thinking of a number that if you divide by three and then
add five, the result is eleven.
Removing herself as the mathematical authority, Mary Ann seemed to
want students to struggle with the problem through peer interactions and to
justify their thinking to one another before she joined the process. Her attempt
to renegotiate classroom norms in resolving a mathematical question met with
immediate resistance from students as, almost imperceptibly, their role in doing
mathematics had shifted. The following conversation illustrates the tension
created by Mary Anns initial eforts to change her practice. As it begins, a
student has just asked Mary Ann if he should write Problem 1 in his notes.
55
Teacher:
Teacher:
57
Teacher:
Another student asked for help, yet Mary Ann continued to resist intervening.
Instead, she encouraged the student to work with her partner.
58
Teacher:
Did you consult with [your partner] and tell her how you
feel about it? (The student indicates she has.) And she
thinks thats right? (The student again indicates she has.
More students raise their hands.) No hands up. Just talk
about it. (A student tells Mary Ann she has the answer.)
O. K. Good. Then yall are ready. (She turns her
attention to a particular dyad.) So have yall talked about
it? You got together? (She moves to another pair.) Have
you figured it out? (They indicate they have.) And you
both agree that this is your number?
Mary Ann walked around the room several more minutes, stopping
periodically to promote students interactions. By the end of this episode, the
classroom resonated with a steady hum as students, realizing Mary Anns
intentions, began to communicate mathematically with each other.
The whole-class discussion that followed reflected another shift in Mary
Anns practice, as she pointedly asked diferent groups to share their solutions,
and later their thinking, with the class. Noting the first groups correct response
and immediately moving to others for their solutions, Mary Ann appeared
Teacher:
60
Group:
Six.
61
Teacher:
62
Jack:
Eighteen.
63
Teacher:
64
Wendy:
I got thirty-eight.
At this point, Mary Ann asked Debbie to explain her (correct) solution of
eighteen, to which Debbie responded with a procedural account of her thinking
(65). What seems noteworthy here is that, by eliciting Debbies strategy, Mary
Ann was relinquishing a role which typically she felt obligated to fill.
65
Debbie:
who had found the correct solution, she asked several groups who had made
unsuccessful attempts to explain their thinking as well, reflecting a departure
from a practice in which she rarely countenanced incorrect answers. The
following episode depicts this.
66
Teacher:
67
Student 1:
Same way.
68
Teacher:
69:
Student 1:
No.
At the students hesitance to explain his groups strategy, Mary Ann turned to
another pair frantically waving their hands in order to be recognized.
70:
Teacher:
71:
Student 2:
72
Teacher:
Student 2:
Uh huh.
74
Teacher:
75
Student 3:
76
Teacher:
77
Student 3:
O. K., she (indicating her partner) got six because she just
added six to...(Student 3s partner objects but her
response is inaudible to me). All she did was added six to
five.
78
Teacher:
O. K., six to five, but what did you do with the three
Student 4:
I did s over 3.
80
Teacher:
81
Student 4:
S over three.
82
Teacher:
83
Student 4:
Equals eleven.
84
Teacher:
85
Student 4:
Teacher:
you did. Is there any certain way you can call maybe what
you did, without using the book? When you looked at
this problem, where did you start?
87
Debbie:
88
Teacher:
89
Debbie:
90
Teacher:
Debbie:
92
Teacher:
one way, I can check it, and if I get it right, then Im right, and Im right,
and Im right. Thats all there is to it.
Although she stated her receptiveness to students alternative strategies, Mary
Anns discomfort with exploring various routes to a tasks solution was
exhibited in early patterns of classroom interactions where she, not the
students, determined the solution path (e. g., 48-52). That she was now willing
to sacrifice the one strategy she was comfortable with by the inclusion of other
valid processes seemed a significant shift for her.
After posing the following problem to students, Mary Ann once again
turned to Debbie.
Problem 2: The Blueberry Festival is held each Labor Day. This year
there are 89 entries. This is twice the number of last years entries, plus
seven. How many entries were in the blueberry run last year?
93
Teacher:
94
Debbie:
95
Teacher:
what did you have to do? So now you said you worked
from the back end up. So what did you have to do?
96
Debbie:
teacher writes the problem on the OP and asks students to work in dyads
for a solution
Once the students saw how one of their peers was able to solve the
problem, things were a lot more clear to all. I learned that having the
student come up with the solution means more to the others than the
teacher giving a long, drawn-out lecture.
This reflection supports the assertion that Mary Anns pedagogical
content knowledge was mediated toward a more student-centered practice in
the intermental context of the classroom. In particular, where once she felt the
obligation to give a long, drawn-out lecture by throwing information out,
she now seemed to appreciate students thinking through a process with their
peers without a barrage of instructional questions from the teacher.
Moving forward in classroom discourse: Learning to listen. Although
Mary Anns emerging pedagogical content knowledge exhibited a nonlinearity
as she shifted between familiar and unfamiliar routines, the events of the
problem-solving day seemed to anchor her flexibility for risk-taking in future
discourse. An episode several weeks later underscored this continuing growth
in the pattern and function of discourse in Mary Anns classroom. In an
investigation of the number of diagonals in a polygon, pairs of students were
given geoboards on which they were to form a polygon (and all of its
diagonals) by attaching rubber bands. As students worked, Mary Ann recorded
their findings on the board in two columns, one showing the number of sides
for a given polygon, and the other its corresponding number of diagonals. After
determining the number of diagonals in a triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon, and
hexagon, students were asked to find a pattern that would predict the number
Teacher:
Teacher:
99
Students:
Yeah.
100
Teacher:
101
Student 5:
Yeah, it works.
102
Teacher:
Susan: Fourteen.
104
Teacher:
105
Karen:Fourteen.
106
Teacher:
107
Randy:
Fourteen.
108
Teacher:
Fourteen. Christie?
109
Christie:
Fourteen.
110
Teacher:
Fourteen.
111
Student 6:
112
Teacher:
113
John:
I think twelve.
114
Teacher:
John:
116
Teacher:
117
Lisa:
I have twelve.
118
Teacher:
John:
120
Teacher:
121
John:
122
Teacher:
123
John:
124
Teacher:
125
John:
126
Teacher:
127
John:
128
Teacher:
129
John:
130
Teacher:
five,
her hand
this. (After no
So were saying
diagonals. O. K., if
to back it up
an equation that
Im solving for a variable,
and youre
your
got to
have some way to back it up. I didnt say this is right (i. e.,
fourteen). I said this is what youre making me buy into,
or selling to me. (After students start to work, she turns
back to John.) Do you have an answer?
131
John:
132
Teacher:
John:
Because it starts out at zero. Then you add one. Then you
add three on. Then you add four on.
134
Teacher:
135
Student 7:
Fourteen.
136
Teacher:
Fourteen.
137
John:
138
Teacher:
For the remainder of the lesson, Mary Ann and her students continued
with this rich pattern of interaction. It stands in marked contrast to the
discourse that characterized her early practice. In this episode, we see Mary
Anns early tendency to ask leading questions in order to demonstrate her
thinking replaced with a purpose to ask questions that make sense of students
thinking. She seemed to be learning to listen to her students dialogically. That
is, she seemed to be listening in order to generate new understanding, not just
determine if information had been correctly transmitted and received (e. g., 120128). This ofers a compelling argument for Mary Anns development as a
teacher. Moreover, such discourse required her to cede authority to her
students, as she did with John. While she risked vulnerability in doing this, her
efort illustrates an ongoing attempt to promote meaningful discourse in her
practice.
As on the problem-solving day, Mary Ann again initiated a routine of
soliciting students solutions in the whole-class discussion surrounding the
problem of finding the pattern. Furthermore, where earlier she may have
solicited only correct solutions, it was the introduction of an incorrect answer in
this episode that finally got her attention (102-114). This is not to say that
correct thinking is not a valued part of discourse. Indeed it is, and to suggest
otherwise is somewhat misleading. However, the activity of teaching must
extend beyond demonstrating correct procedures to include dialogic
interactions as well. Mary Anns later practice seemed to recognize this need.
Mary Anns Students: More Knowing Others?
As a prospective teacher, Mary Ann was acculturated into a
mathematical community in which her students were already members. Thus,
students cognizance of that communitys existing norms for doing
mathematics positioned them as her more knowing others. Clearly, Mary Anns
students did not hold an overt agenda for shaping her practice. Nonetheless,
her sensitivity to students experiences while under her tutelage did yield a
form of influence to them. In particular, the early patterns of interaction
However, discourse in
Mary Anns classroom did document an emerging practice consistent with the
views sanctioned by this NCTM document. In particular, the univocal discourse
that characterized early languaging in her classroom was later tempered with
Mary Anns eforts to interact dialogically as she encouraged students to
hypothesize (e. g., 98-100) and justify their thinking with mathematical
evidence (e. g., 114-129) in order to solve non-routine problems (e. g., 97). The
patterns in classroom discourse expressed this transition in Mary Anns
pedagogical content knowledge as well. Her image of the teacher as a
mathematical authority, obligated to funnel students exclusively to her own
References
Bartolini-Bussi, M. G. (1991). Social interaction and mathematical
knowledge. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual
Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (pp. 1-16). Assisi, Italy.
Bauersfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge:
Alternative perspectives for mathematics education. In T. Cooney & D. Grouws
(Eds.), Efective mathematics teaching (pp. 27-46). Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics and Lawrence Erlbaum.
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. 25-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective
discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 28(3), 258-277.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1991). Curriculum and teacher
development: Psychological and anthropological perspectives. In E. Fennema,
T. P. Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and
learning mathematics (pp. 83-119). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in
mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(1),
99-122.
APPENDIX
COOPERATINGTEACHERASSESSMENT
OFTHE
STUDENTTEACHER/COOPERATINGTEACHERPARTNERSHIP
Whatwereyourgoalsandexpectationswhenyouenteredthispartnership?
Howhavethesegoalsandexpectationschanged,ifatall,duringthispracticum?
Howdidyouperceiveyourroleascooperatingteacherwhenyouenteredthis
partnership?
Howhasthisperceptionchanged,ifatall,duringthispracticum?
Describethenatureofyourpartnership.
Whatdoyouthinkyourstudentteacherlearnedfromyou?
Wasthereevidencethatheorshesuccessfullycompletedyourperceptionofthe
practicum?Ifso,what?
Whatdidyoulearnfromyourstudentteacher?
Describeyourinteractionswithyourstudentteacher.(E.g.,Didyoumeetona
regularbasis?Informallyorformally?Howdidyounegotiateyourrespective
rolesintheclass?)
DQ:
student.
RFI:
provide information that requires only rote recall (e. g., give
acknowledge teachers solutions, respond to closed
definitions,
questions).
RFC:
a simple computation.
RFP:
TCSR
same
CFQ
QSS
HOA
RFPS
RFJ
or her thinking.
RTR
RTI
Abstract
This investigation explores the pedagogy of educative supervision in a
case study of one prospective middle school mathematics teacher during the
professional semester. Educative supervision as defined here uses the context of
the prospective teachers practice to challenge his or her existing models of
teaching. It rests on the Vygotskian (1978) tenet that the university supervisor
can guide the prospective teachers development to a greater extent than the
prospective teacher can when working alone.
Classroom observations by the university supervisor, teaching episode
interviews between the supervisor and prospective teacher, and focused journal
reflections by the prospective teacher were coordinated in a process of
supervision postulated here as the cycle of mediation. The pedagogy of the
teaching episodes, a central part of this study, was closely aligned with
instructional conversation (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 1992).
The cycle of mediation suggests an avenue for efecting prospective
teachers development in the context of their practice. In this study,
perturbations experienced by the prospective teacher in classroom discourse
presented opportunities in supervision to promote change in her practice.
Moreover, instructional conversation in the teaching episodes seemed to open
the prospective teachers zone of proximal development so that her
understanding of teaching mathematics could be mediated with the assistance
of a more knowing other.
Introduction
No one would seriously question the complexities of the student
teaching practicum. From a sociocultural perspective, the practicum reflects the
integration of often dissonant agendas of teaching and learning that ultimately
define a community into which the student teacher is acculturated. It demands
that the prospective teacher negotiate tensions imposed by the juxtaposition of
school and university cultures in the context of a practice still in its infancy. It is
from the surfeit of pedagogical beliefs and practices constituting this
community that the student teachers practice emerges.
Despite these challenges, the practicum still promises the optimal setting
in which knowledge of content and pedagogy coalesce in the making of a
teacher. This possibility invites questions about the ability of any agencies
associated with the practicum to efect teacher change. Of particular interest
here is the role of university supervision in that process. Specifically, is
supervision an efectual path to teacher development?
Furthermore, does supervision function as teacher education, or does it instead
reinforce pre-existing habits of teaching by focusing on ancillary issues?
Research on the supervision of student teachers has produced a continuum of
responses to these questions. While the more skeptical suggest that we abandon
supervision altogether (Bowman, 1979), others argue that we must
fundamentally alter the way we supervise if we are to efect real change in the
ways that student teachers teach (Ben-Peretz & Rumney, 1991; Borko &
the unofficial mantra. She had successfully completed her academic program
and was eager to begin the professional semester. Assigned to a seventh-grade
mathematics classroom in an urban middle school, Mary Ann was paired with
a veteran cooperating teacher who proved to be extremely supportive. The
cooperating teachers approach of sharing her own wisdom of practice without
stifling Mary Anns ideas led to a positive, open relationship between them.
Mary Ann and I arranged weekly visits during the practicum for what I
conceptualized as an extension of Stefes (1991) constructivist teaching
experiment. That is, rather than eliciting models of childrens constructions of
mathematical knowledge, I was interested in a teachers (i. e., Mary Anns)
construction of pedagogical content knowledge. Each visit consisted of a threehour sequence that began with an observation of Mary Ann teaching her first
period general mathematics class. Field notes taken during this observation
focused on episodes of discourse that reflected the nature of her thinking about
teaching mathematics. Immediately following the observation, I collaborated
with Mary Ann in a 45-minute teaching episode to help make sense of these
classroom interactions. In particular, Mary Anns thinking about the
interactions, what they suggested about how students learn mathematics, and
consequently how subsequent lessons might be modified to reflect this, were
discussed. The visit concluded with a second classroom observation of Mary
Anns third period general mathematics class. This provided the chance to
document short-term changes in Mary Anns practice as she taught the same
subject to a diferent class after a teaching episode. Additionally, Mary Ann was
asked to keep a personal journal in which she reflected on what she had learned
about her students, about mathematics, and about teaching mathematics (see
Appendix). Other written artifacts, such as lesson plans, activity sheets, and
quizzes, were collected as well.
At the conclusion of each visit, I audiotaped personal reflections about
emerging pedagogical content issues and how future visits could incorporate
these themes as learning opportunities for Mary Ann. In all, I had eight visits
followed by a separate exit interview. Finally, I conducted two clinical
interviews with the cooperating teacher to obtain a more complete picture of
Mary Anns social context. These interviews were based on questions
concerning the cooperating teacher-student teacher partnership that the
cooperating teacher was asked to reflect on prior to the meetings (see
Appendix). Each visit, documented through field notes and complete audio and
audiovisual recordings, along with supporting written artifacts and interviews
with the cooperating teacher, provided the data corpus for this investigation.
The supervisory process of observation, teaching episode, observation, and
written reflection that Mary Ann experienced as part of this study is described
here as the cycle of mediation (see Figure 1). It is postulated in this study as a
model for educative supervision.
more advanced level in the teacher education program (as cited in Jones, Rua,
& Carter, 1997, p. 6).
Intellectual honesty further mandated the pedagogy of the teaching
episodes. That is, since my purpose was to teach Mary Ann, my own practice
needed to be consonant with current reforms in mathematics education.
However, little is known about what it means to supervise from this theoretical
orientation. Moving away from an authoritative voice, I turned to instructional
conversation as the underlying pedagogy. Instructional conversation stems
from a cultural ethos that emphasizes the use of narrative in an individuals
development. Gallimore and Goldenberg (1992) and Rogof (1990) describe it as
a primary means of assisted performance in preschool discourse between
parent and child. Ones way of life, embedded in picture books and bedtime
stories, is taught through conversation in the context of familial relationships.
While formal schooling may seem far removed from this setting, the
essence of instructional conversation is a promising technique in that context as
well. Gallimore and Goldenberg (1992) recognize that, traditionally, this form of
teaching abates in school, where teachers are more likely to dominate
interactions and students are less likely to converse with their teacher or peers.
Part of the difficulty of instructional conversation in the classroom is that it
involves the paradox of planful intention and responsive spontaneity
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 1992, p. 209). Furthermore, it requires teachers to
shift from an evaluative role grounded in known-answer questioning, to a
facilitory role in which they elicit students ideas and interpretations. Despite
Specific excerpts from transcripts of this visit (referred to later in the text as the
problem-solving day) are included to substantiate the results of the study.
Findings and Interpretations
Instructional Conversation in Teaching Episodes with Mary Ann
In an investigation of elementary students reading comprehension,
Gallimore and Goldenberg (1992) mutually negotiated ten characteristics of
instructional conversation: (a) activating, using, or providing background
knowledge and relevant schemata; (b) thematic focus for the discussion; (c)
direct teaching, as necessary; (d) promoting more complex language and
expression by students; (e) promoting bases for statements or positions; (f)
minimizing known-answer questions in the course of the discussion; (g) teacher
responsivity to student contributions; (h) connected discourse, with multiple
and interactive turns on the same topic; (i) a challenging but nonthreatening
environment; and (j) general participation, including self-elected turns. These
characteristics suggest what it might look like to supervise from a sociocultural
perspective. Those most representative of my instructional conversations with
Mary Ann motivate the following discussion on how supervision from this
perspective emerged during the investigation. Excerpts from the problemsolving day are used to situate these features within the context of the present
study.
Activating, using, or providing background knowledge and relevant
schemata. Gallimore and Goldenberg (1992) maintain that students must be
drawn into conversations that create opportunities for teachers to assist (p.
student shared a procedure for obtaining this solution, Mary Ann began a stepby-step account of how to work backwards to find the answer. Analysis later
showed that she had interpreted students responses univocally, asking
cognitively-small questions (e. g., [What is] thirteen minus five?, What is eight
times three?) to align their thinking with her own. Equating student feedback
with understanding, Mary Anns frustration surfaced later when the class
attempted to solve a similar problem.
1
Mary Ann:
Class:
Inverse.
Table 1
Conversational Time Used by Participants in the Teaching Episodes
Participant
TE1
TE2
TE3TE4
Student teacher
82
84
72
73
University supervisor
18
16
28
27
with Mary Ann during the problem-solving day. It illustrates the efort to
maintain sensitivity to her zone while guiding her thinking, to base supervision
on her understanding of teaching mathematics, not my own.
3
Mary Ann:
Mary Ann:
Two heads are always better than one, and the kid
next to you might be thinking of one way, but
Mary Ann:
10
Mary Ann:
the next class (10), was spoken with a sense of reflection and ownership. It
stood in sharp contrast with her initial reticence (6). It should also be noted that
this remark occurred over halfway through the teaching episode, after much
attention had been given to Mary Anns thinking about problem solving and
the nature of interactions that surrounded a problem posed in class. While one
might argue that a didactical approach (in the American semantic) to
supervision would have been more efficient, I seriously question if it would
have led to Mary Anns commitment to try an alternative strategy. However,
instructional conversation seemed to open her zone of proximal development
cognitively and afectively, thereby producing at least a short-term commitment
to change.
Connected discourse, with multiple and interactive turns on the same
topic. Specific directives on how Mary Ann might alter her instruction after a
given mathematical task had been posed were revisited several times within the
teaching episode on the problem-solving day. When I sensed that my directives
were out of her zone of proximal development, I steered to related subjects (e.
g., her perception of problem solving in mathematics), but eventually moved
back to this topic. Furthermore, this particular teaching episode became a
hook (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 1992), or referent, in later conversations with
Mary Ann.
Table 2 is provided as an overview of general topics addressed in the
teaching episodes. In particular, it summarizes the focus on pedagogical
content knowledge throughout Mary Anns practicum. Specifically,
Table 2
Conversational Time Given to Subject Code During Teaching Episodes
Subject Code
TE1
TE2 TE3
TE4
Mathematics pedagogy
20
51
53
47
General pedagogy
28
20
23
11
16
24
17
14
14
28
Mathematical knowledge
Knowledge of student
understanding
Classroom management
Student-teacher
relationship
was this a memorable event. The pressure was lifted of of me.... Once
the students saw how one of their peers was able to solve the problem,
things were a lot more clear to all. I learned that having a student come
up with the solution means more to the others than the teacher giving a
long, drawn-out lecture. Sometimes you need for things to flop, so you
can think up new ways to approach the situation.
From my observations, the problem-solving day was a first step in Mary
Anns attempts to interact dialogically with her students. Furthermore, it
seemed to anchor her willingness to take risks in her practice based on ideas
mediated through instructional conversation. She continued to develop, albeit
in a nonlinear fashion, toward a practice which included dialogic as well as
univocal interactions.
Discussion
This study investigates in part what it means to educate student teachers
from a sociocultural perspective during the professional semester.
Cobb, Yackel, and Wood (1991) maintain that
teachers should be helped to develop their pedagogical knowledge and
beliefs in the context of their classroom practice. It is as teachers interact
with their students in concrete situations that they encounter problems
that call for reflection and deliberation.... Discussions of these concrete
cases with an observer who suggests an alternative way to frame the
situation or simply calls into question some of the
As such, this investigation is a first attempt to understand that process from the
supervisors lens.
References
Ben-Peretz, M., & Rumney, S. (1991). Professional thinking in guided
practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(5), 517-530.
Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and
university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education,
11(5), 501-518.
Bowman, N. (1979). College supervision of student teaching: A time to
reconsider. Journal of Teacher Education 30(3), 29-30.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1991). Curriculum and teacher
development: Psychological and anthropological perspectives. In E. Fennema,
T. P. Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and
learning mathematics (pp. 83-119). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longman.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching
teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education 3, 255-273.
Frykholm, J. (1996). Pre-service teachers in mathematics: Struggling with
the Standards. Teaching and Teacher Education 12(6), 665-681.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (1992). Tracking the developmental path
of teachers and learners: A Vygotskian perspective. In F. Oser, A. Dick, & J.
Patry (Eds.), Efective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 203221). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
APPENDIX
EXPECTATIONOFTHESTUDENTTEACHER
Sept.24
(StudentTeacher)
AsIhavealreadymentionedtoyou,eachofmyobservationswillinvolvea
(telephone)preconference,observing2classesweekly(whenpossible),andapost
conference.Exceptforthefrequency,thisshouldbetypicalforallstudentteachers.I
wouldlikeforyoutohaveacopyofyourlessonplantogivetomeonthedaythatI
observe.Also,Iwouldlikeareflectivejournalentryforeachofmyvisits.Beloware
somequestionsthatIwouldlikeforyoutoaddress.Sincethisisonlyoneentryper
week(roughly),itshouldnotbetoodemandingofyourtime.Youdonothavetodo
thisseparatelyfromthejournalrequirementsforDr.Sand/orDr.N,butyoumay
includemyquestionswithintheirrequirements(e.g.,theymayrequiremorethanone
entryperweekandyoushouldfulfillthatobligation,butIamonlyspecificallylooking
forasingledetailedentrycorrespondingtomyvisitsthataddressesthefollowing
questions.Wherethereispossibleoverlap,useittoyouradvantage.)Ifyouhaveany
questions,pleaseletmeknow.
Questionstoconsiderforyourjournalentries:
Whatstudentinteraction(s)was/werethemostmemorabletoyou(duringmy
observation)?(Pleaseavoidinteractionsthatdealwithclassroommanagement,etc.I
amonlyinterestedininteractionsastheyrelatetoyourteachingmathematics.)Why?
How(ifatall)didthisaffectyourinstruction?
How(ifatall)didthisaffectyourunderstandingofmathematics?
Whatdidyoulearnabout(your)studentsasaresultofthis?
you.
Ihaveenclosedaconsentformforyoutosign.IwillpickitupwhenIobserve
Thankyou!
Maria
COOPERATINGTEACHERASSESSMENT
OFTHE
STUDENTTEACHER/COOPERATINGTEACHERPARTNERSHIP
Whatwereyourgoalsandexpectationswhenyouenteredthispartnership?
Howhavethesegoalsandexpectationschanged,ifatall,duringthispracticum?
Howdidyouperceiveyourroleascooperatingteacherwhenyouenteredthis
partnership?
Howhasthisperceptionchanged,ifatall,duringthispracticum?
Describethenatureofyourpartnership.
Whatdoyouthinkyourstudentteacherlearnedfromyou?
Wasthereevidencethatheorshesuccessfullycompletedyourperceptionofthe
practicum?Ifso,what?
Whatdidyoulearnfromyourstudentteacher?
Describeyourinteractionswithyourstudentteacher.(e.g.,Didyoumeetona
regularbasis?Informallyorformally?Howdidyounegotiateyourrespective
rolesintheclass?)
LIST OF REFERENCES
Bakhurst, D. (1996). Social memory in Soviet thought. In H. Daniels (Ed.),
An introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 198-218). London: Routledge.
Balachef, N. (1990). Beyond a psychological approach of the psychology
of mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 10(3), 2-8.
Ball, D. (1988). Research on teacher learning: Studying how teachers
knowledge changes. Action in Teacher Education, 13(10), 5-10.
Ball, D. (1990). Prospective elementary and secondary teachers
understanding of division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
21(2), 132-144.
Ball, D. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math
education. American Educator, 46, 14-18.
Ball, D. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of
teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373397.
Ball, D., & Mosenthal, J. (1990). The construction of new forms of
teaching: Subject matter knowledge in inservice teacher education. (Report No.
90-8). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323208).
Bartolini-Bussi, M. G. (1991). Social interaction and mathematical
knowledge. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual
Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (pp. 1-16). Assisi, Italy.
and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 24(1), 8-40.
Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and
university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education,
11(5), 501-518.
Bowman, N. (1979). College supervision of student teaching: A time to
reconsider. Journal of Teacher Education 30(3), 29-30.
Brown, C.A., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a mathematics teacher. In D.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A
project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 209-239). New
York: Macmillan.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A. (1988).
Teachers pedagogical content knowledge of students problem solving in
elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 385401.
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. 25-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997) Reflective
discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 28(3), 258-277.
APPENDIX
COOPERATINGTEACHERASSESSMENT
OFTHE
STUDENTTEACHER/COOPERATINGTEACHERPARTNERSHIP
Whatwereyourgoalsandexpectationswhenyouenteredthispartnership?
Howhavethesegoalsandexpectationschanged,ifatall,duringthispracticum?
Howdidyouperceiveyourroleascooperatingteacherwhenyouenteredthis
partnership?
Howhasthisperceptionchanged,ifatall,duringthispracticum?
Describethenatureofyourpartnership.
Whatdoyouthinkyourstudentteacherlearnedfromyou?
Wasthereevidencethatheorshesuccessfullycompletedyourperceptionofthe
practicum?Ifso,what?
Whatdidyoulearnfromyourstudentteacher?
Describeyourinteractionswithyourstudentteacher.(E.g.,Didyoumeetona
regularbasis?Informallyorformally?Howdidyounegotiateyourrespective
rolesintheclass?)
ConsenttoReleaseInformationforResearchPurposes
I,__________________________________________________,givepermissionfor
thecontentsofmyjournal,portfolio,surveys,videotapes,andanyaudiotapestobeused
asaresearchresourceforwrittenprofessionalreports.Ialsogivemypermissionfor
informationfrominterviewsandconferencestobeused.Iunderstandthatmyname
willneverbeusedwithoutmypermissionandthatnoinformationinwrittenorverbal
formcanbeusedtopunitivelyassessmystudentteachingperformance.Ialso
understandthatallcopiesofaudiotapesandvideotapeswillbedestroyedtwoyears
fromtheendoftheproject.Ifanychangesinthisagreementarerequired,Imustbe
contactedinwriting.
Signature_____________________________________________Date_____________
CooperatingTeacherAgreementForm
I,______________________________________________________,givepermission
fordatacollectedfrommyclassroomduringthisprofessionalsemestertobeusedasa
resourceforresearchofprospectiveeducation.Iunderstandthatthedatacollectedwill
includevideotapedclassroomobservationsofthestudentteacheraswellasinterviews,
surveys,andcontentsofthestudentteachersjournalandportfolio.Ialsounderstand
thatmynamewillnotbeusedinanywaywithoutmypermissionandthatno
identifyinginformationinwrittenorverbalformwillbeused.Ialsounderstandthat
copiesofaudiotapesandvideotapeswillbedestroyedtwoyearsfromtheendofthis
project.Ifanychangesinthisagreementarerequired,Imustbecontactedinwriting.
Signature___________________________________________Date________________
PRELIMINARYINTERVIEWPROTOCOL
Pick as many episodes from the classes I observed as I have time for. When
possible, review these episodes on the video camera.
What had you planned to do in this episode? Or had you planned anything?
Did you/would you change your instruction any as a result of this reflection?
If so, how?
What did you learn about students? How will that affect your instruction?
EXPECTATIONOFTHESTUDENTTEACHER
Sept.24
(StudentTeacher)
AsIhavealreadymentionedtoyou,eachofmyobservationswillinvolvea
(telephone)preconference,observing2classesweekly(whenpossible),andapost
conference.Exceptforthefrequency,thisshouldbetypicalforallstudentteachers.I
wouldlikeforyoutohaveacopyofyourlessonplantogivetomeonthedaythatI
observe.Also,Iwouldlikeareflectivejournalentryforeachofmyvisits.Beloware
somequestionsthatIwouldlikeforyoutoaddress.Sincethisisonlyoneentryper
week(roughly),itshouldnotbetoodemandingofyourtime.Youdonothavetodo
thisseparatelyfromthejournalrequirementsforDr.Sand/orDr.N,butyoumay
includemyquestionswithintheirrequirements(e.g.,theymayrequiremorethanone
entryperweekandyoushouldfulfillthatobligation,butIamonlyspecificallylooking
forasingledetailedentrycorrespondingtomyvisitsthataddressesthefollowing
questions.Wherethereispossibleoverlap,useittoyouradvantage.)Ifyouhaveany
questions,pleaseletmeknow.
Questionstoconsiderforyourjournalentries:
Whatstudentinteraction(s)was/werethemostmemorabletoyou(duringmy
observation)?(Pleaseavoidinteractionsthatdealwithclassroommanagement,etc.I
amonlyinterestedininteractionsastheyrelatetoyourteachingmathematics.)Why?
How(ifatall)didthisaffectyourinstruction?
How(ifatall)didthisaffectyourunderstandingofmathematics?
Whatdidyoulearnabout(your)studentsasaresultofthis?
you.
Ihaveenclosedaconsentformforyoutosign.IwillpickitupwhenIobserve
Thankyou!
Maria