Analyzing mathematical classroom discourse – iIitiating elaborations on the usefulness of the dialogical approach

Andreas Ryve

doi:10.7146/nomad.v13i3.148122

Authors

Andreas Ryve

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7146/nomad.v13i3.148122

Abstract

The dialogical approach has been introduced for studying mathematical classroom discourse in a growing body of studies conducted by researchers from the Nordic countries. However, since it is developed for analyzing human action, communication, and cognition in general, it is important to explicitly discuss how it could be developed and complemented for serving the purposes of mathematics education research. In this article I initiate such a discussion by drawing on theoretical analysis as well as my own experiences of using the dialogical approach. By relating it to a framework of criteria for research in mathematics education it is shown that the dialogical approach could be a useful tool for fulfilling several aspects of relevance for mathematics education research. The article concludes by suggesting further aspects that need to be discussed and elaborated on in the project of making it even more useful for understanding mathematical teaching and learning.

References

Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (1998). Verbal interaction in the mathematics classroom: a Vygotskian analysis. In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini Bussi & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 65-84). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720406.002

Bjuland, R. (2002). Problem solving in geometry. Reasoning processes of student teachers working in small groups: a dialogical approach (Ph. D. dissertation). Department of Applied Education, University of Bergen.

Bjuland, R. (2004). Student teachers' reflections on their learning process through collaborative problem solving in geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 199-225. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000017690.90763.c1

Bjuland, R. (2007). Mathematically productive discourses among student teachers working on problem solving in geometry. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 12 (2), 33-55.

Carlsen, M. (2005). Conceptual understanding of the dot product. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 10 (3-4), 3-28.

Cestari, M. L. (1997). Communication in mathematics classroom: a dialogical approach (Ph. D. dissertation). Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.

Cestari, M. L., Daland, E., Eriksen, S. & Jaworski. B. (2004). Working in a developmental research paradigm: the role of didactican/researcher working with teachers to promote inquiry practices in developing mathematics learning and teaching. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1348-1358). Retrieved October 14, 2008 from http://ermeweb.free.fr/ CERME4/

Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work: coping with multiple theoretical perspectives. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: a project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 3-38). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Cobb, P. & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Hove, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K. & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10 & 11, 113-163. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS10-1-2_6

Freitas, E. de & Nolan K. (Eds.) (2007). Opening the research text: critical insights and in(ter)ventions into mathematics education. New York, NJ: Springer- Verlag.

Garfinkel, E. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goodwin, C. & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: an introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1-42). Cambridge University Press.

Halldén, O. (1999). Conceptual change and contextualisation. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 53-65). London: Pergamon.

Kieran, C., Forman, E. & Sfard, A. (2001). Guest editorial learning discourse: sociocultural approaches to research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014276102421

Kress, G. (2001). From Saussure to critical sociolinguistics: the turn towards a social view of language. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice (pp. 29-38). London: Sage.

Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19-44). London: Ablex Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400688362.0005

Lester, F. K. & Lambdin, D. V. (1998). The ship of Theseus and other metaphors for deciding what we value in mathematics education research. In J. Kilpatrick & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: a search for identity (pp. 415-425). Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5196-2_13

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3

Linell, P. (in press). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Linell, P. & Markovà, I. (1993). Acts in discourse: from monological speech acts to dialogical inter-acts. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23, 173-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1993.tb00236.x

Luckmann, T. (1992). On the communicative adjustment of perspectives. In A. Heen Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 219-234). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Markovà, I. & Linell, P. (1996). Coding elementary contributions to discourse: individual acts vs. dialogical interactions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, 353-373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1996.tb00297.x

McHoul, A. (1978) The organization of turns at formal talk in classroom, Language in Society, 7, 183-213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005522

Mead, G. H. (1973). Philosophy of the act. Chicago University Press.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800418288

Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5477-x

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

Nilsson, P. (2006). Exploring probabilistic reasoning: a study of how students contextualize compound chance encounters in explorative setting (Ph. D. dissertation). The school of mathematics and systems engineering, Växjö University.

Niss, M. (2007a). Reflections of the state of and trends in research on mathematics teaching and learning: from here to utopia. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: a project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 1293-1312). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Niss, M. (2007b). The concept and role of theory in mathematics education. In C. Bergsten, B. Grevholm, H. Måsøval & F. Rönning (Eds.), Relating practice and theory in mathematics education, proceedings of Norma #$ (pp. 97-109). Trondheim University Press.

Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828678

Ryve, A (2006a). Approaching mathematical discourse. Two analytical frameworks and their relation to problem solving interactions. (Ph. D. dissertation). Department of Mathematics and Physics, Mälardalen University.

Ryve, A. (2006b). Making explicit the analysis of students' mathematical discourses: revisiting a newly developed methodological framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 191-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-4834-0

Ryve, A. (2007). What is actually discussed in problem solving courses for prospective teachers? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9027-y

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8, 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Scheja, M. (2002). Contextualising studies in higher education: first-year experiences of studying and learning in engineering (Ph. D. dissertation). Department of Education, Stockholm University.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). New York, NY: MacMillan.

Setati, M. & Adler, J. (2000). Between languages and discourses: language practices in primary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 243-269. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011996002062

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4-13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176193

Sfard, A., Nesher, P., Streefland, L., Cobb, P. & Mason, J. (1998). Learning mathematics through conversation: is it as good as they say? For the Learning of Mathematics, 18, 41-51.

Silver, E. A. & Herbst, P. G. (2007). Theory in mathematics education scholarship. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: a project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 39-67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Swedish National Agency for Education (2000). Skolverkets föreskrifter om kursplaner och betygskriterier för kurser i ämnet matematik i gymnasieskolan. SKOLFS 2000:5.

Watson, A. & Winbourne, P. (2008). Introduction. In A. Watson & P. Winbourne (Eds.), New Directions for situated cognition in mathematics education (pp.1-12). New York, NJ: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71579-7_1

Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9, 431-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005

Wyndhamn, J., Riesbeck, E. & Schoultz, J. (2000). Problemlösning som metafor och praktik [Problem solving as a metaphor and practice]. Linköpings Universitet.