Operational, interpersonal, discussional and ideational dimensions of classroom norms for dialogic practice in school mathematics
Operational, interpersonal, discussional and ideational dimensions of classroom norms for dialogic practice in school mathematics
复制标题
学校数学对话实践课堂规范的操作、人际、讨论和观念维度
DOI：
10.1002/berj.3444
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Hofmann R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hofmann R
虽然研究表明，互动教学法借鉴学生的想法可以提高学习成果，它已被发现很难改变数学课堂实践在这个方向。造成这一困难的原因仍然知之甚少，阻碍了大规模的变革。这篇文章的重点是这种做法的研究不足的规范方面，塑造参与者的行动和期望。借鉴社会实践和互动的理论，我们将规范定义为特定社会实践中的行为的经常性和社会义务模式和理论基础。然后，我们实证研究什么和如何（新）规范与这种类型的教学法是体现在课堂话语活动，通过检查21所学校的数学课12名教师实施对话干预谈话。虽然表面规范和潜在的理性之间有明显的区别，并且可以确定一套与课堂谈话相关的表面规范，但更深入的分析发现规范是多维的。我们说明了如何一个表面规范，如“尊重他人的想法”，可以阐明在多个基本的理由，我们的术语操作，人际，讨论和概念。我们的研究结果揭示了为什么这种干预的对话意图往往以肤浅的方式实现。我们进一步研究了教师让学生和他们自己对概念维度负责的方式，概念维度与在课堂对话中认真对待学生的想法有关。
While research suggests that interactive pedagogy drawing on students’ ideas can improve learning outcomes, it has been found difficult to change mathematics classroom practice in this direction. The reasons for this difficulty remain poorly understood, hindering change at scale. This article focuses on the under‐researched normative aspect of such practice which shapes participants’ actions and expectations. Drawing on theories of social practice and interaction, we define norms as recurrent and socially obligating patterns of, and rationales for, behaviour in a particular social practice. We then examine empirically what and how (new) norms associated with this type of pedagogy are manifest in classroom discursive activity by examining talk across 21 school mathematics lessons by 12 teachers implementing a dialogic intervention. While there is a clear distinction between surface norms and underlying rationales, and a consistent set of surface norms relating to classroom talk can be identified, deeper analysis finds norms to be multi‐dimensional. We illustrate how a surface norm, such as ‘Respect others’ ideas’, can be enunciated in terms of multiple underlying rationales which we term operational, interpersonal, discussional and ideational. Our findings shed new light on why the dialogic intentions of such interventions are often realised in a superficial way. We further examine the ways in which teachers hold students and themselves accountable to the ideational dimension—the dimension that relates to taking students’ ideas seriously in classroom dialogue.
登录
查看更多内容
小组反思：同伴指导小组中教师话语与学生行为的相似之处
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
N. Webb;Kariane Mari Nemer;Marsha Ing
通讯作者：
Marsha Ing
德国学校“设定任务”：不同的目标有不同的框架
影响因子：
0.5
作者：
C. Keitel
通讯作者：
C. Keitel
（日常）数学教学中的话语学习文化：基于视频的德国和瑞士课堂数学教学研究
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Christine Pauli;Kurt Reusser;L. Resnick;Christa Asterhahn;Sn Clarke
通讯作者：
Sn Clarke
谈论意义：小组阅读环境中教师和孩子的对话参与
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Fiona Maine;R. Hofmann
通讯作者：
R. Hofmann
影响因子：
1.5
作者：
A. Mchoul
通讯作者：
A. Mchoul