Advertisement

ZDM

pp 1–16 | Cite as

Mathematical-metacognitive discourse: how can it be developed among teachers and their students? Empirical evidence from a videotaped lesson and two case studies

  • Anat Shilo
  • Bracha KramarskiEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This study aims to investigate a mathematical-metacognitive discourse model with IMPROVE metacognitive self-question prompts (What, How/When, and Why) in order to promote a deeper level of discourse in mathematics classes. The study involved 32 math teachers and 824 fifth-grade students (from 32 public schools) from one district in Israel. Participants were assigned to a randomized, controlled quasi-experimental trial, including an experimental group exposed to mathematical-metacognitive discourse, focusing on metacognitive skills (i.e., planning, monitoring, and reflection) used to arrive at solutions, and a control group exposed to mathematical discourse, focusing on cognitive knowledge (i.e., declarative, procedural, and explanatory). An in-depth analysis was conducted, using a mixed approach (quantitative and qualitative), of a recorded video teacher-student class discourse lesson at the end of the study in each class (n = 32) as well as case studies of two teachers (one from each group) focusing on discourse pattern and their talk moves in class. The findings indicated that the experimental group exhibited more conceptual verbalization related to planning and reflection processes, whereas the control group scored the highest with regard to procedural knowledge. As a transfer measure from the intervention program at the end of the study, students in the experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of problem-solving and sensemaking performance. This study contributes further to understanding discourse by introducing the concept of mathematical-metacognitive discourse competence. Moreover, the study has practical implications for the promotion of discourse in mathematical lessons.

Keywords

Mathematical-metacognitive discourse Mathematical performance Intervention study Class discourse videotaped lesson Case study 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11858_2018_1016_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (187 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 186 KB)

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355–365.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2014). Issues in dealing with sequential and temporal characteristics of self- and socially-regulated learning.. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 217–228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9123-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Koellner, K., & Swackhamer, L. E. (2015). Mathematics professional development: Improving teaching using the problem-solving cycle and leadership preparation models. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, grades K-6 (2nd edn.). Sausalito: Math Solutions.Google Scholar
  5. Cleary, T. J., Velardi, B., & Schnaidman, B. (2017). Effects of the self-regulation empowerment program (SREP) on middle school students’ strategic skills, self-efficacy, and mathematics achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 64, 28–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. (2006). Supporting productive whole class discussions. Paper presented at the conference on Quality Teaching of Mathematics, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from. http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/sites/default/files/Numeracy/References/PaulCobb.ppt. Accessed 21 Apr 2018.
  7. Creswell, J. (2009). Editorial: Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95–108.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808330883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, E. A. (2003). Promoting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231–264.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erath, K., Prediger, S., Quasthoff, U. Q., & Heller, V. (2018). Discourse competence as important part of academic language proficiency in mathematics classrooms: the case of explaining to learn and learning to explain. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(2), 161–179.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9830-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychology, 34(10), 906–911.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorard, S. (2013). Research design: Creating robust approaches for the social sciences. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanin, V. & Van Nieuwenhoven, C. (2018). Developing an expert and reflexive approach to problem-solving: The place of emotional knowledge and skills. Psychology, 9, 280–309.  https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.92018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hattie, J. A. C., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Kistner,S.,Rakoczy,K.,Otto,B.,Dignath-van Ewijk,C.,Büttner,G., & Klieme,E.(2010).Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2),157–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9055-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kramarski, B. (2017). Teachers as agents in promoting students’ SRL and performance: Applications for teachers’ dual-role training program. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd edn., pp. 223–239). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281–310.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040001281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramarski, B., & Revach, T. (2009). The challenge of self-regulated learning in mathematics teachers’ professional training. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 379–399.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-009-9204-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. Jr. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268–273.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4304_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maguire, T., & Neill, A. (2006). Classroom discourse (mathematics). Retrieved from https://arbs.nzcer.org.nz/classroom-discourse-mathematics. Accessed 21 Apr 2018.
  22. Makar, K., Bakker, A., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2015). Scaffolding norms of argumentation-based inquiry in a primary mathematics classroom. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1107–1120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0732-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mason, J., & Spence, M. (2000). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of knowing–to act in the moment. In D. Tirosh (Ed.), Forms of mathematical knowledge: Learning and teaching with understanding (pp. 135–165). Dordrecht: Kluwer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1584-3_7.Google Scholar
  24. Mevarech,Z. R., &Kramarski,B.(1997).IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms.American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 365–394. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034002365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2014). Critical maths for innovative societies: The role of metacognitive pedagogies. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education [RAMA]. (2012). Erkat mivkhan (Nosakh A)Matematika l’kitot he [Test kit (version A)—Mathematics for 5th grade]. Retrieved from http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Rama/MivchaneyMadafLamore02/MathematikaKitaHe/Erka_math_5_2012_heb.htm. Accessed 21 Apr 2018.
  27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM].Google Scholar
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2014). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf. Accessed 21 Apr 2018.
  29. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2015). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics. In R. Cohen, Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 1102–1118). Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  31. Saldana, J. (2015). Thinking quality: Methods of mind. Los Angeles: Arizona University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanism of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2402_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165–197). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  34. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 113–125.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spruce, R., & Bol, L. (2015). Teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10(2), 245–277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9124-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Beek, J. A., de Jong, F. P. C. M., Minnaer, A. E. M. G., & Wubbels, Th (2014). Teacher practice in secondary vocational education: Between teacher-regulated activities of student learning and student self-regulation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. VanCleave, M., & Fredericks, J. (2009). Student mathematical discourse and team teaching. In L. Knott (Ed.), The role of mathematics discourse in producing leaders of discourse (pp. 1–16). Charlotte: IAP.Google Scholar
  39. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & de Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  41. Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. White, D. Y. (2003). Promoting productive mathematical classroom discourse. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 37–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(03)00003-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological development, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zohar, A. (2012). Explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge: Definitions, students’ learning, and teachers’ professional development. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 197–223). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bar Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations