Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 273–298 | Cite as

Professional development of mathematics teachers toward the facilitation of small-group collaboration

Article

Abstract

Collaborative work in small groups is often a suitable context for yielding substantial individual learning outcomes. Indeed, small-group collaboration has recently become an educational goal rather than a means. Yet, this goal is difficult to attain, and students must be taught how to learn together. In this paper, we focus on how to prepare teachers to become facilitators of small-group collaboration. The current case study monitors a group of six prospective teachers and their instructor during a one-semester course. The instructor was a skilled mathematics teacher with strong beliefs about what is entailed in establishing a mini-culture of learning to learn together and about how to facilitate student group work in problem-solving situations. We describe the learning path followed by the instructor, including the digital environment. The findings show that by the end of the course, the students became more competent facilitators of learning to learn together.

Keywords

Learn to learn together Teacher education Problem solving 

References

  1. Andersen, E. (2016). Learning to learning. Harvard Business Review, 2016, 98–101.Google Scholar
  2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brauning, K., & Steinbring, H. (2011). Communicative characteristics of teachers’ mathematical talk with children: From knowledge transfer to knowledge investigation. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 927–939.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0351-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman, O. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ growth in inquiry-based teaching of mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 951–963.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0360-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Claxton, G. (2004). Teaching children to learn: Beyond flat-packs and fine words. Burning Issues in Primary Education No. 11. Birmingham: National Primary Trust.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom culture. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fredriksson, U., & Hoskins, B. (2007). The development of learning to learn in a European context. Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghousseini, H. (2009). Designing opportunities to learn to lead classroom mathematics discussions in pre-service teacher education: Focusing on enactment. In D. Mewborn & H. Lee (Eds.), Scholarly practices and inquiry in the preparation of mathematics teachers (pp. 147–158). San Diego, CA: Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.Google Scholar
  12. Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Tabach, M., & Nachlieli, T. (2016). Opportunities for learning given to prospective mathematics teachers – Between ritual and explorative instruction. The Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(6), 547–574.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9311-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jansen, A. (2012). Developing productive dispositions during small-group work in two sixth-grade mathematics classrooms: Teachers’ facilitation efforts and students’ self-reported benefits. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  15. Karacop, A., & Doymus, K. (2013). Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation techniques on students’ understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2), 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kazemi, E., Franke, M., & Lampert, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to support novice teachers’ ability to enact ambitious instruction. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32 nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 12–30). Wellington, NZ: MERGA.Google Scholar
  17. Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M. (2012). How tough should it be? Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technology teaching argumentation skills (pp. 169–197). Emirate of Sharjah: Bentham Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2009). Student self-assessment. The Education Digest, 74(8), 39.Google Scholar
  19. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education, 20(6), 507–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  22. Nicol, C. (1998). Learning to teach mathematics: Questioning, listening, and responding. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(1), 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Connor, M. C. (2001). “Can any fraction be turned into a decimal?” A case study of a mathematical group discussion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 143–185.Google Scholar
  24. OECD. (2003). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. OECD iLibrary. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. (2004). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. OECD iLibrary. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. Presmeg, N. (2014). A dance of instruction with construction in mathematics education. In U. Kortenkamp, B. Brandt, C. Benz, G. Krummheuer, S. Ladel, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Early mathematics learning (pp. 9–17). The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prusak, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2012). From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/knowledge forum®. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183–192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  32. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwarz, B. B., de Groot, R., Mavrikis, M., & Dragon, T. (2015). Learning to learn together with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 239–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slakmon, B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). "You will be a polis": Political (democratic?) education, public space and CSCL discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 184–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stahl, G. (2016). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The Development of Mathematical Group Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Topping, K. (2003). Self- and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cacallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tyminski, A. M., Zambak, V. S., Drake, C., & Land, T. J. (2014). Using representations, decomposition, and approximations of practices to support prospective elementary mathematics teachers’ practice of organizing discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 463–487.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9261-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Veenman, S., Denessen, E., van den Akker, A., & van der Rijt, J. (2005). Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help-seeking and help-giving. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 115–153.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic, educational and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wegerif, R., & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Reframing the teaching of higher order thinking for the network society. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, & R. Saljo (Eds.), Learning in social practices: ICT and new artefacts transformation of social and cultural practices. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. The Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, M., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael
  2. 2.The Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations