Examining the Use of Expanded Discourse: Treatments of Secondary School Mathematics Teachers' and Preservice Teachers' the Correct Answer

Year 2020, Volume: 7 Issue: 4, 236 - 249, 23.12.2020

Şeyma Erkoç , Sebahat Yetim

https://doi.org/10.17278/ijesim.811440

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to examine the extended discourse formed by secondary school mathematics teachers and preservice mathematics teachers in response to the correct answers given by secondary school students to the questions and to reveal whether there is a difference in the expanded discourse styles used by teachers and preservice teachers. The research is a case study; which is one of the qualitative research methods. A measurement form consisting of five correct response scenarios has been developed by the researchers through literature review, and the final form has been given by expert view. Correct answer scenarios have been limited by numbers learning area. Finalized measurement tool has been applied to nine teachers and ten preservice teachers. The qualitative data obtained have been analyzed by content analysis method. According to the results of the analysis, it has been determined that when students give the correct answer to the questions, teachers create a discourse environment by using the types of intervention such as asking students to make more explanations, reward system, asking for different solutions. On the other hand, it has been revealed that the preservice teachers preferred to use the method of forming classroom discussions as well as asking teachers to make explanations, reward system, and asking for different solutions while considering the correct answers of students. It is observed that teachers mostly choose methods appropriate to teacher-centered traditional teaching strategies, while preservice teachers generally use methods appropriate to student-centered research and analysis strategy. Besides, it has been determined that while teachers generally preferred to use a single method, preservice teachers generally used more than one method.

Keywords

mathematical discourse, expanded discourse, types of ıntervention, correct answer

References

• Anghileri, J. (2006). Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 33-52. Baki, A., Güç, F. A., & Özmen, Z. M. (2012). İlköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının problem çözmeye yönelik yansıtıcı düşünme becerilerinin incelenmesi. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2 (3), 59-72.
• Bingölbali, E., Akkoc, H., Özmantar, M.F. ve Demir, S. (2011). Pre-Service and In-Service Teachers’ Views of the Sources of Students’ Mathematical Difficulties. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 6, 40-59.
• Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as "springboards for inquiry": A teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25 (2), 166-208.
• Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (2), 290.
• Bütün, M., & Baki, A. (2019). İlköğretim Matematik Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematiği Öğretme Bilgilerinin Gelişimi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 8 (1), 300-322.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem akademi: Ankara
• Chick, H., L.ve Baker, M., K. (2005). Investigating teachers’ responses to student misconceptions. In Chick, H. L. & Vincent, J. L. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 249-256.
• Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers' interpretations of students' mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3 (2), 155-181.
• Çimer, S. O., Bütüner, S. Ö., & Yiğit, N. (2010). Öğretmenlerin öğrencilerine verdikleri dönütlerin tiplerinin ve niteliklerinin incelenmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23 (2), 517-538
• Drews, D. (2005). Children’s mathematical errors and misconceptions: perspectives on the teacher’s role. Children errors in mathematics: Understanding common misconceptions in primary schools, 14-21.
• Genç, G., & Erdem, A. R. (2016). Matematik Öğretiminde Olumlu Söylem Ortamı ve Söylem Analizi. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6 (10), 200-232.
• Kabael, T., & Ata Baran, A. (2016). Ortaokul matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematiksel söylemleri ve söylem analizleri: fenomenolojik bir araştırma. Journal of ınternational social research, 9 (46).
• Martino, A. M., & Maher, C. A. (1999). Teacher questioning to promote justification and generalization in mathematics: What research practice has taught us. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18 (1), 53-78.
• MEB (2013). Ortaokul matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı, Ankara.
• McCarthy, P., Sithole, A., McCarthy, P., Cho, J. P., & Gyan, E. (2016). Teacher Questioning Strategies in Mathematical Classroom Discourse: A Case Study of Two Grade Eight Teachers in Tennessee, USA. Journal of Education and Practice, 7 (21), 80-89.
• Özmantar, M. F., Bingölbali, E., Demir, S., Sağlam, Y., & Keser, Z. (2009). Değişen öğretim programları ve sınıf içi normlar. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi 6 (2).
• Özmen, Z. M., Taşkın, D., & Güven, B. (2012). İlköğretim 7. sınıf matematik öğretmenlerinin kullandıkları problem türlerinin belirlenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37 (165), 246-261.
• Santagata, R. (2004). “Are you joking or are you sleeping?” Cultural beliefs and practices in Italian and US teachers’ mistake-handling strategies. Linguistics and Education, 15 (1-2), 141-164.
• Schleppenbach, M., Flevares, L.M., Sims, L.M., Perry, M. (2007a). The answer is only the beginning: Extended discourse in Chinese and US mathematics classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (2), 380-396.
• Schleppenbach, M., Flevares, L. M., Sims, L. M., & Perry, M. (2007b). Teachers’ responses to student mistakes in Chinese and US mathematics classrooms. The elementary school journal, 108(2), 131-147.
• Swan, M. (2001). Dealing with misconceptions in mathematics. In Gates, P. (Ed). Issues in Mathematics Teaching. Routledge Palmer: London.
• Şahin, S. (2011). Öğrenci zorlukları konusunda geliştirilen bir mesleki gelişim programının matematiksel öğrenci zorluklarına gösterilen öğretmen müdahale türlerine etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gaziantep.
• Şengül, S., & Dede, H. G. (2014). Matematik öğretmenlerinin sayı hissi problemlerini çözerken kullandıkları stratejiler. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 5(1), 73-88.
• Watson, J. M. (2002). Inferential reasoning and the influence of cognitive conflict. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 51, 225-256.
• Tall, D. (1977). Cognitive conflict and the learning of mathematics. In Proceedings of the First Conference of The International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Utrecht, Netherlands: PME. Retrieved from http://www. warwick. ac. uk/staff/David. Tall/pdfs/dot1977a-cog-confl-pme. pdf.
• Tanışlı, D. (2013). İlköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının pedagojik alan bilgisi bağlamında sorgulama becerileri ve öğrenci bilgileri, Eğitim ve Bilim, 38 (169), 80-95.
• Türkdoğan, A., & Baki, A. (2010). Classification of middle school students’ mistakes: mistake types. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 46 (1), 67-88.
• Türkdoğan, A. (2011). Yanlışın Anatomisi: İlköğretim Matematik Sınıflarında Öğrencilerin Yaptıkları Yanlışlar Ve Öğretmenlerin Dönütlerinin Analitik İncelenmesi. Doktora Tezi. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon
• Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.