Utilizing informal formative assessment and dialogicity during reflections on educational dialogue in mathematics

Source document: Studia paedagogica. 2022, vol. 27, iss. 2, pp. [55]-75
Extent
[55]-75
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Article
Language
English
License: Not specified license
Abstract(s)
In this study, educational dialogue is explored through informal formative assessment and dialogicity. We enhance the understanding of informal formative assessment and dialogicity by considering their relationship. Even though the interconnection of informal formative assessment and dialogicity is acknowledged, it has not been explicitly examined in research on educational dialogue. The data consists of video-stimulated joint reflections between mathematics student teachers and a teacher educator. The reflections were part of a teacher education program integrated in a mathematics pedagogic course. Conversational analysis was conducted to detect interactional patterns and indicators that emerged from the data. The findings show how the presence and absence of single informal formative assessment moves, such as recognizing and using learners' ideas, contribute differently to dialogicity and educational dialogue.
Note
  • The project was funded by the Ministry of Culture and Education, Finland (2018–2021).
Document
References:
[1] Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2009). Learning from and responding to students' questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20315

[2] Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching (3rd ed.). Dialogos.

[3] Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education: Intention, reflection, critique. Kluwer.

[4] Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 1047–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0738-8 | DOI 10.1007/s11858-015-0738-8

[5] Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85, 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1022

[6] Berland, K. B., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446

[7] Black, P., & William, D. (2009). Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(5), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5

[8] Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Seago, N., & Mangram, C. (2014). Facilitating videobased professional development: Planning and orchestrating productive discussions. In Li, Y., Silver, E. A., & Li, S. (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 259–281). Springer. | DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-04993-9_16

[9] Chan, K. K. H., & Yau, K. W. (2021). Using video-based interviews to investigate pre-service secondary science teachers' situation-specific skills for informal formative assessment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10056-y | DOI 10.1007/s10763-020-10056-y

[10] Chin, C. (2004). Questioning students in ways that encourage thinking. Teaching Science, 40(4), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20345

[11] Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843. | DOI 10.1002/tea.20171

[12] Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.2.117

[13] Furtak, E. M., Glasser, H., & Wolfe, Z. M. (2016). The feedback loop: Using formative assessment data for science teaching and learning. National Science Teachers Association Press.

[14] Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113, 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1086/669616.

[15] Helleve, I. (2009). Theoretical foundations of teachers' professional development. In J. O. Lindberg & A. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education delivery (pp. 1–19). IGI Global Information Science Reference. | DOI 10.4018/978-1-60566-780-5.ch001

[16] Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43, 325–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024 | DOI 10.1080/0305764x.2013.786024

[17] Hsu, P-L., Roth, W-M., & Mazumder, A. (2009). Natural pedagogical conversations in high school students' internship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20275

[18] Lehesvuori, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., Jokiranta, K., Nieminen, P., Hiltunen, J., & Viiri, J. (2017). Enhancing dialogic argumentation in mathematics and science. Studia paedagogica, 22(4), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2017-4-4

[19] Lehesvuori, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., Ketonen, L., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Pöysä, S., & Pakarinen, E. (2021). Reflections on dialogicity: Challenges and suggestions by mathematics student teachers. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 31(Part A), 100567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100567 | DOI 10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100567

[20] Lehesvuori, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., Viiri, J., Nieminen, P., Jokiranta, K., & Hiltunen, J. (2019). Teacher orchestration of classroom interaction in science: Exploring dialogic and authoritative passages in whole-class discussions. International Journal of Science Education, 41(17), 2557–2578. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1689586 | DOI 10.1080/09500693.2019.1689586

[21] Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2011). Introducing dialogic teaching to science student teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 705–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9253-0 | DOI 10.1007/s10972-011-9253-0

[22] Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher-led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21100 | DOI 10.1002/tea.21100

[23] Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Ablex Publishing Company.

[24] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

[25] Menon, P. (2018). Role of assessment conversations in a technology-aided classroom with English language learners: An exploratory study. Multicultural Education, 25(2), 42–50.

[26] Mercer, N., Dawes, L. & Staarman, K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902954273

[27] Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2 nd ed.). Sage Publications.

[28] Monteiro, V., Lourdes, M., Santos, N., Sanches, C., & Gomes, M. (2019). Classroom talk: The ubiquity of feedback. Frontiers in Education, 4(140),1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00140

[29] Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in science classrooms. Open University Press.

[30] Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2020). Turning points in communicative approaches to science classroom discourse. In C. N. El-Hani, E. F. Mortimer, M. Pietrocola, & M. R. Otero (Eds.), Science education research in Latin America (pp. 254–276). Koninklijke Brill NV. | DOI 10.1163/9789004409088_011

[31] Nieminen, P., Hähkiöniemi, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Forms and functions of on-the-fly formative assessment conversations in physics inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 362–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1713417 | DOI 10.1080/09500693.2020.1713417

[32] Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue. Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Teachers College Press.

[33] O'Brien, J. (1993). Action research through stimulated recall. Research in Science Education 23(1), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357063

[34] Park, M., Yi, M., Flores, R., & Nguyen, B. (2020). Informal formative assessment conversations in mathematics: Focusing on preservice teachers' initiation, response and follow-up sequences in the classroom. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(10), EM1884. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8436 | DOI 10.29333/ejmste/8436

[35] Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.

[36] Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Mintz, S. L. (2012). Classroom assessment scoring system: Secondary (CLASS-S). University of Virginia.

[37] Pöysä, S., Pakarinen, E., Ketonen, L., Lehesvuori, S., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2021). Vuorovaikutus osana opettajan arviointiosaamista (VOPA) -toimintamallin vaiheittaiset kuvaukset. Opettajien arviointiosaaminen oppimisen, osallisuuden ja tuen toteutumisen edistäjänä (OPA) -hanke. Jyväskylän yliopisto, Opettajankoulutuslaitos.

[38] Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students' learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.003 | DOI 10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.003

[39] Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers' practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3–4), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2006.9652991 | DOI 10.1080/10627197.2006.9652991

[40] Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students' understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20163 | DOI 10.1002/tea.20163

[41] Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: striking a balance between 'opening up' and 'closing down' classroom talk. School Science Review, 88(324), 77–83.

[42] Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131 | DOI 10.1002/sce.20131

[43] Scherer, P., & Steinbring, H. (2007). Noticing children's learning processes – Teachers jointly reflect on their own classroom interaction for improving mathematics teaching. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 9(2), 157–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-0004-7 | DOI 10.1007/s10857-006-0004-7

[44] Sedlacek, M., & Sedova, K. (2017). How many are talking? The role of collectivity in dialogic teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.001 | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.001

[45] Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., & Svaricek, R. (2016). Teacher professional development as a means of transforming student classroom talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.005 | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.005

[46] Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford University Press.

[47] Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719104200407 | DOI 10.1177/002248719104200407

[48] Wood T. (1994). Patterns of interaction and the culture of mathematics classrooms. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Cultural perspectives on the mathematics classroom (pp. 149–168). Springer Mathematics Education Library. | DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-1199-9_10

[49] Zhang, L. J., &, Zhang, D. (2020). Dialogic discussion as a platform for constructing knowledge: student-teachers' interaction patterns and strategies in learning to teach English. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(22),1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00101-2 | DOI 10.1186/s40862-020-00101-2