Abstract
The aim of this study is to characterize the discourse of two problem-solving courses for prospective teachers. The data, consisting of audio recordings and field notes, were examined from a dialogical approach combined with the theory of contextualization. I show not only the substantial differences between the two classroom discourses but also elaborate on plausible reasons for the divergency found. The findings then serve as a basis for a discussion of how to develop a problem-solving course within the mathematics teacher program.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adler, J., Ball, D. L., Krainer, K., Lin, F.-L., & Novotna, J. (2005). Reflections on an emerging field: Researching mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40, 1–24.
Bergsten, C., Botten, G., Fuglestad, A. B., Grevholm, B., Holden, I., & Lingefjärd, T. (2004). Background: The education and competence development of mathematics teachers in Norway and Sweden. In R. Strässer, G. Brandell, B. Grevholm & O. Helenius (Eds.), Educating for the Future: Proceedings of an International Symposium on Mathematics Teacher Education (pp.␣9–40). Kungälv: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Bjuland, R. (2002). Problem Solving in Geometry. Reasoning Processes of Student Teachers Working in Small Groups: A Dialogical Approach. PhD Thesis, University of Bergen, Department of Applied Education.
Bjuland, R. (2004). Student teachers’ reflections on their learning process through collaborative problem solving in geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 199–225.
Carlson, M. P., & Bloom, I. (2005). The cyclic nature of problem solving: An emergent multidimensional problem-solving framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 45–75.
Cestari, M. L. (1997). Communication in mathematics classroom: A dialogical approach. PhD Thesis, University of Oslo, Faculty of Education.
Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 258–277.
Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10&11, 113–163.
Cooney, T., Shealy, B., & Arvold, B. (1998). Conceptualizing belief structures of preservice secondary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 306–333.
Crawford, K. (1996). Cultural processes and learning: Expectations, actions, and outcomes. In␣L.␣P.␣Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 131–147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Eynde, P. O. (2000). Self-regulation: A characteristic and a goal of mathematics education. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 687–726). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gee, J. P. (1997). Thinking, learning, and reading: The situated sociocultural mind. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 53–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Halldén, O. (1982). Elevers tolkning av skoluppgiften [The learners’ interpretation of the school task]. PhD Thesis, Stockholm University, Department of Education.
Halldén, O. (1988). Alternative frameworks and the concept of task. Cognitive constraints in pupil’s interpretations of teachers’ assignments. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 32, 123–140.
Halldén, O. (1999). Conceptual change and contextualisation. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M.␣Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 53–65). London: Pergamon.
Kieran, C., Forman, E., & Sfard, A. (2001). Guest editorial learning discourse: Sociocultural approaches to research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 1–12.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Lester, F. K. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 660–675.
Lester, F. K.,& Lambdin, D. V. (2004). Teaching mathematics through problem solving. In B.␣Clarke et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Midsummer World Mathematics Education Conference, Göteborg, Sweden: National Center for Mathematics Education (NCM): International Perspectives on Learning and Teaching Mathematics (pp. 189–204). Göteborg: National Center for Mathematics Education.
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Luckmann, T. (1992). On the communicative adjustment of perspectives. In A. Heen Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 219–234). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: Routledge Falmer.
Mason, J., & Davis, J. (1991). Fostering and sustaining mathematical thinking through problem solving. Greelong: Deakin University Press.
Pòlya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ryve, A. (2006a). Approaching mathematical discourse: Two analytical frameworks and their relation to problem solving interactions. PhD Thesis, Mälardalen University, Department of Mathematics and Physics.
Ryve, A. (2006b). Making explicit the analysis of students’ mathematical discourses—Revisiting a newly developed methodological framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 191–209.
Scheja, M. (2002). Contextualising studies in higher education: First-year experiences of studying and learning in engineering. PhD Thesis, Stockholm University, Department of Education.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s the fuss about metacognition. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1993). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. Sånn Ja! Papport fra en konferanse om matematikkdidaktikk och kvinner i matematiske fag. (Arbeidsnotat 2/93, pp.␣67–87), Oslo: Norges forskningsråd, Avd NAVF Sekretariatet for kvinneforskning.
Sfard, A. (2000). On reform movement and the limits of mathematical discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 157–189.
Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to the discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communication to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13–57.
Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: Rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 42–76.
Stanic, G. M. A., & Kilpatrick, J. (1989). Historical perspectives on problem solving in mathematics curriculum. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 1–22). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Stein, M. K., Boaler, J., & Silver E. A. (2003). What does the research say? In H. Schoen & R.␣Charles (Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: “It’s about learning mathematics. (pp. 245–256). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Thompson, A. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York, NY:␣MacMillan.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY:␣Cambridge University Press.
Wistedt, I. (1987). Rum för Lärande [Latitude for learning]. PhD Thesis, Stockholm University, Department of Education.
Wistedt, I., & Brattström, G. (2005). Understanding mathematical induction in a co-operative setting: Merits, limitations of classroom communication among peers. In A. Chronaki & I.␣M.␣Christiansen (Eds.), Challenging perspectives on mathematics classroom communication (pp. 173–203). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publish.
Wyndhamn, J., Riesbeck, E., & Schoultz, J. (2000). Problemlösning som metafor och praktik [Problem solving as a metaphor and practice]. Linköping: Linköpings Universitet.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Inger Wistedt, Kimmo Eriksson, and Max Scheja for providing valuable feedback on earlier versions of this paper. Further, I would like to thank The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation for giving financial support for this project. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the help they provided for reconstructing the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ryve, A. What is actually discussed in problem-solving courses for prospective teachers?. J Math Teacher Educ 10, 43–61 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9027-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9027-y