PME New wsletter Deecember 20 014 / Januaary 2015
Discus D ssion Group G p 8: R Researrching g Thin nking Classro C ooms Subbmitted by G Gaye William ms (Deakin University, A Australia) and a Peter Lilj ljedahl (Sim mon Fraser University, U Can nada) stim mulation off discussionn through focus f on a Wo ordle
> that cap ptured frequ uently usedd words in the t parrticipant responses to the Buildin ng Thinking Claassrooms (DG5 PME377). Groups then forrmulated th heir own deefinitions off Thinking Claassrooms and d generatedd more reseearchable queestions abo out such claassrooms. A Gallery Waalk followed in whichh participan nts considerred researchable questions q ggenerated by y other gro oups and seelected the tthree questtions they wo ould most liike to exploore.
These organissers began their t conveersations abo out ‘Thinkinng Classroom ms’ in Moreelia, Mexicco in 2008 2 and o organised PME37 DG G5 Building Thinking Classsrooms as a result. Reseearching Thinking Classsrooms is a sequel s to th his previouss DG G. It was orrganised in response to participaant inteerest in exp ploring reseearch questions arisingg from the Buildding Thinkin ng Classroom ms DG. Research desiigns previou usly emplo oyed to stud dy Thinking Classsrooms fro om various theoreticaal perrspectives in nclude coggnitive, sociial, affectivve, em motional, pssychologicaal, and volittional perrspectives o on student learning, l an nd teacherss’ praactices and beliefs. Research desiigns em mployed havve included d: self-reporrts of affecttive exp periences (L Liljedahl, 2013), 2 video o analysis iin a ‘refform classrroom’ (Cob bb, Yackel, & Wood, 201 11), video o of own classsroom pracctice (Laampert, 20001), video-sstimulated student inteerviews (W Williams, 20 014), and sttudy of the “en ntanglemen nt of subjecct and objecct, mind an nd wo orld” (sensu uous cognittion, Radfo ord, 2014, pp. 352 2) which em mploys videeo as an an nalysis tool.. In add dition, netw working of theoreticall frameworkks hass been a pro oductive way w to find out o more abo out studentt and teacheer activity in i ‘thinkingg classrooms’ (H Hershkowittz, Tabach, Rasmusseen, & Dreyfus, D 20014). Teach her guidancce of studen nt thin nking has aalso been sttudied through video datta (Funahashi & Hino o, 2014).
m Daay 2 Includeed 35-45 paarticipants, many from Sesssion 1 and d some new w participan nts. Session n1 acttivity was reeviewed inn a Wordle representin ng thee frequency y of term ussage in definitions of Thinking Classsroom produuced in Sesssion 1 (seee nd Figgure 1). Diffferences beetween thiss Wordle an thee one displa ayed in Sesssion 1 (to captured c term ms used in discussingg Thinking Classrooms) C weere discussed. Caategories of research quuestions formulated in n Sesssion 1 werre then pressented. An example queestion from m each categgory is inclluded hereiin: “W What type of content (ee.g., tasks etc.) e promo ote a Thinking T Cla assroom?” “ How are mathematic m al stru uctures intrroduced intto discourse and does it maatter whether studentss or the teaccher bring theem in?” “W What are thee tools (inclluding com mpetencies) that enabble teachers to transitio on to a Thinking Classroom?”” “How do o teachers inittiate and su ustain Thinnking Classroooms?” “Ho ow doees thinking stop in a cclassroom and a why do oes it stop?” s “Wh hat techniquues give thee most
The two DG sessions weere focused d in the folllowing wayys: pants): Evid dence-based d Sesssion 1 (35--45 particip
21
PME New wsletter Deecember 20 014 / Januaary 2015
Diiscussioon Grou up 8: Reesearchiing Thin nking Classroo C oms (con ntinuedd) enggagement?”” “Given a Thinking Classroom, C wh hat are the o outcomes?”” Participan nts who waanted to foccus on the same s researrch questio on theen formed ggroups and d began to develop d a ressearch desiggn that wou uld help inv vestigate theeir question n. Various methodolog m gies were con nsidered an nd ideas weere shared. At least on ne gro oup decided d to continue to resea arch their question thro oughout thee subsequen nt year. Thee intterest stimu ulated throu ugh these questions q sugggests a Wo orking Gro oup on Desig igning Ressearch to Exxplore Thinkking Classroooms is waarranted at PME39. The T DG org ganisers inttend to subm mit this WG G.
math hematical iddeas towarrd meeting lesso on objectivees. ZDM, 466(3), 423-43 36. doi: 10.1007/s111858-014-0592-0 Lampert, L M. M (2001). T Teaching prooblems and thhe probllems of teachhing. New Haven, H CT:: Yalee Universityy Press. Liljedahl, L P. (2013). Illlumination n: an affectiive expeerience? ZD DM, 45(2), 253-265. 2 do oi: 10.10 007/s118588-012-0473 3-3. Hershkowit H z, R., Tabaach, M., Ra asmussen, C., C & Drreyfus, T. ((2014). Kno owledge sh hifts in a probability p y classroom m: a case stu udy coordinating tw wo methodo ologies. ZD DM, 46(3)), 363-387. doi: 10.100 07/s11858-014-0 0576-0. Radford, R L. (2014). Toowards an embodied, e cultu ural, and m material con nception of math hematics coognition. ZD DM, 46(3), 349-3 361. doi: 100.1007/s11 1858-014-05 5911. Williams, W G. G (2014). O Optimistic problemp , solviing activityy: enacting confidence c persiistence, andd persevera ance. ZDM,, 116. doi: d 10.10077/s11858-0 014-0586-y..
Co obb, P., Yacckel, E., & Wood, T. (2011). Youngg children’ss emotional acts whilee engageed in mathematical prroblem solvingg. In A. Sfaard, K. Gra avemeijer & E. Yacckel (Eds.),, A Journey in Mathem matics Educcation Reseaarch (Vol. 488 pp. 41-71 ). Neth herlands: Sp pringer. Fu unahashi, Y Y., & Hino, K. (2014). The teacheer’s role in guiding g chiildren’s
Figurre 1. Word dle of term ms used by pparticipantss in defining g Thinkingg Classroom ms 22
