Secondary mathematics teachers’ use of students’ incorrect answers in supporting collective argumentation

References

• Andriessen, J. (2007). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bieda, K. (2010). Enacting proof related tasks in middle school mathematics: Challenges and opportunities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 351–382. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.4.0351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/749717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boero, P., Douek, N., Morselli, F., & Pedemonte, B. (2010). Argumentation and proof: A contribution to theoretical perspectives and their classroom implementation. In M. F. F. Pinto & T. F. Kawasaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 179–205). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
   Google Scholar
• Boero, P., Garuti, R., & Lemut, E. (2007). Approaching theorems in grade VIII: Some mental processes underlying producing and proving conjectures, and conditions suitable to enhance them. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 249–264). Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Borasi, R. (1996). Reconceiving mathematics instruction: A focus on errors. Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brodie, K. (2014). Learning about learner errors in professional learning communities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9507-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casey, S., Lesseig, K., Monson, D., & Krupa, E. E. (2018). Examining preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ responses to student work to solve linear equations. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 20 (1), 132–153. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1173351
   Google Scholar
• Cervantes-Barraza, J., Cabañas-Sánchez, G., & Reid, D. (2019). Complex argumentation in elementary school. PNA, 13(4), 221–246.https://doi.org/10.30827/pna.v13i4.8279.
   Google Scholar
• Chapin, S., O’Connor, M., & Anderson, N. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, grades K-6. Math Solutions.
   Google Scholar
• Conner, A. (2008). Expanded Toulmin diagrams: A tool for investigating complex activity in classrooms. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 32 and the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education XXX (Vol 2, pp. 361–368). Morelia, Mexico: Cinvestav-UMSNH.
   Google Scholar
• Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students’ engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer, J. (2015). Argumentation below expectation: A double-threefold Habermas explanation. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the CERME 9- Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 114–120). Pargue: Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Cramer, J. C., & Knipping, C. (2018). Participation in Argumentation. In U. Gellert, C. Knipping, & S.-P. H (Eds.), Inside the mathematics class. Sociological perspectives on participation, inclusion, and enhancement (pp. 229–244). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-79045-9_11
   Google Scholar
• Crespo, S. (2002). Praising and correcting: Prospective teachers investigate their teacherly talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 739–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00031-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Education. (2014) . National curriculum in England: Mathematics programmes of study.
   Google Scholar
• Erkek, Ö., & Bostan, M. I. (2019). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’ global argumentation structures. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(3), 613–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9884-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fielding-Wells, J., & Makar, K. (2015). “If it doesn’t have an apex it’s not a pyramid”: Argumentation as a bridge to mathematical reasoning. In K. Beswick, T. Muir, & J. Fielding-Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 297–304). Hobart, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00033-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franke, M. L., Webb, N. W., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109339906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez Marchant, C. N., Park, H., Zhuang, Y., Foster, J. K., & Conner, A. (2021). Theory to practice: Prospective mathematics teachers’ recontextualizing discourses surrounding collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(6), 671–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09500-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, B. L., Breyfogle, M. L., & Dressler, J. A. (2009). The power of incorrect answers. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(4), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.15.4.0232
   Google Scholar
• Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034933
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglis, M., Meija-Ramos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modeling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9059-8
   Google Scholar
• Ingram, J., Pitt, A., & Baldry, F. (2015). Handling errors as they arise in whole-class interactions. Research in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2015.1098562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/499693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knipping, C. (2008). A method for revealing structures of argumentations in classroom proving processes. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(3), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0095-y
   Google Scholar
• Knipping, C., & Reid, D. (2015). Reconstructing argumentation structures: A perspective on proving processes in secondary mathematics classroom interactions. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 75–101). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive psychology: A sociocultural approach to studying the teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1), 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014031004832
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113493807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Retrieved from: https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, M., & Yankelewitz, D. (2014). Teaching mistakes or teachable moments? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 50(3), 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2014.931149
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9057-x
   Google Scholar
• Prusak, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2012). From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9335-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumsey, C., & Langrall, C. W. (2016). Promoting mathematical argumentation. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(7), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.22.7.0412
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Schleppenbach, M., Flevares, L. M., Sims, L. M., & Perry, M. (2007). Teachers’ responses to student mistakes in Chinese and US mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1086/525551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinno, Y., Yanagimoto, T., & Uno, K. (2018). An investigation of prospective elementary teachers’ argumentation from the perspective of mathematical knowledge for teaching and evaluating. In G. J. Stylianides & K. Hino (Eds.), Research advances in the mathematical education of pre-service elementary teachers (pp. 155–169). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Son, J. W. (2013). How preservice teachers interpret and respond to student errors: Ratio and proportion in similar rectangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9475-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Son, J. W., & Crespo, S. (2009). Prospective teachers’ reasoning and response to a student’s non-traditional strategy when dividing fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9112-5
   Google Scholar
• Soncini, A., Matteucci, M. C., & Butera, F. (2021). Error handling in the classroom: An experimental study of teachers’ strategies to foster positive error climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(3), 719-738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00494-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staples, M., & Newton, J. (2016). Teachers’ contextualization of argumentation in the mathematics classroom. Theory Into Practice, 55(4), 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1208070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staples, M., Newton, J., Kosko, K. W., Conner, A., Cirillo, M., Bieda, K., Yopp, D., Zaslavsky, O., Hummer, J., Strachota, S., Singh, R., An, T., Going, T., & Zhuang, Y. (2017). Using artefacts to explore conceptions and consequences of argumentation, justification, and proof [ White Paper]. Working Group of the 39th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Indianapolis, IN: Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karl-Kosko/publication/317267228_White_Paper_Using_Artifacts_to_Explore_Conceptions_and_Consequences_of_Argumentation_Justification_and_Proof/links/592f0edb0f7e9beee752bcd0/White-Paper-Using-Artifacts-to-Explore-Concep
   Google Scholar
• Stigler, J. W., Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (1996). Cultures of mathematics instruction in Japanese and American elementary classrooms. In T. P. Rohlen & G. K. LeTendre (Eds.), Teaching and learning in Japan (pp. 213–247). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174480.012
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). First published in 1958. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, P. A., Smith, R. C., Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Using Toulmin’s model to develop prospective secondary mathematics teachers’ conceptions of collective argumentation. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.3.1.0008
   Google Scholar
• Whitenack, J., & Yackel, E. (2002). Making mathematical arguments in the primary grades: The importance of explaining and justifying ideas. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(9), 524–528. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.8.9.0524
   Google Scholar
• Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing? In H. Steinbring, M. G. B. Bussi, & A. Sierpinsk (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, T. (1999). Creating a context for argument in mathematics class. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.2307/749609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00143-8
   Google Scholar
• Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.27.4.0458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Zhuang, Y., & Conner, A. (2018). Analysis of teachers’ questioning in supporting mathematical argumentation by integrating Habermas’ rationality and Toulmin’s model. In T. Hodges, G. Roy, & A. Tyminski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1323–1330). Greenville, SC: University of South Carolina & Clemson University.
   Google Scholar
• Zhuang, Y., & Conner, A. (2020). Teacher questioning strategies in supporting validity of collective argumentation: Explanation adapted from Habermas’ communicative theory. In A. I. Sacristán, J. C. Cortés-Zavala, & P. M. Ruiz-Arias, (Eds.). Mathematics Education Across Cultures: Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Mexico (pp. 2288–2296). Cinvestav/AMIUTEM/PME-NA. https://doi.org/10.51272/pmena.42.2020
   Google Scholar
• Zhuang, Y., & Conner, A. (in press). Teachers’ use of rational questioning strategies to promote student participation in collective argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar