Research Question

• What happens to the quality of students' mathematical explanations when revoiced by

their classmates?
• How does students' mathematical conceptual understanding evolve as they rephrase their
peers' explanations and extend them by asking clarifying questions?
Intervention/Innovation
For this action research, I incorporated group activities into my lesson plans to provide
opportunities to engage in mathematical conversations. During these activities, students utilized
revoicing and extending technics to support them as they made sense of each other's ideas. As
students completed engaged in the discussion, I circulated and wrote my observations on their
explanations and questions depending on their roles as the explainer to the repeater. I also took
notes on how mathematical language evolved during their conversations. As part of the
activities, students kept track of the accuracy of explanations, vocabulary, clarifying questions,
and conceptual understanding from their perspectives as explainers and repeaters.

Rationale:
To promote conceptual understanding and stay away from limited and memorized
mathematical procedural fluency, math teachers are trying to promote exploration activities
focusing on students collaborating. As I tried to follow this model, I witnessed how my students
struggle to participate actively in the mathematical discussion. Based on my observations,
students with a good understanding of the topic are the ones leading the conversation and
completing the task while the students who struggle to understand the topic become passive
participants. After students were introduced to the revoicing and extending, I observed how
students were more engaged in math discussions. Now everyone had a role in the conversation,
either as explainers or repeaters. Whoever remembered how to solve the math problem was the
explainer and the other person was the repeater. Observing students take two distinct roles made
me wonder about the difference between the perspective of the explainer and the repeater. Thus,
for this round, explainers reported how well they think the repeater understood the concept after
revoicing and asking clarifying questions. The repeaters, however, reported their own level of
understanding after revoicing other explanations. This gave me the opportunity to complete data
about conceptual understanding from two different perspectives.

Round Two, Day 1: I started the second round of my research with activity in pairs to
practice revoicing in which students had to complete a review assignment about how to solve
various kinds of linear equations. During this activity, students took the roles of explainer and
repeater based on their confidence to complete the assignment. Whoever remembered how to
solve the math problem would be the explainer and the other person the repeater. As students
explained to each other, I walked around taking notes of their revoicing moves and clarifying
questions. Once the students completed the assignment, they completed an electronic survey. On
the survey, they indicated the clarifying questions asked during the discussion and how helpful
revoicing was to understand the topic. The rest of the questions students answered were based on
their roles. For example, if the students indicated there were explainers, the next question was:
From 1 to 5, how well do you think your partner understands how to solve equations after
revoicing/ repeating your explanations? If they indicated that they were the repeaters, the next
question was: From 1 to 5, how well do you understand how to solve equations after revoicing/
repeating your partner's explanations?
 Round Two, Day 2: In pairs, students practiced revoicing by helping each other solve
math problems while taking the roles of repeater and explainer. The repeater had to revoice their
partner’s explanation. After the assignment, students were asked to complete a reflection
regarding their repetition or reaction to it based on their roles. Repeaters were given some
options to indicate how accurate the repetition was. For example, my repetition was a) exactly
what the explainer said, b) different words but the same idea, c) I forgot some details d) I had to
ask the explainer to repeat themselves. Explainers were given options to indicate if they had
modified their explanations and, if so, how. For example, a) I added details, b) I changed the way
I explained after they repeated my explanation, and c) I repeated myself. Their answer sheets
were collected for data purposes.
Round Two, Day 3: After notes on measures of center and class discussion. I
implemented an I do- You Do approach to assess if students understood the concept. I completed
an example problem and asked students to complete another one independently. After this, I
provided a worksheet in which students were asked to explain how they calculated each of the
four measures of center. Finding each of the measures involved definitions previously discussed.
Thus, the activity assessed conceptual understanding before students could discuss it with others
and implement revoicing.
Round Two, Day 4: After a warm-up, students worked in pairs to find the measures of the
center of given data sets. After using revoicing to help each other to complete the task, students
were asked to complete a reflection in which they were asked to explain in their own words how
they calculated each of the four measures of center. That is, they answered the same questions
they were asked the day before they had the opportunity to discuss and utilize revoicing. Thus,
the responses recorded their conceptual understanding after revoicing and extending technics.
Their answer sheets were collected for data purposes.
Round Two, Day 5: To practice revoicing, I started the class with an activity in which, in
pairs, students had to determine if the statements about measures of the center were true or false.
I provided a worksheet with the data sets and a list of terms and vocabulary related to the topic.
Students were asked to keep track of the terminology and vocabulary words used during their
discussion using the list of words provided. As students explained to each other, I walked around
taking notes of their revoicing moves, clarifying questions they were asking, and vocabulary.
After completing the assignment, students reflected on how helpful revoicing was to understand
the topic from their roles and indicated the terms and vocabulary they used while explaining or
revoicing. Their answer sheets were collected for data purposes.
Round Two, Day 6: After introducing and class discussion class how to use the measure
of center to create a graph called Box and Whisker, students were asked to work in pairs taking
the roles of explainer or repeater to complete practice problems. Students were provided with a
list of terms related to the topic. As they worked together using revoicing and asking clarifying
questions, students kept track of the terms used during the discussion by circling the words on
the provided list. Their answer sheets were collected for data purposes.
Data Collected
• Student responses to surveys regarding impact of revoicing on their conceptual
understanding regarding a mathematical concept
• Organizer to keep track of academic/ formal language used during discussion
• Students daily answer sheets with data regarding impact of revoicing on explanations
 • Recordings of student conversations
• Observation notes
Data Analysis
Qualitative Data Analysis
As part of Round Two, I asked students to identify the clarifying questions present in the
discussion. Thus, as I analyzed student responses, I coded the kinds of questions into five
categories, namely 1) Asking the explainer to repeat, 2) Confused, 3) Confirming, 4) Wondering,
and 5) Elaborating. Another piece of data that I coded was student perceptions after revoicing
their peers’ explanations. For responses from the repeaters’ perspective, I used the codes a)
forgetting details, b) different words but the same idea, and c) exactly what the explainer said. I
also coded the changes students noticed in their peers' explanations after they heard their
explanations being revoiced by analyzing their answer sheets and surveys. For this, I used the
codes repeating and adding details. I will also present percentages about the frequency of the
codes on students’ responses. This, though, will be a mixed method. On days three and four, I
ask students to explain in their own words how they completed each of the four measures of
center. That is, they answered the same questions twice. The first time they answered the
questions was before they could discuss and use revoicing. The second time these same
questions were answered was after using revoicing and extending technics. I coded the
differences between students’ first and second responses. For this I used the codes, formal
definition to explaining steps, explaining special cases, in detail, incomplete to detailed,
struggling to understanding, descriptive language, wordy to concise, understanding to struggling.
I will also present percentages about the frequency of the codes on students’ responses. This,
though, will be a mixed method. On days five and six, I asked students to identify the
terminology and vocabulary used during the discussion. As I analyzed students' responses I
coded their vocabulary into three categories, namely topic-specific terminology, operations, and
descriptive. I will also present percentages about the frequency of the codes on students’
responses. This, thus, will be a mixed method.

Quantitative Data Analysis

To obtain quantitative data, I used a Linkert scale to track how helpful students consider
revoicing. I also used this scale to calculate the percentages of how useful revoicing is for
explainers and repeaters separately and to track how well the repeater understood the topic after
revoicing according to both the explainer and repeater. I also calculated the rate of students’
responses that indicated if there were changes to the explanation provided after being revoiced
and the rates of student responses indicating they corrected their classmates as explanations were
revoiced.

Findings
Qualitative Data Analysis
During the first day and as students practiced revoicing explanations, they kept track of
the clarifying questions they used during discussions and reported the questions asked during the
math conversation in an electronic survey. The data collected showed that most of the questions
(65%) consisted of students asking their partners to elaborate and be more specific. Students
were comfortable admitting lack of understanding as the second most common questions (29%)
were related to students expressing their confusion and asking for further explanation when parts
of the concepts were unclear (See Table 1). Also, data showed no record of students asking each
other to repeat themselves. The fact that students were not repeating themselves but instead
asking each other to clear up confusion and add details to their explanations showed engagement
while discussing and working together. However, the lack of questions connected to wondering
or confirming what they believe they comprehended indicated a focus on procedural fluency
rather than conceptual understanding. That is, students were more focused on learning the steps
to solve the problems rather than exploring concepts. According to data, explainers showed two
tendencies as repeaters revoiced explanations. From the point of view of the explainer,
explainers tended to add details after listening to their ideas being revoiced and repeated some
parts to support the repeater as they were revoicing (See Table 2). It must be noted that this data
does not contradict the data regarding clarifying questions where there is no record of students
asking to repeat themselves. This data showed the tendency of repeaters to repeat parts of the
explanations as a response to listening to their explanation coming from someone else rather than
as a request from the repeater. From the point of view of repeaters, revoicing did not lead them to
use the same words the explainer used but rather rephrase their ideas. Repeaters also indicated
that they tended to forget some details, which is linked to the explainer's tendency to repeat some
part of their explanation without being asked to (See Table 2).
During Round Two, students were asked to explain in their own words how they
completed each of the four measures of centers before and after using revoicing. I coded their
responses and compared their answers to analyze the impact of revoicing on students’ conceptual
understanding. Data showed that most student responses (26%) went from formal definitions to
the steps they took to get answers. That is, before revoicing each other’s explanations, students’
understanding is limited to definitions and terminology given by the teacher. After revoicing,
students showed the ability to explain their steps. Students, however, explained their steps by
using informal language. Another effect of revoicing on students’ understanding is, according to
the data (see Table 3), being able to elaborate the explanation to the point of including unusual
cases in math problems. Thus, after revoicing or expressing their ideas, students become
knowledgeable and know how to deal with situations that require a different approach or extra
steps. Data also showed that 16% of students provided incomplete answers to the questions when
answered before revoicing. After revoicing, these students provided more in-detail and complete
responses (See Table 3). This indicated that revoicing helped them generate more precise
explanations of the terms and process. Data also showed that some students (16%) answered the
questions correctly on both occasions, before and after revoicing. However, their answers after
revoicing are much condensed and contain less descriptive language. This indicated that after
revoicing, students have a clear idea about the topic and formulate more straightforward
explanations avoiding the formal definition provided by the teacher. During this round, students
were asked to keep track of the language used during discussion and as revoicing was happening.
Data collected indicated that the vocabulary present in their conversation is mainly (37.8%) on
topic-specific terms. This suggests that students practice the vocabulary terms used during
instruction. Data also showed that students tried to use formal descriptive language while
explaining to each other (see Table 4). That is students used “least value” rather than smallest
value. These results suggest that after receiving an explanation of the topic from the teacher,
students tried to use the formal language the teacher used. However, as their responses after
revoicing showed (see Table 3), once students have a clear idea about the topic, they formulate
straightforward explanations avoiding the formal definition provided by the teacher.
Table 1: Clarifying Questions
Code Tally Example
Asking the 0%
explainer to repeat
Confused 29% A) I am confused about the part B) How do you do this?
 C)What are we supposed to do when...?
Confirming 6% I think it means that
Wondering 0%
Elaborating 65% A) What do you mean by? B) How so? C) Can you be more
specific? D) Can you explain more/ elaborate on...?
Table 2: Description of Repetition
Repeater's Perspective
Code Tally
Forgetting details 27%
Different words but same idea 27%

Exactly what the explainer said 9%

Explainer's Perspective
(As Revoicing was taking place)
Code Tally
Repeating 18%
Adding details 18%
Table 3: Students’ Explanations Before and After Revoicing
How do you find each of the measures of center?

Examples from students' responses

Code Before Revoicing and Extending After Revoicing and Extending Frequenc
y
Formal A) " Sum of values divided by the A) " Add all the numbers and divide by 26%
definition to number you added" the amount of them"
steps
B) " The difference between smallest B) "Subtract smallest and largest values"
and largest"
Explaining A) "Number is in the middle when in A) "Find the middle number if it is even, 26%
special cases order from smallest to biggest" take the 2 of them and add and divide
by 2"
In detail A) "Find the number that repeats" A) "Find the number that repeats the most 11%
Incomplete to A)"Adding" A) "You add all the numbers and divide 16%
detailed by how many there is"

B) "Look though the numbers and find B) "You put the numbers smallest ->
what the middle number is" biggest find the middle number (s) and
divide by 2”

Struggling to A) " I do not know" B) " You find the number in the middle 5%
understanding when you rearrange it"
Lossing A) " Subtract the largest number with B)" Subtract the largest to the smallest" 16%
descriptive the smallest number"
language
Wordy to A) " You checked to see what number B) "Most common value" 5%
concise is listed the most "

Understanding A) "Difference between the largest B) "It is the largest number" 5%

to struggling and the smallest"

Table 4: Term Used During Discussion

Example Tally
 Topic specific Terminology " Mean" “Mode" 37.8%

Operations " divide" " add" "difference" 26.7%

Descriptive "Numerical order" " Least value" " Middle value" 35.6%

Quantitative Data Analysis

I used a Likert scale to find the impact of revoicing on conceptual understanding. Using
an electronic survey, I asked students to indicate from 1-5 how helpful revoicing the
explanations was to understand the concept (one being not helpful and five very helpful). The
data showed that 60% of students in my focus group found revoicing very helpful. An additional
20% found it helpful (see Graph 1). It is worth mentioning that no student indicated that
revoicing was not helpful at all. Thus, the data showed that revoicing is seen as helpful to
understand mathematical concepts. As part of the survey, students were also asked to indicate
their role in their discussion and how helpful revoicing was from their roles’ perspectives. Data
showed that 60% of the focus group took the role of explainer while 40% took the role of
repeaters (see Graph 2). About the helpfulness of revoicing, 50% of explainers found revoicing
helpful while 75% of the repeaters agreed with them (see Graph 3). This suggests that students
benefit more from utilizing revoicing during the discussion if they are the ones being explained
to and repeating others’ ideas. That is, revoicing seems more helpful for those students who
struggle to understand a concept than for those who do not. The Linkert scale was also used in
this round to gather data regarding how well the repeater understood the concept after revoicing
others' ideas. I asked the explainer to indicate from 1-5 how well the repeater understood the
concept after revoicing (one being not at all, and five very well). To the repeaters, I asked them
to indicate how well they thought they understood the concept after revoicing. According to data,
50% of the repeaters indicated that they understood the concept very well after revoicing their
partner's explanations. There was, however, no explainer that agreed with them. Most of the
explainers (67%) indicated that the repeater understood the topic just well and 33% indicated that
the repeaters' understanding was just acceptable (see Graph 4). These results suggest that while
the repeaters, students who need support understanding the topic, feel confident after revoicing,
they might still have a low level of comprehension. That is, revoicing helps students increase
their confidence while learning a concept, but students still need additional support to reach
proficiency levels.
In this round, explainers reflected on their reactions to revoicing. Data gathered showed
that 50% of the explainers corrected the repeater as they repeated their explanations, while 50%
did not (see Table 5). These results suggest that although the explainers did not need the support
of the repeater to understand a concept, they were engaged in the discussion and made sure
mistakes were not made. Data also indicated that more than half of the explainers (67%) changed
or added to their explanation after hearing others repeat what they said. This also suggests that
revoicing helps students reflect on their understanding of the topic and how they express it.

Graph 1: Linkert Scale- Helpfulness Graph 2: Roles in Discussion

 .
Graph 3: Linkert Scale- How Helpful was Revoicing by Role

Graph 4: Repeaters’ Level of Understanding

Table 5: Explainer’s Reactions to Revoicing

Explainers Examples
As the explainer, did you Yes 50% a) Yeah, a little bit but I did not really need to because she
correct the repeater as understood) yes, because she got confused sometimes
 they repeat what you
said?
No 50% a) No, I did not correct the repeater.
b) No not really.

Did hearing others Yes 67% a) yes, it made me explain thing differently
repeat what you b) yes, it did I just added small details.
explain make change/ c) yes, because she would use her own words
add to their No 33% No, I did not add or change my explanation.
explanation? Explain

Planning Next Round

According to data, the repeaters considered that they understood the concept very well
after revoicing explanations. However, most of the explainers disagreed and indicated that the
repeater understood the topic just well or their understanding levels were acceptable. Thus, for
the next round, I will ask the explainers how well they think the repeater understands the topic
and vice versa. Thus, I will ask students to evaluate each other's understanding. I want to collect
data on how knowledgeable they perceive each other during discussions. I will also assess
students and compare the data with their evaluation of each other. This data will help me track
the evolution of conceptual understanding after using revoicing as they take on the roles of
explainers and repeaters. The results of Round Two also suggest that while the repeaters,
students who need support understanding the topic, feel confident after revoicing, they might still
have a low level of comprehension. Thus, for the next round, I will ask students to complete
some reflections/ surveys in which I will ask students about their confidence levels. I wonder if
confidence is linked to their assessment results or if students feel they understand because they
are repeating someone else’s ideas. But they get confused when doing some problems by
themselves. I wonder how revoicing impacts confidence and if that is linked to the results of
their assessments.
After observing my students and analyzing data from Round Two, I had a significant
realization. I have been considering revoicing as a two-role activity where the two people
participating choose a role and stay in it during the entire discussion. Thus, as part of the surveys
completed in Round Two, students were asked to indicate their functions in the conversation. As
I saw some students struggling to identify their roles, I wondered about role switching. Is it
possible that the same student who started as the repeater can take the role of the explainer at
some point and vice versa? For the next round, I will focus on role-switching. I will ask students
if they experienced this at some point in the discussion and how it impacted the dynamics of
their collaboration during revoicing. This will give me insight into the impact of revoicing on
conceptual understanding.

Literature Connections:
Holenstein, M., Bruckmaier, G., & Grob, A. (2021). How do self‐efficacy and self‐concept
impact mathematical achievement? the case of Mathematical Modelling. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12443

Given that in Round Three, I will focus on students' confidence levels and the impact of it on
their participation during revoicing and their conceptual understanding, this article will help me
as an example to know how to take observation notes and how to analyze the data. It will also
allow me to learn about the research it has been done on this topic.
Barwell, R. (2015). Formal and informal mathematical discourses: Bakhtin and Vygotsky,
dialogue and dialectic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(3), 331–345.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9641-z

This article helped me to understand the process students experience while going from informal
to formal mathematical language and how they use it during discussions.

Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K.
(2009). ‘explain to your partner’: Teachers' instructional practices and students' dialogue in
small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701986
This article inspired the roles used in my research. My students are taking the role explainer and
repeater and working in groups or pairs. This article also provided samples on how the dynamics
of my activities should work if I want to provide the opportunity to be part of the mathematical
concentration to everyone in the classroom.
 ROUND THREE Research Plan

Round 3
Context I teach math in a Title 1 high school. Wolf High School is in a rural County district. It serves 1,309 students in grades 9-12. Out of those
Brief info about your 1,309 students, 57.8% of students are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and 9.2% are English Learners. The ethnic
school, subject, grade, distribution of the student body is as follows: 0.9% African American, 2.5% Asian, 73.8%, Hispanic/Latino, and 18.6% White. American
class, students Indian, Filipino, and Pacific Islander students are less than one percent each (California Department of Education, 2022).
I am a bilingual Spanish-speaking teacher and given that most of our EL (English Learner) population on campus speak Spanish, a
considerable number of EL students are placed in my classes. Most of my students identify themselves as Hispanic and bilingual. Thus,
when working in groups, students have conversations in both English and Spanish. In one of my periods, there are several students with
Individualized Educational plans (IEP), and there is a paraprofessional who supports them during instruction. Most of my students
graduated from the same middle school. Thus, they have known each other for years.
Research Question(s) • What happens to the quality of students' mathematical explanations when revoiced by their classmates?
(If you have more than 1
research question- • How does students' mathematical conceptual understanding evolve as they rephrase their peers' explanations and extend them by
highlight he RQs that are
most relevant to this
round) asking clarifying questions?

Round 3 Planned Intervention: Relevance Statement:

Intervention/ Describe the intervention in general terms Explain the relevance of the intervention to student learning
Innovations Describe the instructional strategies for implementing the Focused on learning outcomes/ Focused on the specific intervention.
intervention

I will ask the explainers how well they think the repeater
How will you organize understands the topic, and I will ask the repeaters to
learning experiences indicate how well they think both themselves and the
for students that explainer understand the topic. That is, I will ask students
address your research to evaluate each other's understanding.
questions(s)?
I will assess students' conceptual understanding with a
Cite sources as needed short quiz. They will take the assessment after working
collaboratively and using revoicing.
Attach additional
lesson artifacts I will ask students to complete some reflections/ surveys
(optional) in which I will ask students about their confidence levels.
I will ask students to complete a survey and indicate if
they have changed roles (going from being the repeater to
the explainer and vice versa).
Round 3
According to data, the repeaters considered that they understood the concept
very well after revoicing explanations. However, most of the explainers
disagreed. I want to analyze how knowledgeable they perceive each other
during discussions. I want to compare the data with their assessment scores.
This data will help me track the evolution of conceptual understanding after
using revoicing as they take on the roles of explainers and repeaters.
Round Two also suggests revoicing helps students increase their confidence
while learning a concept. By tracking their confidence and comparing it to the
results of their assessment, I will be able to determine if confidence is linked to
their assessment results or if students feel they understand because they are
repeating someone else’s ideas but need support to reach a conceptual
understanding.
Tracking role twitching will give me insight into the impact of revoicing on
understanding and the dynamics of collaborative work among my students.

Round 3 Data to be
collected • Observation notes
• Questionnaires and google surveys
What are the • Short assessments
data/artifacts that you • Likert scales
will collect? Just a list.
e.g.: Student work?
Notes from
observations?
Interviews? Video?
 Students will complete several surveys in Round Three. The surveys will include Likert scales on the impact of rephrasing explanations
Data Analysis Plans and clarifying questions regarding how well they think the explainer and the repeater understand the topic and their confidence levels.
Using assessment scores, I will calculate the percentage of explainers considering that the repeater understands the topic after revoicing. I
What are your data will also calculate the averages for confidence after their discussion.
analysis strategies for
qualitative data (e.g., I will use the scores of the assessment to find the levels of understanding of explainers and repeaters after using revoicing during the
coding, memos) conversation.
Explain your analysis
plans specifically for I will be taking observation notes as students work in groups to explain math concepts to each other and apply those concepts to solve the
the data in this round math problem. I will capture and record spoken evidence of role switching and verbal and non-verbal language that indicates their
confidence levels as they participate in the discussion. Their responses will be coded according to themes.
What are your data
analysis strategies for Students will complete a survey to reflect on role switching. The survey will consist of open-ended questions. Their responses will be
quantitative date (e.g., coded according to themes.
descriptive statistics)
Explain your analysis
plans specifically for
the data in this round
 Holenstein, M., Bruckmaier, G., & Grob, A. (2021). How do self‐efficacy and self‐concept impact mathematical achievement? the case of
Literature Source(s) Mathematical Modelling. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12443
cited in APA
Given that, in round Two I will focus on students' confidence levels and the impact of it on their participation during revoicing and their
Cite any sources here conceptual understanding, this article will help me as an example to know how to analyze this and how to analyze the data. It will also
and briefly describe allow me to know the research it has been done into this topic.
how the literature will
be leveraged to inform Barwell, R. (2015). Formal and informal mathematical discourses: Bakhtin and Vygotsky, dialogue and dialectic. Educational Studies in
your research Mathematics, 92(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9641-z
questions, intervention,
data collection and This article helped me to understand the process students experience while going from informal to formal mathematical language and how
analysis plans. they use it during discussions.

Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009). ‘explain to your partner’: Teachers'
instructional practices and students' dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701986
This article inspired the roles used in my research. My students are taking the role explainer and repeater and working in groups or pairs.
This article also provided samples on how the dynamics of my activities should work if I want to provide the opportunity to be part of the
mathematical concentration to everyone in the classroom.

Attach Notes or Additional Materials (lesson plans, rubrics, materials you plan to use in teaching, etc. (Optional)