Annotated Bibliography

Banks, M., & Woolfson, L. (2008, February 29). Why do students think they fail? the
relationship between attributions and academic self-perceptions. British Journal of
Special Education. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ787579

Summary:
In this study, Banks et al. compare the attributions (explanations) of students having learning
difficulties with low achievers and average achievers by analyzing their reasons for their failure
to complete a given mathematical task. Banks et al. conclude that students who felt themselves
as not being as good as most people at doing their schoolwork also tended to see themselves as
having less control over the outcome of their performance. This study concludes that neither
being labeled as having learning difficulties nor having negative learning experiences is as
important as students’ own perceptions of their achievement level. The authors, thus, argue that
how teachers perceive students’ learning is not as meaningful as how students perceive
themselves. Banks et al. suggest that low self-perception of achievement levels could be avoided
by providing support to those not labeled as low achievers but those students who see themselves
as low achievers.

Reflection:
This study examines how students perceive their math abilities and the reasons they have for
such perception. It also discussed the impact of such perception on their performance. The results
in Round Three showed that revoicing might have an impact on students’ self-perception of their
skills and confidence levels. This article, thus, helped me inform myself about the research
around this topic and to identify signals of low self-perception on achievement. It also helped me
understand the importance of the increase in confidence levels of students who struggle in class.
That is, this article is helping me analyze the impact of revoicing in a more holistic way.
Banse, H. W., Palacios, N. A., Merritt, E. G., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2016). Scaffolding
english language learners' mathematical talk in the context of Calendar math. The
Journal ofEducational Research, 110(2), \199–208.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1075187

Summary:
In this study, Banse et al. examine how two teachers facilitate mathematical discussions in grade
4 classrooms with a high concentration of ELLs. The study results show that despite the lack of
“referential questions” teachers used other discussion practices to support ELLs, including a
variety of display questions, repetition, elaboration of student responses, and vocabulary use.
While display questions can be scaffolding tools, Banse et al. argue, they typically do not support
students’ conceptual understanding. The study also indicates that the most frequently used
revoicing moves were repetition and elaboration. Repetition was used to affirm student response.
But the authors notice that repetition was commonly followed by a teacher elaboration or request
for student elaboration. The authors also notice a lack of reformulation in both classrooms. This
is, Banse et al. argue, a consequence of the lack of referential questions. The lack of
reformulation meant that students were not giving complex responses, which teachers could then
reword using mathematical language.
Reflection:
This article analyses revoicing which is part of the innovation I plan to implement. This study
helped me realize that there are diverse ways of revoicing. Thus, I need to categorize the kind of
revoicing my students will be implemented and adjust my coding system as needed. This study
also made me reflect on the kind of questions I will be giving to my students. I must ensure the
question allows students to have complex conversations that require revoicing. If the questions
are low level, students' responses will lack complexity and thus will be more complex to identify
the impact of revoicing on their conceptual understanding.
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

Summary:
In this study, Barwell examines the relationship between formal and informal mathematical
language by observing and analyzing an elementary school mathematics classroom. Learning
mathematical language, Barwell argues, is generally visualized as a transition from everyday
expressions to expressions of mathematical thinking. Thus, educators aim to replace the
quotidian language students use with formal language. This, however, Barwell affirms is not how
students develop or adopt formal language. Non-formal mathematical language, the author
argues, is not simply a scaffold to reach more formal language. By exposing students to formal
language, teachers support students in expanding their discursive repertoires, Barwell explains,
giving them a wider range of ways to make meaning in different mathematical situations. That is,
formal language does not replace informal language. It is an addition to it, Barwell assures.

Reflection:
This study analyzes how students develop and adopt formal language. In my research I examine
how students' conversations evolve as they utilize revoicing and extending technics. Thus, as part
of Round Two, I decided to keep track of the academic language in students' explanation before
and after revoicing each other's explanations. This article helped me understand the process
students experience while going from informal to formal mathematical language and how they
use it during discussions. It also made me reflect on how students use formal and informal
language to make sense of mathematical concepts and to avoid valuing students' discussions with
informal language less. I must see students' conversation as richer in informal language rather
than lacking formal language. In addition, this article helped me understand how to get data for
informal and formal language and how to code data accordingly.
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

Summary:
In this article, Holenstein et al. investigated how school grades, mathematical self-concept, and
mathematical self-efficacy predict mathematical modeling by analyzing data from 16 classes in
six schools. According to previous research, the authors state, self-efficacy is an important
motivational predictor of performance in mathematical problem-solving. Holenstein et al argue
that mathematics grades influenced both self-efficacy and self-concept. This, the authors claim,
indicates that self-beliefs are shaped by the feedback the students receive. Students need to
believe in their potential to achieve something, rather than in whether they think they are good at
something. Students rely on, Holenstein et al argue, prior achievement feedback in building their
self-efficacy, which affects their mathematical modeling performance. Thus, the authors advise
educators to examine students’ self-beliefs in order to be aware of students with low self-efficacy
and help them with their motivation. This, Holenstein et al argue, might profit in return. Students
receiving low grades, the authors warn, might get into a downward spiral that is more likely a
consequence of low grades rather than their level of mathematical skills. Thus, teachers must
provide feedback in a way that positively affects students’ self-beliefs.

Reflection:
This article examines self-efficacy and self-concept and their impact on students' mathematical
performance. In the last round of data collection, I will ask students to complete some reflections
in which I will ask students about their confidence levels. Thus, this article will be helpful. This
article will help as an example of how to take observation notes and how to analyze the data. It
will also help me learn about the research it has been done on this topic. In the last round of data
collection, I also want to analyze if confidence is linked to their assessment results and if
revoicing impacts confidence. Thus, this article will be used as an example of how to code data
to see if such relationships are present in my research data.
Hunter, J. (2016). Developing interactive mathematical talk: Investigating student perceptions
and accounts of mathematical reasoning in a changing classroom context. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 47(4), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2016.1195789

Summary:
In this study, interviews were used to investigate student perception and mathematical
explanations and reasoning. In the study, re-voicing was used to introduce students to
mathematical language and questioning was used to help students reflect on their peers’ ideas.
The study suggests that implementing collaborative activities in class changes the way students
participate. Students initially when assigned to work with others, Hunter indicates, opt for taking
turns or asking for assistance when stuck rather than collaborating to find a solution. Later, he
argues, students moved from cooperating to collaborating and developing joint strategies. An
environment more focused on “interactive mathematics talk,” Hunter suggests, encourages
students to become more active participants who ask questions to clarify ideas and agree and
disagree with their others’ ideas. By the end of the study, Hunter indicates, many students were
able to recall the reasoning for both their own and their peers’ explanations. Hunter concludes
that “developing an appreciation of the collective” improves the students’ sense of obligation to
provide mathematical reasoning, develop explanations and provide justification.
Reflection:
This study analyzes pedagogical strategies and teacher actions to develop collaborative
mathematical discourse. Some of those strategies it analyzed include providing space for
students to ask questions for clarification, requesting students to add on to a previous
contribution, and asking students to repeat previous contributions. These strategies are revoicing
and extending explanations, which are the focus of my research questions. This study will be
helpful as I analyze how my students’ discussions and answers evolve after I introduce my
innovation. This article also made me realize that I need to develop an appreciation for working
with others to encourage students to engage in collaborative conversation and feel part of a group
with a common goal. That way, students can feel more comfortable sharing and questioning their
peers’ ideas.
Kohl, H. (2017). I won’t learn from you! Thoughts on roles of assents in learning. In A. Darder,
R. D. Torres, & M. P. Baltodano (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (3rd ed.) (pp. 440–
447). New York, NY: Routledge.

Summary:
In this chapter, Kohl claims refusing to learn is commonly perceived as a personal psychological
problem. That is, willful refusal to learn is perceived as a failure to learn. Learning how to not-
learn is an intellectual and social challenge, Kohl argues. Students’ refusal is molded by a hostile
society leading them to see not-learning as a positive and healthy response in many situations.
Not-learning takes place, Kohl assures when the learning comes from a person who does not
respect students’ integrity. The author explains that non-learning and failing are not the same.
Students who refuse to learn do not lack skills but decide not to do so. No learning, thus, is a
strategy students use to function in a society that has failed to acknowledge them. It involves
taking a role that enables them to take control of their lives and get through difficult times.
Educators, thus, must learn the importance of will and free choice play in learning and the
importance of considering people’s stance towards learning. However, willed refusal of
schooling for political or cultural reasons is not acknowledged as a response to oppressive
education. Kohl argues that students do not have a way to criticize the educational system they
are subjected to. Not learning is a healthy but frequently dysfunctional response to racism,
sexism, and other forms of bias, the author assures. Kohl concludes that until educators learn to
distinguish not-learning from failure and respect the truth behind this massive rejection of
schooling by students from poor and oppressed communities, it will not be possible to solve
critical issues in the education system in the US.
Reflection:
Kohl’s analysis of non-learning made me reflect on the times I have faced challenges engaging
students. It made me wonder about the reasons students had to refuse to participate.
Disengagement is often explained as a lack of creative ways to present the curriculum. However,
as Kohl argues, we must learn to identify the reasons behind the refusal to learn. Our students are
capable. They do not lack the skills. There is a reason why they are not learning, and we, as their
teachers, might be part of the problem. Kohl’s words reminded me how critical it is for educators
to create an environment where students feel heard. All students should feel welcome to share
their opinions and experiences (good and bad ones). By doing so, we can both grow and learn
from them. My research focuses on an innovation requiring students to talk to each other without
our intervention. They share what they know, listen, and question each other. A similar technique
can be implemented to encourage discussion among students about their schooling and provide a
space for students to share their opinion on the way and content we teach them. Students should
be part of the discussion about class structures and even how the curriculum is covered. We
should not be afraid to hear about what they do not like about our class, subject, or teaching
style. We need to know what does not work for our students. Thus, those conversations are
needed. Our work as educators, then, is to listen to those conversations and listen to what our
students want and need.

Shein, P. P. (2012). Seeing with two eyes: A teacher's use of gestures in questioning and
revoicing to engage English language learners in the repair of mathematical
errors. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(2), 182–
222. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.2.0182Links to an external
site.

Summary:
This study examines how a teacher’s use of gestures supported the discourse practice of
questioning and revoicing to engage English Learners in mathematical discussion. A teacher’s
return gesture is, Shein argues, an essential mode of revoicing. When the ELLs explain their
strategy to fix the mistake and solve the math problem correctly, the teacher often revoiced both
the speech and the action that the student used in “conveying meanings.” The teacher observed in
the study, Shein states, capitalized on the use of gestures as tools. The use of pointing and
gestures played a significant role in “facilitating students’ access to the meaning and scope” of
the teacher’s questions. Gesturing and revoicing, Shein assures, open multiple avenues through
which the ELLs were able to show and exercise their competence.
Reflection:
This article is connected to my study because revoicing is the focus of one of my research
questions. Given that I teach English learners, I will analyze how their mathematical
conversations evolve as they use revoicing. This study also made me realize that repeating/
copying gestures is another way students can revoice each other's ideas. Thus, I should model
revoicing with gestures to make math discussions more accessible to EL students. This article
provides information about previous research on revoicing and its impact on EL students. Thus,
when analyzing my data, I will have the opportunity to see if the article’s findings reflect my
findings.
Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., Azmon, S., & Dreyfus, T. (2019). Following the traces of teachers’
talk-moves in their students’ verbal and written responses. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 18(3), 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-
019-09969-0
Summary:
In this study, Tabach et al. compare the talk moves of two teachers and their students to follow
traces of the teachers’ moves in their students’ responses. As the teachers supported students,
both teachers helped students to expand their ideas and encourage them to deepen their
reasoning. Tabach et al. argue that the teacher's moves were focused on one student in specific
rather than helping students to think with others or explain what others have said. Teacher A’s
typical behavior involves re-voicing her students’ ideas and asking them to tell more. This
behavior was characterized by asking two or three clarifying questions. The typical talk moves of
teacher B also involved re-voicing but pressing for reasoning. As result, the authors argue,
students of teacher A lacked justification when answering questions, while students of teacher
B's responses included justification of their claims. This means, Tabach et al conclude, that the
students’ contributions echo the emphases of the teacher’s talk moves.

Reflection:
Given that revoicing is the focus of one of my research questions, this study will help me identify
tools to analyze revoicing and its impact on students’ conceptual understanding. For example,
the study explains the coding process to analyze students' conversations and a graphic organizer
to analyze revoicing. It also provides a way to categorize students' justification so the analysis
can be done more in-depth. That is, I could categorize justification by levels and analyze my
student's conceptual understanding. I will use this study as an example of how to analyze
qualitative data and how to track the impact of revoicing on students' explanations.
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

Summary:
In this study, Webb et al. examine the extent to which teachers encourage students to explain
their thinking during group and whole-class discussions. The study shows that teachers often
repeated or revoiced something the students had said to encourage students to give additional
explanations or to question their own reasoning. The authors argue that teachers’ revoicing of
students’ explanations sometimes left the mistaken impression that the group’s work was correct.
This study also suggests that while teachers used a variety of instructional practices to create a
dialogue among students in small groups, only probing explanations of their thinking showed a
strong relationship with the quality of the responses. Teachers’ questions, Webb et al. argue, may
help students clarify ambiguous explanations, make explicit steps in their problem-solving
procedures, justify their problem-solving strategies, and correct their misconceptions or
strategies.
Reflection:
The strategies analyzed in the study relate to my research questions given that I will focus on
revoicing and asking clarifying questions as technics during group work. In this study, the
authors coded teacher practices across the entire lesson and student participation along two
dimensions. The first dimension was the level of student participation in a problem: (a) gives
correct and complete explanation; (b) gives ambiguous, incomplete, or incorrect explanation; (c)
gives answer only, and (d) gives neither an answer nor an explanation. The second dimension
was the extent of the group explaining during or after a teacher’s intervention compared to the
group explaining prior to the teacher’s intervention. I think I can implement a coding system
similar to this one given that I plan to gather data from conversations including explanations.
Thus, this study will be an example as I create my coding system to analyze the discussions and
participation of my students.
Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Turrou, A. C., Johnson, N. C., & Zimmerman, J. (2019).
Teacher practices that promote productive dialogue and learning in Mathematics
Classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 176–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.009
Summary:
In this article, Webb et al. analyze the teacher practices that promote “productive dialogue” and
learning in mathematics classrooms, paying particular attention to the ideas that students share
and the practices that teachers teach. In this study, Webb et al. find that explaining one’s own
ideas and adding to / responding to other students’ ideas predict student learning. The authors
also notice that the level of detail in students' explanations is linked to achievement. Students
who add details to their ideas, to others’ ideas, or challenge their reasoning, perform better than
those who do not engage with others’ ideas. Regarding teacher’s practices, Webb et al. suggest
that as teachers support students to engage with others, they use teachings such as asking follow-
up questions, revoicing ideas (and encouraging students to do the same) and making connections
between students' ideas. After teachers use these technics, students adopt them even when the
teacher is not present to model them. This, the authors suggest, indicates a close correlation
between teacher moves and the way students interact with each other.
Reflection:
One of the teachers' moves mentioned consists of encouraging students to revoice and add on
others' ideas, which is one of the interventions I plan to implement in my action research. The
study suggests that revoicing increases student engagement during discussions and provides a
tool for discussion that students use even if the teacher is not present. During round one, students
will be introduced to revoicing and expanding explanations by asking questions as they learn
how to play a game. This study suggests that after modeling revoicing with the game in round
one, my students are likely to keep using this technique as a tool to engage in mathematical
conversations in rounds two and three. The study also suggests that explaining one’s own ideas
and adding to / responding to other students’ ideas predict student learning. This gave me the
idea of creating a graphic organizer to input each focus student's level of engagement with others'
ideas and their scores on assessments to analyze the data and see if the correlation is present in
my data.