ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION FROM THE COMBINED VIEW OF SELF-REGULATING STRATEGIES AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

Mohd Faizal Nizam Lee Abdullah & Paola Iannone

University Of East Anglia, Norwich

BCME-7 april 2010

BACKGROUND
Our study investigates students:
1.SRL strategies (Pintrich, 1999), 2. Interactions (Sfard & Kieran, 2001) during the engagement with mathematical problems.

FOCUS: The connection between students SRL strategies and their communication. RQ: What can we learn from the combined view of SRL and group discourse?

SRL IS DESCRIBED AS
1. a proactive process in acquiring academic skills such as setting goals, selecting and deploying strategies, and monitoring ones effectiveness (Zimmerman, 2008) 2. the deliberate planning and monitoring of the cognitive and affective processes that are involved in the successful completion of academic tasks (Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Corno, 1986). 3. a systematic process of human behaviour that involves setting personal goals and steering behaviour toward the achievement of established goals ( Zeidner et al. 2000, p. 749).

PINTRICHS SRL MODEL

SRL strategies

Cognitive learning strategies

Selfregulatory strategies

Resource management strategies

Pintrich, 1999

Evoke prior knowledge relevant to the problem Read the problem and associate it to the relevant mathematics topic/content Highlighting and underlining important words or phrases

Rehearsal strategies

WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT COMMUNICATION IN MATHEMATICS?

1. An essential element in mathematics teaching and learning (NCTM, 1989; NCTM, 2000). 2. Mathematics can and should be learned through conversation (Ryve, 2004).

3. Learners are able to exchange mathematical knowledge via communication (Peressini & Bassest, 1996).

Communication in mathematics is vital in developing mathematical knowledge among learners in a classroom environment.

Discourse analysis (Sfard & Kieran, 2001)

Focal analysis Discourse analysis

Preoccupational analysis

Focal analysis

Looking into the effectiveness of a discourse. Refer Sfard & Kieran, 2001, p. 51).

Preoccupational analysis

Looking into the productiveness of a discourse via the interactivity flowchart. Refer to Sfard & Kieran, 2001, p. 42).

SRL & Discourse

SRL Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986: enhancing students academic achievement

Discourse Sfard, 2001: can change the way we think about learning and what is being learned

What can we learn from the combined view of SRL and group discourse?

THE STUDY

Data collection Videorecordings Observational notes Students written work

Participants Four Year 9 students aged between 14 and 15 years old

Analysing video data

Powell et al. (2003) model

The Powell et al. Model

1. Viewing attentively the video data

2. Describing the video data

3. Identifying critical events

4. Transcribing

5. Coding

6. Constructing storyline

7. Composing narrative

Video-recordings information

16 topics

141 problems

137 problems solved correctly

Hours of 4 problems recordings: solved 498 mins wrongly 22 secs

The Triangle problem

Find the lettered angles.

The discourse of the Triangle problem

Analysis via the rehearsal strategies

1. The participants interactions can be divided into two parts:

i. finding the values of m, p, and q angles.

ii. finding the value of n-angle.

2. In these two parts, we observed the engagement of the rehearsal

strategies which emphasises on evoking their prior knowledge relevant to the problem.

Finding the values of m, p, and q

[5] Kathy: Because they are the same length.

Justifying the values of p and q angles.

Underlines her prior knowledge of properties of lines and angles.

[6] Megan [8] Anne

Supports Kathys idea. Convinces that the values of m and p are similar. Agrees with Kathy. Proposes m equals 45.

What we learn?

Prior knowledge

Isosceles triangle

equal length concept

Finding the value of n

[19] Kathy: No, it is not a zig-zag. To oppose the value of n proposed by Anne [16] Demonstrates her prior knowledge of parallel lines.

[20] Megan [21] Anne

Agrees with Kathy and demonstrates the angles involved. Underlines her knowledge on the characteristics of parallel lines and angles.

Satisfies with her friends justification. Applies the alternate angles concept to find the value of n.

What we learn?

Prior knowledge

Parallel lines and angles

alternate angles concept

Focal analysis

Analysis via focal analysis

Pronounced focus Attended focus Intended focus

Centered on the equal length concept and the alternate angles concept.

Diagram

Solution for the unknown angles.

What we learn?

The participants tripartite foci are centered on the key mathematical concepts.

Consequently, this produces an effective discourse.

Preoccupational Analysis The interactivity flowchart

Analysis via pre-occupational analysis

The participants interactions in certain parts of the discourse are observed to form a formation or a pattern. The exchanges are of pro-action and re-action utterances centered on the key mathematical concepts.

Thus, a meaningful and productive discourse.

Discussion

Engaged with the rehearsal strategies Evoke prior knowledge relevant to the problem

Emergence of two key mathematical concepts The equal length concept and the alternate angles concept

Positive influence on the group discourse Develops effective and discourse

Goals achieved

Problem solved

The Prism problem

The discourse of the Prism problem

Analysis via the rehearsal strategies

1. The participants engagement with the rehearsal strategies occurred during the later stage of the discourse.

2. We observed the engagement of the rehearsal

strategies which emphasises on evoking their prior knowledge relevant to the problem.

The construction of the equidistant line

[22] Kathy: You do these bits here and there. So when they join up in the middle so you got the a bisector line.

Demonstrates the construction of the equidistant line.

Underlines her prior knowledge of construction of an equidistant line.

[23] Anne [24] Sandy

Concerns with the length of the equidistant line. Disagrees with Anne.

[27] Kathy

Believes that the length is not an issue.

What we learn?

Prior knowledge

Construction

Construction of an equidistant line

Focal analysis

Analysis via focal analysis

Pronounced Centered on the construction of an equidistant line. focus Attended focus Intended focus
Plan view.

To construct the equidistant line between the two trees .

What we learn?

The participants tripartite foci are centered on the construction.

Consequently, this produces an effective discourse.

Preoccupational Analysis The interactivity flowchart

Analysis via pre-occupational analysis

The participants interactions on the construction of an equidistant line of the discourse are observed to form a formation or a pattern. The exchanges are of pro-action and reaction utterances centered on the properties of construction.

Thus, a meaningful and productive discourse.

Discussion

Engaged with the rehearsal strategies Evoke prior knowledge relevant to the problem

Properties of construction Construction of an equidistant line

Positive influence on the group discourse Develops effective and discourse

Goals achieved Manages to construct the equidistant line between the two trees.

What can we learn from these two problems?

Triangle problem
Two different parts

Pirate problem
Two different parts

Engaged with the rehearsal strategies

Engaged with the rehearsal strategies

Emergence of two key mathematical concepts

Properties of construction

Effective and productive discourse

Effective and productive discourse

Goals achieved and problem completely solved

Part of the goals achieved but the problem is wrongly solved

Summary

Goals achieved
Productive and effective discourse

Mathematical concepts or properties

Engagement with the rehearsal strategies