What do correct answers reveal? The interpersonal and mathematical aspects of students’ interactions during groupwork in seventh grade mathematics

IF 3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of the Learning Sciences Pub Date : 2022-06-24 DOI:10.1080/10508406.2022.2073232
Anna F. DeJarnette
{"title":"What do correct answers reveal? The interpersonal and mathematical aspects of students’ interactions during groupwork in seventh grade mathematics","authors":"Anna F. DeJarnette","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2022.2073232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Groupwork is a desirable activity in mathematics classrooms for the opportunity it creates for collaborative reasoning and interdependence. Correlations between group-level processes and outcomes have helped characterize the features of more successful groups, but group-level constructs can obscure how students negotiate ideas. This study investigated how students’ interactions, and the written work they produced, reflected their negotiations of authority and mathematics content during groupwork. Methods I used techniques from systemic functional linguistics to analyze transcripts from groups of 7th-grade students during work on an open-ended mathematics task, to document connections between groups’ interpersonal processes and their mathematical products. Findings Two groups who produced similar products did so through different processes. In one group students’ written work reflected consensus, evidenced by students’ verbal contributions. In the other group, the written product reflected two distinct lines of reasoning that were both verbalized but never integrated in conversation. Contribution While previous studies have documented differences in interactional patterns between more and, respectively, less successful groups, this study extends that line of research by describing differences between similarly successful groups. The use of SFL helps explain the path from group-level patterns and group outputs through individual students’ participation.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"99 1","pages":"509 - 544"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2073232","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Groupwork is a desirable activity in mathematics classrooms for the opportunity it creates for collaborative reasoning and interdependence. Correlations between group-level processes and outcomes have helped characterize the features of more successful groups, but group-level constructs can obscure how students negotiate ideas. This study investigated how students’ interactions, and the written work they produced, reflected their negotiations of authority and mathematics content during groupwork. Methods I used techniques from systemic functional linguistics to analyze transcripts from groups of 7th-grade students during work on an open-ended mathematics task, to document connections between groups’ interpersonal processes and their mathematical products. Findings Two groups who produced similar products did so through different processes. In one group students’ written work reflected consensus, evidenced by students’ verbal contributions. In the other group, the written product reflected two distinct lines of reasoning that were both verbalized but never integrated in conversation. Contribution While previous studies have documented differences in interactional patterns between more and, respectively, less successful groups, this study extends that line of research by describing differences between similarly successful groups. The use of SFL helps explain the path from group-level patterns and group outputs through individual students’ participation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正确答案揭示了什么?七年级数学小组作业中学生互动的人际关系和数学方面
在数学课堂上,小组合作是一项理想的活动,因为它为协作推理和相互依存创造了机会。小组层面的过程和结果之间的相关性有助于描述更成功的小组的特征,但小组层面的结构可能会模糊学生如何协商想法。本研究调查了学生在小组作业中的互动和书面作业如何反映他们对权威和数学内容的协商。方法:我使用系统功能语言学的技术来分析七年级学生小组在开放式数学任务中的成绩单,以记录小组之间的人际关系过程和他们的数学产品之间的联系。两组生产相似产品的人是通过不同的过程生产的。在一组中,学生的书面作业反映了共识,学生的口头贡献证明了这一点。在另一组中,书面结果反映了两种截然不同的推理方式,都是口头表达的,但从未在对话中整合。虽然之前的研究分别记录了成功群体和不成功群体之间互动模式的差异,但本研究通过描述相似成功群体之间的差异扩展了这条研究线。SFL的使用有助于解释从群体层面模式到个体学生参与的群体产出的路径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Journal of the Learning Sciences (JLS) is one of the two official journals of the International Society of the Learning Sciences ( www.isls.org). JLS provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning that informs theories of how people learn and the design of learning environments. It publishes research that elucidates processes of learning, and the ways in which technologies, instructional practices, and learning environments can be designed to support learning in different contexts. JLS articles draw on theoretical frameworks from such diverse fields as cognitive science, sociocultural theory, educational psychology, computer science, and anthropology. Submissions are not limited to any particular research method, but must be based on rigorous analyses that present new insights into how people learn and/or how learning can be supported and enhanced. Successful submissions should position their argument within extant literature in the learning sciences. They should reflect the core practices and foci that have defined the learning sciences as a field: privileging design in methodology and pedagogy; emphasizing interdisciplinarity and methodological innovation; grounding research in real-world contexts; answering questions about learning process and mechanism, alongside outcomes; pursuing technological and pedagogical innovation; and maintaining a strong connection between research and practice.
期刊最新文献
Reframing design in education: Proposing a framework to support pre-service teachers in adopting designerly stances The role of individual preparation before collaboration: An exploratory study on students’ computer-supported collaborative argumentation in a primary classroom Toward epistemic justice in socio-scientific decision-making: How youth make sense of lively COVID-19 and vaccines data Learning and constructions of us and them in teachers’ collaborative groups Interdisciplinary learning in the humanities: Knowledge building and identity work
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1