Mapping Mathematics in Classroom Discourse

Abstract

This article offers a particular analytic method from systemic functional linguistics, thematic analysis, which reveals the mathematical meaning potentials construed in discourse. Addressing concerns that discourse analysis is too often content-free, thematic analysis provides a way to represent semantic structures of mathematical content, allows for content comparisons to be drawn between classroom episodes, and identifies points of possible student misinterpretation. Analyses of 2 middle school classroom excerpts focusing on area—1 that derives triangle area formulas from the rectangle area formula and another that connects parallelogram and rectangular area— are used to delineate the method. Descriptions of similarities and differences in the classroom discourse highlight how, in each classroom, mathematical terms such as base and height were used in semantically related but distinct ways. These findings raise the question of whether students were aware of and able to navigate such semantic shifts.

Semantic Structure of Classroom Discourse Concerning Proof and Proving in High School Mathematics

“…However, Herbel-Eisenmann and Otten (2011) report that in the observed classrooms, although the amount of speech is different for each classroom, it is still at a low level. Moreover, the timing of the speech of students also differs.…”

“…Some research used SFL (e.g. Atweh et al, 1998;Thornton & Reynolds, 2006;Herbel-Eisenmann & Otten, 2011;Herbel-Eisenmann, Johnson, Otten, Crillo, & Steele, 2014). Atweh et al (1998) examined mathematics teaching, and how teachers" perceptions about students" abilities and expectations are reflected in classroom discourses, based on socioeconomic status and student gender.…”

A preliminary discourse analysis of constructivist-oriented mathematics instruction for a student with learning disabilities

“…The Standards suggest that "instructional programs from prekindergarten to Grade 12 should enable all students to organize and consolidate their mathematical thinking through communication [and to] use the language of mathematics to express mathematical ideas precisely" (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000, p. 60). This approach places discourse at the heart of teaching-learning processes-the milieu in which students construct mathematical ideas and knowledge (Blanton, Westbrook, & Carter, 2005;Herbel-Eisenmann & Otten, 2011;Yackel & Cobb, 1996).…”

Supporting mathematical reasoning through reading and writing in mathematics : making the implicit explicit

“…As analysis tool, the conceptual framework of the Reciprocal Teaching model and Systemic Functional Linguistic was used. Depending on the method, the theoretical underpinnings of the focus of the metafunctions in Systemic Functional Linguistics can be different in different studies (Herbel-Eisenmann & Otten, 2011). This was also the case with this study, which will be discussed in regard to each of the strategies in the RT model and is also visualized in Table 2.…”

“…In the first study, the focus was on examining what a participant (the reader) might be engaged in, while the second study involved what a participant (a student teacher) is engaged in. This aspect affects which components of the three metafunctions are more interesting in the two studies (Herbel-Eisenmann & Otten, 2011). The result of the study showed that the main focus of the metafunctions can have both similarities and differences, depending on the text, which demonstrates the usefulness of using SFL as a methodological tool to illustrate the relationship between contexts and texts in mathematics education research.…”