skip to main content

Title: Impact of Lesson Design on Teacher and Student Mathematical Questions
How does the design of lessons impact the types of questions teachers and students ask during enacted high school mathematics lessons? In this study, we present data that suggests that lessons designed with the mathematical story framework to elicit a specific aesthetic response (“MCLEs”) having a positive influence on the types of teacher and student questions they ask during the lesson. Our findings suggest that when teachers plan and enact lessons with the mathematical story framework, teachers and students are more likely to ask questions that explore mathematical relationships and focus on meaning making. In addition, teachers are less likely to ask short recall or procedural questions in MCLEs. These findings point to the role of lesson design in the quality of questions asked by teachers and students.
Authors:
; ; ;
Editors:
Olanoff, D.; Johnson, K.; & Spitzer, S.
Award ID(s):
1652513
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10314175
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the Psychology of Mathematics Education - North American Chapter
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Sacristán, A. I. ; Cortés-Zavala, J. C. ; Ruiz-Arias, P. M. (Ed.)
    What impact, if any, do interesting lessons have on the types of questions students ask? To explore this question, we used lesson observations of six teachers from three high schools in the Northeast who were part of a larger study. Lessons come from a range of courses, spanning Algebra through Calculus. After each lesson, students reported interest via lesson experience surveys (Author, 2019). These interest measures were then used to identify each teachers’ highest and lowest interest lessons. The two lessons per teacher allows us to compare across the same set of students per teacher. We compiled 145 student questions and identified whether questions were asked within a group work setting or part of a whole class discussion. Two coders coded 10% of data to improve the rubric for type of students’ questions (what, why, how, and if) and perceived intent (factual, procedural, reasoning, and exploratory). Factual questions asked for definitions or explicit answers. Procedural questions were raised when students looked for algorithms or a solving process. Reasoning questions asked about why procedures worked, or facts were true. Exploratory questions expanded beyond the topic of focus, such as asking about changing the parameters to make sense of a problem. Themore »remaining 90% of data were coded independently to determine interrater reliability (see Landis & Koch, 1977). A Cohen’s Kappa statistic (K=0.87, p<0.001) indicates excellent reliability. Furthermore, both coders reconciled codes before continuing with data analysis. Initial results showed differences between high- and low-interest lessons. Although students raised fewer mathematical questions in high-interest lessons (59) when compared with low-interest lessons (86), high-interest lessons contained more “exploratory” questions (10 versus 6). A chi-square test of independence shows a significant difference, χ2 (3, N = 145) = 12.99, p = .005 for types of students’ questions asked in high- and low-interest lessons. The high-interest lessons had more student questions arise during whole class discussions, whereas low-interest lessons had more student questions during group work. By partitioning each lesson into acts at points where the mathematical content shifted, we were able to examine through how many acts questions remained open. The average number of acts the students’ questions remained unanswered for high-interest lessons (2.66) was higher than that of low-interest lessons (1.68). Paired samples t-tests suggest that this difference is significant t(5)=2.58, p = 0.049. Therefore, student interest in the lesson did appear to impact the type of questions students ask. One possible reason for the differences in student questions is the nature of the lessons students found interesting, which may allow for student freedom to wonder and chase their mathematical ideas. There may be more overall student questions in low-interest lessons because of confusion, but more research is needed to unpack the reasoning behind student questions.« less
  2. Secondary students do not often have positive experiences with mathematics. To address this challenge, this paper shares findings of a design-based research project in which a mathematical story framework was used to design mathematically captivating lesson experiences (“MCLEs”). We provide evidence that designing lessons as mathematical stories shows promise. That is, students reported improved experiences in MCLEs when compared to randomly-selected lessons. The MCLEs also impacted the students’ descriptions of their experience.
  3. This study focuses on a lesson study adaptation for bridging prospective teachers’ experiencesin a methods course and their field experiences in a teacher education program in Puerto Rico. We ask, what opportunities for teacher learning emerge during discussions in lesson study? Two lesson study teams of secondary mathematics prospective teachers, each led by an experienced mentor, planned technology-based lessons. Using the theoretical framework for lesson study by Lewis and colleagues, we analyzed video recordings of the teams’ discussions. The results show learning opportunities in the three dimensions of the framework: teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, the creation of a professional community, and the development of teaching–learning artifacts. The mentors leveraged prospective teachers’ knowledge, built on topics discussed in the methods course, and created a professional learning community. Three resources introduced in the methods course supported the creation of a hybrid space connecting academic and practitioner knowledge: shared language about teaching moves for using technology in math instruction, the mathematical proficiency framework, and a lesson plan template. The mentors drew upon their subject matter and pedagogical knowledge during their facilitation of lesson study. The intervention exemplifies a lesson study adaptation that is feasible in the context of a teacher education program.
  4. This case study addresses the pedagogical challenges teachers face in incorporating elements of socioscientific issues (SSI) when planning science and mathematics lessons. In order to effectively plan and teach SSI lessons, teachers must develop pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) specific to unpacking elements of SSI such as identifying an issue that is debatable and relevant to students’ lives, employing reflective scientific skepticism, and evaluating multiple perspectives. This study was guided by the following research questions: 1) In what ways, if any, did teachers’ knowledge and instructional design of SSI change throughout the intensive series of workshops? 2) What areas of SSI required additional support? To answer our research questions, we analyzed changes in lesson plans from 29 teachers, mostly science and secondary, over the course of three intensive workshops as part of the Integrating STEM in Everyday Life Conference Series. Over the five month period, teachers worked in groups and with mentors to design and implement SSI lessons. Our findings show that teachers demonstrated positive changes in all SSI elements over the course of the workshops. However, deeper analysis reveals that teachers struggled to balance the social and scientific aspects of SSI. Moreover, our analysis suggests that teachers did not focusmore »on the discursive nature of SSI in their lesson plans. Implications of our study include ways in which professional development programs can cultivate teachers’ PCK of SSI in order to better support them in planning and implementing SSI lessons.« less
  5. Major challenges in engineering education include retention of undergraduate engineering students (UESs) and continued engagement after the first year when concepts increase in difficulty. Additionally, employers, as well as ABET, look for students to demonstrate non-technical skills, including the ability to work successfully in groups, the ability to communicate both within and outside their discipline, and the ability to find information that will help them solve problems and contribute to lifelong learning. Teacher education is also facing challenges given the recent incorporation of engineering practices and core ideas into the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and state level standards of learning. To help teachers meet these standards in their classrooms, education courses for preservice teachers (PSTs) must provide resources and opportunities to increase science and engineering knowledge, and the associated pedagogies. To address these challenges, Ed+gineering, an NSF-funded multidisciplinary collaborative service learning project, was implemented into two sets of paired-classes in engineering and education: a 100 level mechanical engineering class (n = 42) and a foundations class in education (n = 17), and a fluid mechanics class in mechanical engineering technology (n = 23) and a science methods class (n = 15). The paired classes collaborated in multidisciplinary teams ofmore »5-8 undergraduate students to plan and teach engineering lessons to local elementary school students. Teams completed a series of previously tested, scaffolded activities to guide their collaboration. Designing and delivering lessons engaged university students in collaborative processes that promoted social learning, including researching and planning, peer mentoring, teaching and receiving feedback, and reflecting and revising their engineering lesson. The research questions examined in this pilot, mixed-methods research study include: (1) How did PSTs’ Ed+gineering experiences influence their engineering and science knowledge?; (2) How did PSTs’ and UESs’ Ed+gineering experiences influence their pedagogical understanding?; and (3) What were PSTs’ and UESs’ overall perceptions of their Ed+gineering experiences? Both quantitative (e.g., Engineering Design Process assessment, Science Content Knowledge assessment) and qualitative (student reflections) data were used to assess knowledge gains and project perceptions following the semester-long intervention. Findings suggest that the PSTs were more aware and comfortable with the engineering field following lesson development and delivery, and often better able to explain particular science/engineering concepts. Both PSTs and UESs, but especially the latter, came to realize the importance of planning and preparing lessons to be taught to an audience. UESs reported greater appreciation for the work of educators. PSTs and UESs expressed how they learned to work in groups with multidisciplinary members—this is a valuable lesson for their respective professional careers. Yearly, the Ed+gineering research team will also request and review student retention reports in their respective programs to assess project impact.« less