Discourse Analysis of Interpersonal Meaning to Understand the Discrepancy between Teacher Knowing and Practice

Emine Gül Çelebi İlhan; Ayhan Kürşat ERBAŞ

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1274a

Full Text (PDF)

Emine Gül Çelebi İlhan ¹ ^* , Ayhan Kürşat ERBAŞ ¹

More Detail

¹ Middle East Technical University^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Background:
As is well known to all bridging teacher knowledge or learning with practice is not a straightforward task. This paper aims to explore this discrepancy between a mathematics teacher’s knowing and practices and to offer ways of alignment between the two based on the social/interpersonal meanings and their realization through teacher’s discourse.

Material and methods:
In this study we utilized discourse analysis of interpersonal meanings within a high school mathematics class mainly by focusing on the mathematics teacher’s discourse

Results:
We have found that an interpersonal meaning manifested by teacher’s discourse establishes counterproductive social roles and relationships for the knowing/learning to come alive.

Conclusions:
We conclude that the realization of interpersonal meanings can hinder or support the generation of ideas within the classroom: both for teacher’s knowing and student’s mathematical meaning making

Keywords

discourse analysis
interpersonal meaning
mathematics education
teacher discourse
teacher practice

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2016, Volume 12, Issue 8, 2237-2251

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1274a

Publication date: 02 Jul 2016

Article Views: 2253

Article Downloads: 1733

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M., & Oteíza, T. (2007).Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(2), 8–24.
Bernstein, B. B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Boaler, J. (2002). The development of disciplinary relationships: Knowledge, practice and identity in mathematics classrooms. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(1), 42–47.
Boaler, J. (2003). Studying and capturing the complexity of practice—The case of the “dance of agency.” In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zillion (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education held jointly with the 25th Conference of PME-NA (Vol.1, pp.3–16). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.
Celebi Ilhan, E. G., & Erbas, A. K. (2016). Tracing teacher learning through shifts in discourses. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Chapman, A. (2003). Reflection on a social semiotics approach to discourse analysis in educational research. In T. O’Donoghue, & K. Punch (Eds.), Qualitative educational research in action (pp.152-176). London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad, & C. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
De Oliveira, L.C., & Cheng, D. (2011). Language and the multisemiotic nature of mathematics. The Reading Matrix, 11(3), 255-268.
Gebhard, M. (2010), Teacher Education in Changing Times: A Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 797–803. doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.237335
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London, UK: Edward Arnold Ltd.
Haratyan, F. (2011). Halliday’s SFL and social meaning. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Humanities, Historical and Social Sciences(pp.260-267). Singapore: IACSIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.ipedr.com/vol17/49- CHHSS%202011-H10074.pdf
Hasan, R. (2001). The ontogenesis of decontextualised language: Some achievements of classification and framing. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy: The contribution of Basil Bernstein to research (pp. 47–79). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Herbel-Einsenmann, B. (2007). From intended curriculum to written curriculum: Examining the “voice” of a mathematics textbook. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(4), 344-369.
Huang, J., Normandia, B., & Greer, S. (2003). Talking math: Integrating communication and content learning in math: A case study of a secondary mathematics classroom. International Journal of Learning, 10, 3705-3729.
Huang, J., Normandia, B., & Greer, S. (2005). Communicating mathematically: Comparison of knowledge structures in teacher and student discourse in a secondary math classroom. Communication Education, 54(1), 34-51.
Kelly, P. (2006). What is teacher learning? A socio-cultural perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 3(4), 505-519.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(3), 149-164.
Lemke, J. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215-234). Ottawa, Canada: Legas Publishing.
McCarthey, C. (2008). The impact of No Child Left Behind on teachers’ writing instruction. Written Communication, 25(4), 462–505. doi: 10.1177/0741088308322554.
Morgan, C. (2005). Word, definitions and concepts in discourses of mathematics, teaching and learning. Language and Education, 19(2), 102-116.
Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1 & 2), 219-245.
Muto-Humprey, K. (2010). Discourse analysis through interpersonal meaning. Retrieved from:https://nufs-nuas.repo.nii.ac.jp
O’Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359-388.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2004). Discourses in secondary school mathematics classrooms according to social class and gender. In J. A. Foley (Ed.), Language, education and discourse: Functional approaches (pp. 191-225). London, UK: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Ltd.
Sfard,A.(2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Spicer, E. (2011). Power and knowledge-building in teacher inquiry: Negotiating interpersonal and ideational difference. Language and Education, 25(1), 1–17.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, D. (2007). Students’ critical awareness of voice and agency in mathematics classroom discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(1), 31-50.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477.
Zolkower, B. & de Freitas, E. (2010). What’s in a text? Engaging mathematics teachers in the study of whole-class conversations. In U. Gellert, E. Jablonka, & C. Morgan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (pp. 508-518). Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin.

How to cite this article

APA

İlhan, E. G. Ç., & ERBAŞ, A. K. (2016). Discourse Analysis of Interpersonal Meaning to Understand the Discrepancy between Teacher Knowing and Practice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8), 2237-2251. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1274a

Vancouver

İlhan EGÇ, ERBAŞ AK. Discourse Analysis of Interpersonal Meaning to Understand the Discrepancy between Teacher Knowing and Practice. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(8):2237-51. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1274a

AMA

İlhan EGÇ, ERBAŞ AK. Discourse Analysis of Interpersonal Meaning to Understand the Discrepancy between Teacher Knowing and Practice. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(8), 2237-2251. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1274a

Chicago

İlhan, Emine Gül Çelebi, and Ayhan Kürşat ERBAŞ. "Discourse Analysis of Interpersonal Meaning to Understand the Discrepancy between Teacher Knowing and Practice". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2016 12 no. 8 (2016): 2237-2251. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1274a

Harvard

İlhan, E. G. Ç., and ERBAŞ, A. K. (2016). Discourse Analysis of Interpersonal Meaning to Understand the Discrepancy between Teacher Knowing and Practice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8), pp. 2237-2251. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1274a

MLA

İlhan, Emine Gül Çelebi et al. "Discourse Analysis of Interpersonal Meaning to Understand the Discrepancy between Teacher Knowing and Practice". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 8, 2016, pp. 2237-2251. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1274a