Studying new forms of participation and identity in mathematics classrooms with integrated communication and representational infrastructures

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 171-183

  Hegedus, Stephen J ^a   Penuel, William R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH   (United States)

^b SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Attention; Communication infrastructure; Deictic markers; Flow; Identity; Intentionality; Networked classrooms; Participation; Representational infrastructure; Wireless networks

Indexed keywords

EID: 43849089488     PISSN: 00131954     EISSN: 15730816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-008-9120-x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abrahamson, A. L. (1998). An overview of teaching and learning research with classroom communication systems. Paper presented at the Samos International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics, Village of Pythagorion, Samos, Greece, July, 1998.
2. Abrahamson, A. L. (2000). A brief history of Classtalk. Paper presented at the Teachers Teaching with Technology International Conference, Dallas, TX, March, 2000.
3. Baumgartner, E. (2000). Science by design: How teachers support scientific inquiry through design projects. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
4. Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2005). Enhanced multiple choice type questions. AAPT Announcer, 34, 110-111.
5. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977.
6. Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(1-2), 183-204.
7. Dufresne, R. J., Wenk, L., Mestre, J. P., Gerace, W. J., & Leonard, W. J. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.
8. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9. Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press.
10. Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
11. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) The handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 143-197). New York: Macmillan.
12. Forman, E. A., & Ansell, E. (2002). Orchestrating the multiple voices and inscriptions of a mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2-3), 251-274.
13. Gee, J. P. (2000-2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125.
14. Goodwin, C. (1986). Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text, 6(3), 283-316.
15. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1996). Seeing as situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engestrom, & D. Middleton (Eds.) Cognition and communication at work (pp. 61-95). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Kaput, J. (1991). Notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.) Radical constructivism and mathematics education (pp. 53-74). Boston: Reidel.
18. Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old routes. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.) Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.
20. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
21. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch, & S. Woolgar (Eds.) Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
22. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
23. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Mathematical Sciences Education Board & National Research Council (1990). Reshaping school mathematics: A philosophy and framework for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Academic.
25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principle and standards for school mathematics. Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
26. O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic talk and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318-355.
27. O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussions. In D. Hicks (Ed.) Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63-103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995a). Dynamics of negation in the identity politics of cultural other and cultural self. Culture and Psychology, 1(3), 343-359.
29. Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995b). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural approach. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 83-92.
30. Philips, S. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman.
31. Roschelle, J., Abrahamson, L., & Penuel, B. (2003). Catalyst: Toward scientific studies of the pedagogical integration of learning theory and classroom networks. Available at: http://firefly.ctl.sri.com/wild/review.html.
32. Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., & Knudsen, J. (2007). Scaling up SimCalc Project: Can a technology enhanced curriculum improve student learning of important mathematics? Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
33. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13-25.
34. Sfard, A. (2000). Steering (dis)course between metaphors and rigor: Using focal analysis to investigate an emergence of mathematical objects. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 296-327.
35. Shaw, T. S. (1994). The semiotic mediation of identity. Ethos, 22(1), 83-119.
36. Squire, K. D., MaKinster, J. G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 467-489.
37. Tabak, I. (1999). Unraveling the development of scientific literacy: Domain-specific inquiry support in a system of cognitive and social interactions. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
38. Tabak, I. (2002). Teacher as monitor, mentor or partner: Uncovering participant structures involved in supporting student-directed inquiry. In T. Satwicz (Ed.) Keeping learning complex: The proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 466-472). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393-429.
40. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Wortham, S. E. F. (1999). Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers' footing. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 331-348.