25047173

A Cross-Analysis of the Mathematics Teacher's Activity.
An Example in a French 10th-Grade Class Author(s): Aline Robert and Janine Rogalski Source: Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 59, No. 1/3, Teaching Situations as Object of Research: Empirical Studies within Theoretical Perspectives (2005), pp. 269-298 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25047173 . Accessed: 11/03/2014 17:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Studies in Mathematics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 190.16.172.116 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:08:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ALINE ROBERT and JANINE ROGALSKI
A CROSS-ANALYSIS OF THE MATHEMATICS TEACHER'S ACTIVITY. AN EXAMPLE INA FRENCH 10TH-GRADE CLASS
ABSTRACT. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate about how to tackle
the issue of analysing didactics 'the teacher the teacher's of mathematics activity in the teaching/learning in the classroom, activity as well as the teacher a methodology and to propose process', based on concepts used in the fields for of the
the mathematical the way approaches:
he manages1 a didactical
in cognitive This methodology studies ergonomics. for students sessions and organises during classroom the relationship students and mathematical between tasks in two one [Robert, A., Recherches en Didactique des Math?matiques
21(1/2), 2001, 7-56] and a psychological one [Rogalski, J.,Recherches en Didactique des Math?matiques 23(3), 2003,343-388]. Articulating the two perspectives permits a twofold
analysis of the classroom teacher's in?through involvement decisions?and are engaged the "cognitive route" students dynamics: the mediation of the teacher for controlling students' of acquiring the mathematical The authors concepts being taught. session
in the process an example of this cross-analysis of mathematics teachers' based on the present activity, to 10th grade observation of a lesson in a French of exercises students given composed an analysis are classroom. Each author made from her viewpoint, the results 'ordinary' confronted another places and two on the freedom this study are made: one on potential and students' types of inferences learning of action the teacher may have to modify his activity. The paper also in the context made in the same field. of previous contributions by others teacher's activity, students' enlistment students' in the classroom,
KEY WORDS: mathematical
teacher's tasks,
discourse,
activity
1. Articulation
of didactical mathematics
and
psychological activity
approaches
to
teacher's
1.1. Teacher's
A complex practices: institutional determinants
system, with
individual,
social
and
In the last few years teachers' practices have been studied from different theoretical viewpoints. Three main questions began to be elucidated: what between and students' acqui links can be established teachers' practices of knowledge, what determines and how these results could contribute sition training of the teaching two questions. Here we teachers' and students' activities, to improve the pre- and in-service staff? In our work, we are concerned with the first
the method we applied to the study of an exercise present on absolute value in a lOth-grade class.2 Our purpose was to based lesson contents the teacher brought into play during determine the mathematical Mathematics Educational Studies in DOI: 10.1007/sl0649-005-5890-6 (2005) 59: 269-298 ? Springer
2005
270
ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI
as well as to try of knowledge, the lesson, in relation with the acquisition to infer the factors which determined his approach. The latter allows us to assess the 'space of freedom' he may enjoy within the multiple constraints a twofold approach: on the one proposes imposed on him. This method we developed a general frame in a didactics-centred hand approach account two elements into teachers' practices work for analyzing taking activities and the teacher's that are very closely students' linked, manage ment of the class, (Robert, 2001); and on the other hand - in a cognitive - we have considered the teacher as a professional approach ergonomics
who is performing a specific job (Rogalski, 2003).

allows us to see teachers' practices these two approaches Articulating as a complex and coherent system, which is the result of a combination of and beliefs about mathematics each teacher's personal history, knowledge and teaching, and experience (Robert and Rogalski, 2002a). chooses adapts during to present to students' the process. approach engaging a didactical and a psychological and professional This is reflected in a given activity history in the scenarios the teacher
them to unfold, how he to a class, the way he expects at different moments reactions and in his evaluations
1.2. A twofold perspective The double
the different students
approach we determinants
propose was developed of the teacher's activity
to allow as well
us to analyze as the activity of is based
prompted by the teacher in the class. The psychological analysis of the teacher's
classroom
practices
on activity theory (Leontiev, 1975; Leplat, 1997). The notion of activity is

also used in the didactic approach from the point of view of students' activ sense of the activity we suppose they will develop for performing in the ity tasks. The didactic approach and the psychological the teacher proposed approach are used to tackle different issues. In the didactic
approach, our aim is to analyze the results of the teacher's look terms of the tasks that he had set for the students, without in activity reasons of professional the existence for the choices he made, ing at the itself. We are in habits, and the nature of the decision making process effects of the tasks on the students' mathematical in the possible to the possible in stu consequences activity during the lesson, according dents' mathematical directly learning. We do not study these consequences terested in relation to the potential but we analyze the teacher's practices the students' activities on their learning, insofar as the students these activities. This students, first approach takes into account the situation the teacher sets for to them, the use of the blackboard, the tools and the aids proposed impact of engage in
CROSS-ANALYSIS OF THEMATHEMATICSTEACHER'SACTIVITY
271
as the lesson progresses, the routines and regulations observed and as far as possible the implicit didactical contract that the teacher establishes, how he fulfils it or adapts it in class, and his intentions. In this first perspective, is given to the 'mathematical special attention universes' within which teachers make 1997), and their 'potential widening', act (Hache and Robert, that is, how the mathematical content the students
is displayed and opened to students' activity (Hache, 2001) (bothPiagetian

and Vygotskian about learning underlie this approach). perspectives sum we to To tackle is up, the issue specify teacher's practices according to students' activity in relation to mathematics learning. In the psychological approach, we want to identify the functions which are fulfilled by the teacher's activity, with regard to the students. These func tions are not limited of the lesson. students to the definition are also of students' with how They their mathematical involvement, engage with the tasks, maintains links individual to the whole students' answers class activity (which we will call "students' how he assesses if students follow the enlistment'3), the mathematical notions and, what are their difficulties, lesson, understand in order to maintain control in the class while adapting the lesson (which we or diagnosis). We search for some "internal or "logic" in the teacher's activity, the reasons for his actions, economy," and for the nature of his decisions. call situation assessment concerned tasks and to the progress the teacher makes the
This second approach considers the teacher as a professional, subject to a professional contract, with particular goals, repertories of action, repre sentations of mathematical objects and their learning, and, more generally, which determine his activity. personal competencies organ isation of tasks; this is analysed mostly through the first approach. At the same time he seeks to win the students over, or 'enlist' them for these tasks and 'enlisting' is a key component in the second approach. To sum up, the issue we tackle is to specify the teacher's activities and to explain his choices relative to his own point of view: doing his work successfully. These approaches in conflict, take into account both are not but rather in a relation of com The teacher must define a learning environment with a dynamic
plementarity. We types of means used for the students interactions dimension).
the fact that there are two main
in classroom management: the organization of tasks and the direct (the cognitive dimension), epistemological verbal mediation interaction communication4 (the through the teacher is doing in terms of organizing the and management through presentation on how he will succeed in
what Furthermore, students' mathematical of the mathematical
activity, tasks, also has an impact
272
the students' engagement with the tasks and staying in con maintaining trol of the progress of the lesson. Reciprocally, the teacher's actions which or their individual errors or dif are oriented towards students' enlistment ficulties will put constraints on possible students' mathematical tasks and
see later, our analyses of the same lesson from two different on specific issues, are actually overlapping, perspectives, focusing even if the same observations are identified differently and different aspects each our twofold approach, used for presenting show how a process of "fragmentation" of mathematical tasks may be seen as a means for keeping them within students' reach. Since this is also an effective classroom during way enlistment, of keeping the students on task, and willingly so, i.e. such process of fragmentation be reinforced might will of the teacher. Re perhaps against the conscious are being stressed. in the lesson For instance,
activity. As we will
we will
the lesson,
or a quite ciprocally, taking into account an individual misunderstanding unusual solution proposed by a student might result in a loss of control of the classroom mathematical involvement: such risk may lead the teacher to offer a rather "superficial" answer, for example class of the right notion or a taught procedure. only reminding the whole
1.3. The The lesson
lesson
value
analyzed here is the second and last lesson about the absolute to a chapter about order and approxima of real numbers. It belongs in the lesson which tion, began previous by defining the distance d between two real numbers: d(a, b) = AB where A and B are points on the real line. is a point with abscissa that the absolute value x on the real line with is always origin O. Then ? x It is either x or
The definition of |jc| is also given at the beginning of the course: it isOM
where M it follows positive. on which of the two is positive. depending r" was defined as Then "c is an approximation of x with precision ? < r. The absolute value was as defined d(x,c) \a b\ equal to d(a, b). was pre a series of equivalent characterizations After the definitions, sented and justified: ? < r is to saying that x belongs to the interval \x c\ equivalent "Saying ? to saying that c ? r < x < c + r, and r; c + r]; it is equivalent [c to saying that x is equal to c with precision this is equivalent an approximation of x with precision r)". Or in a formulaic expression: ? < r O x G [c ? r,c + r] <& x = c with (E) \x c\ ? < < r <$> c r x c+ r r (or c is
precision
CROSS-ANALYSISOF THEMATHEMATICS TEACHER'SACTIVITY These
273
were presented on the blackboard, in a table, with equivalences we to set In will numerical the refer this of equivalent examples. following as characterizations (E). We have to stress that, from this point on, the teacher was not using the they had to finish it as homework. to analyze begins with a recall of (E) and the The in three tasks (Tl, T2, T3) students were required correction of homework: to give equivalent for \x+ 2\ < 0.5; three other tasks asked expressions = 2 with for equivalent of "x 0.5". (The expected expressions precision lesson we are about answers are given below for each task).
anymore. graphical representations Students began to solve an exercise;
Tl:
jc= ?2 with
T2: x belongs
T3:-2.5<jc
precision 0.5 to [-2.5, -1.5]
<-1.5
T4: |jc? 2| < 0.5

T6: to [1.5, 2.5] T5: x belongs 1.5 < x < 2.5 the teacher announces that the following of exercises, consisting will be the last ones in the course about
Then
solving equations absolute value. First exercise
and inequalities,
= 11 T7: |jc|
T8: |jc| = -1 ? = r is equivalent to x = c+ r or = 3 T9:|jc-1.5| T10: generalisation:
x = c ? r
\x
c|
Second
exercise
Til: |jc| <4.5 T12: \x- 2| < 7

T13: \x-2\ < -5 \x?c\ < r is equivalent to c?r < x < c+ r T14: generalisation:
T15:|6-jc| T16: |*| > 5

Third exercise
? T17: |jc 5| = 1 T18: |3-jc| <7 T19: |jc+5| >4

T20:
x <
generalisation:
c? r
\x
c\
>
r is equivalent
to jc >
c+
ror
274
students were asked to copy on their exercise book all that was Finally, done in relation with solving equations and inequalities with absolute value, for from their textbook as homework and they were given a last exercise practicing for the next evaluation.
2. AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM PRACTICES FOCUSED ON THE STUDENTS' 'COGNITIVE ROUTE' ORGANIZED BY THE TEACHER We will use some categories classroom ics in analyzing above. The aim is to connect in the field of didactics of mathemat
developed
practices observed during the lesson described the analysis of the teacher's practice with an a
priori analysis of students' tasks and further with their activities. This can students' potential then lead to analyzing learning, that is, learning which can be inferred from the type of students' activity triggered by the teacher's decisions. ences analysis. - mathematical content processed during the lesson types of tools used (for repre concepts, properties of examples proposed, or to students - can be considered of tasks types given computing), senting as a cognitive route organized for students in this conceptual field, ab can case. then be inferred from in this Potential solute values', learning route this type of cognitive students perform while following to and teacher's Robert, (Hache 1997). management according unit we consider finally is the couple: {assigned The fundamental task, The series of assigned tasks is linked to the teacher's in lesson in progress}. the activities tentions, while the actual lesson in progress reflects how the teacher adapts are 'episodes' to students' behaviour. Our units of analysis his actions is related to a task identified in the transcript of the session. Each episode or sub-task are related assigned by the teacher; for the purposes of this paper, episodes to each of the T1-T20 tasks. The analysis of each episode looks at the task from several points of view: the mathematical point of view, the teacher's management point of view, and students' activities point of view. Our didactical is concerned second with approach can then be divided into two steps: the first step contents and tasks of the episodes; the the mathematical Learning the subsequent The mathematical is not directly tackled here but this perspective influ
step is devoted to actual teacher's management during each task. In a lesson such as the studied one, the first step leads us to determine content to the broader
of each task, its place in the sequence of lessons, concept to be taught and the level of knowledge or is there a need for an actually needed for the task: is it a direct application, to be used, or of the knowledge Itmay be a partial recognition adaptation? or use of of intermediaries modalities this of the use, notation, recognition or a of different combination of the elements, unknowns, change setting the mathematical its relation
CROSS-ANALYSISOF THEMATHEMATICSTEACHER'SACTIVITY
275
to be isolated when to be applied. A task is considered it does concepts not require the use of different "objects of learning" (Robert and Rogalski, with previous 2002b; Robert, 2003); it does not mean that it is unconnected are of the tasks. These categories brought forth because variety of students' activities We involved in tasks. also reflect on the openness or not of the question in the task, on the or on or not not and the that be introduced. may steps guidance provided we means to determine of internal control that students could the try Finally use. what In fact this is an a priori characterization of students' tasks, exactly are use to terms in do of of they supposed knowledge acquired during the course. These actually exactly guidance, are then, in the second step, compared with what expectations in the classroom. The way students work, what they are happens the time allowed for each task, the teacher's asked to produce, oral or written on the blackboard
(hints, questions or other inter ventions) allow us to reconstruct what the students 'have to do' according to the teacher's actual proposals. We must also take into account the moment at which for example, before or after the students' the type of help given, direct or indirect, through prompts or an response, swers. It also allows us to infer the customs that have been established and the teacher intervenes,
the implicit contract underlying classroom activity. Thus we can finally de fine the students' activity expected during the lesson and specify the actual use of knowledge, and initiative. One can recognize here some autonomy factors 2.1. An We linked to subsequent learning. of the tasks in our lesson
initial a priori
analysis
worked on a video made during an 'ordinary' lesson in a lOth-grade class and its transcript. As said above, the lesson was planned as a series of at their desks exercises and three exercises). Students worked (homework were come to to when asked the blackboard. except they The aim of each of the three classroom exercises was to establish the to be applied Almost all possible
method
in a general case. in the application combinations of the (E) formulas, c in the direction of inequalities and the signs for and r, are present. But the students have no (independent) means at their disposal to assess the validity such as a graphic representation; of their results they have to rely on the teacher's or other students' (direct or indirect) evaluation of their work. Homework first correction
2.1.1. The
six questions, which were given as homework, only required a an of the series of equivalences of (E). From direct application expression them in a pre-established students had to find the other three by placing
276
table with
drawn on the blackboard. This was done twice, four columns, < 0.5 the time for an initial expression teacher: |jc+ 2| given by = jc 2 with precision 0.5 (T4, T5, T6). Students could (Tl, T2, T3), and the formula to be used. Given the way that the also read on the blackboard each one could think that their only task was to replace the and (c r) by the specific numerical values in the given expression. This is what we call an isolated task since only one formula of those in this lesson has to be used in answering each question. Here, presented "isolated" means that it does not require the use of different new "objects exercise is presented variables of learning", even task may be more if other (old) objects occur, or less simple depending use of of algebra. the their knowledge require as 2 into ?(?2) 2| |jc? c| requires transforming 2.1.2. The classroom exercises all built using the same format, albeit different in the homework students must solve three assignment: the general solution were as it is explained above. The on whether the replacements For example, writing and is not simple. |jc+
The next three exercises from the one used
or four tasks of the same type and then find and express for this type of problem.
In the first exercise the student has to solve equations (tasks T7-T10) ? = r of the |jc c\ type. The first two tasks can be solved directly by using the property of the jcmentioned above: absolute value of an algebraic quantity '|jc| is jc or ?x depending on which of the two is positive. The third task requires an ? adaptation of this property to the absolute value of (jc c). The fourth task the is to find a 'ready made' formula such as (E) after having discussed existence not have of a solution. the relevant is involved knowledge, to search for it nor to make here In fact, we are dealing with isolated tasks, but using above, even if the student does just as mentioned
is far from simple. What it explicit, it is used, since to solve an equation is the way in which with jc is not only to find a few particular values of jc, some of which could the equation. be obvious, but all values of jc satisfying of the type In the second exercise students have to solve inequalities ? < r. The first four tasks of the second exercise are c\ |jc using the same as context in in the homework the of solving inequalities. but equivalences can be done using Students have to realize that solving such inequalities one of the equivalences in One task T16 ((|x| > 5), is (E). exception, given a transition to the third and last set of tasks. Here again we have six isolated tasks, but none of them is simple. In Tl 1, T13 and T16, students have adapt their initial property of absolute value, with special work required the last task, because it does not directly follow from the previous to in
lesson.
InT12, T14 and T15 theymust adapt the (E) formula.
277
In T15, identifying the variables (jc, c and r) and the given numerical
the inequalities requires 'arranging' = one term to another and using |6 x\ and with the absolute value. opposites Moreover, students have to consider about they initially must now be considered saw as statements values from by moving expressions ? both with the \x 6|, working
(E) from a different angle. What the order between concrete numbers
as inequalities where x is an unknown whose even if the expressions values must be determined, look the same. The last exercise includes one question of each of the three types already = r;T18: < r;T19: > r) and it seen(T17: \x-c\ |c?jc| \x+c\ completes ? > a an in T20 of of which r, c\ \x example inequalities by generalisation was dealt with in T19. For the first two tasks, the simplest procedure, where in T10 and T14, steps are required, is to use the formulas obtained which leads to adaptations similar to those already applied before. In T19 = 5, which in T16 by using ?(?5) students can adapt what was obtained fewer
may
be a real adaptation requires a generalization one.
for some students of what was
even
if itwas
seen before
already used. T20 in this exercise and the
previous 2.2.
The teacher's Study of the sequence of events in the classroom: control of students' activities during the lesson, the use of "models" and the time allowed for students to do their work it seems that the teacher is proposing 20 isolated tasks which formulas learnt in the course with some
A priori
of different require the application we shall see that the management of the lesson Yet necessary adaptations. can tell a different story. We will examine the activities expected from the to the way in students after each intervention by the teacher. According the time allotted to students and the teacher introduces a question, which the tasks the students actually have information, we determine as the lesson proceeds. we observed different ways the teacher initiated students' Actually, work, but we have to stress first that all the tasks Ti were almost immediately the teacher's to perform This a series of sub-tasks. from the teacher proposing by interventions them to use the and it forced tasks for the the students, simplified on absolute value (initial property or the formulas given in the lessons it was still in the process of in some cases while series of equivalences), followed also noticed that these formulas were not always explicitly
being learnt. We mentioned. We
present two ways this teacher would start a task, taking control im or soon after, with some specific examples showing the teacher's mediately on a brief conclusion the choice. We then initial decisions give following students' activities during this lesson.
278
2.2.1. One way of starting the task: The teacher immediately takes control of the work done by the students In this configuration the teacher begins by indicating an initial sub-task to new of questions and proceeds with a rapid succession (corresponding answers that to which students reply, usually giving incomplete sub-tasks) the teacher sometimes completes. Let us take two very revealing examples. 2.2.1.1. example of taking immediate control of students' work. We ? consider T9: solution of |jc 1.51 = 3, in the first exercise after homework. The teacher asks a student to read it out and immediately says: "then, is whether it's like T7, where it's the first thing we may have to decide First
or like T8, where it's impossible." it is he the briefest of answers by students, which he validates, can a to be who says "why it is possible" absolute value (an equal positive a pause: "what can we do now to continue to number) and ads without solve this equation?" possible, After the first answer given by a student and ? ? 1.5 = 3". He does 1.5", he says "x completes not correct an error in the student's formulation, when the student says "when the absolute value is positive" instead of "when the quantity of After four seconds he takes it: the student said "x which we Without he take the absolute giving asks: immediately finished. Once again he takes a very vague response from students ("equal ? it's going to 1.5, well, ?_?") giving them a 'clean' version, "then ... jc ? be equal to 3". Finally he asks them to solve it and leaves them 15 seconds before verifying Thus the results. in these exercises the activities of the students have been com the students is positive". the time to solve the first equation obtained, "is that all?" which indicates that the task is not value
pletely and immediately organized by the teacher in the series of steps he indicates. Students are not involved in deciding about these sub-divisions: answer or not?", find a itpossible the brief asked: "is they simply questions completed by the teacher as an equation, find a second equa tion, given by the teacher in its correct form, and then solve both equations. to students is given to make both calculations. The longest time allowed Not much is asked of them to justify their answers. first solution, tasks (T5, T7, Tl 1 and T16) are guided in the same manner. In the last three the initial response of the students corresponds to the case in in the absolute value is positive. The teacher accepts which the expression Four other it once more without takes comment the first adequate answer. complete and immediately asks "is that all?" He then " concludes: and gives the "so... response given,
CROSS-ANALYSIS OF THEMATHEMATICSTEACHER'SACTIVITY 22.12 solve As
279
Second example of the same teacher's activity. We consider T17: = 1, in the last exercise. \x? 51 soon as the student who has been asked to come to the blackboard
arrives the teacher asks: "then, if we look at our model, are we in the first case or are we already in the second?" Recall that the teacher uses "model" to indicate the series of equivalences (E), written on the blackboard. to of the pre Here the first sub-task is recognize which of the modalities established answer, second answer asks the correct is appropriate. After validating (formula) one with the word teacher imposes a justified only (equation), sub-task: "are there any solutions?" The student gives the correct and justifies it by referring to the model. The teacher repeats it and model to use the model which that is has been 'contextualized', task: "Well then, you go ahead" (13
the student
in a specific mathematical presented seconds for this calculation).
the student there is an erroneous application of the model: Unfortunately uses the (E) formula corresponding to an inequality; and the teacher quickly error appears at the end in the solution of x ? 5 = 1, rectifies it. Another which Yet could stem from an insufficient attributes the teacher command of algebraic it to a simple error in calculation involved. knowledge calculations. and does not
explore the previous In this case the work done by students is basically centered on identifying This the modalities of the formula to be applied and on the final calculations. is almost always used way of starting an exercise is to lead them to use the contextualized model in tasks whose or a formula. objective Students
are guided by the immediate fragmentation into sub-tasks indicated by the leads to the use of formulas: it concerns T2, T3, teacher, which necessarily T4,T12,T13,T17andT18. 2.2.2. Another We way of starting the task: The teacher takes control after beginning with an "open" search for a solution now study the case where the teacher allows the students to propose
way to find the solution. He quickly rejects and then hints to the correct solution. This
and it is mostly used in questions which the definition of absolute value and not to (E). ? Let us take Tl 5 (solve 16 x |= 1, in the second exercise) as an example. is necessary The teacher immediately indicates that an adaptation ("if 's not same turns out to The teacher be difficult. the But this "). exactly adaptation corrects each false start but does
if they are wrong the proposals a is slightly different approach linked to involve using properties
not always refute it: in the choice of the or unknown value/variable jc), the inverse instead of the opposite, without (6 the concerned and the possible variable change in the direction specifying as soon as he can, he manages to propose of the inequality. Furthermore,
280
another The exercise. sub-task
ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI the absolute value of ?a. calculate during the discussion: answer. corrects the He them and continues the wrong give students. it reveal between Is itmomentary a lack of com
students
such errors in We may wonder what produced or does a mistake in the calculation distraction, confusion mand of algebraic calculations: maybe ? and the multiplication equalities, inequalities by
ganization of previous knowledge applied the present task. The exercise continues and, as usual, the final calculation is left to the students. And yet this final step that was so carefully prepared to lead students but the teacher continues again reveals misunderstandings, to a 'mechanical' In T8
the handling of 1. But this possible reor to new calculations is not part of
of c and r in the model of this inequality. identification = ? 1 in the first jc (solve | | exercise) we have another example of he has allowed the students to pro the teacher completing the suggestions
transforms an unsatisfactory pose. He merely expression given by a student it into "so, it's never negative... value is always positive") ("the absolute cannot be smaller, a positive number can never be smaller than a negative
number".
Two are also
of the three questions leading to generalisation in this second manner. strongly guided
(T10, T14,
T20)
an early or immediate inter In conclusion, in every task we observed these vention of the teacher in the work of the students which simplified as soon as he himself the isolated tasks. Besides, proposed already possible, application of a formula (called model) or a reference to previous exercises: or restoring a instead of recognizing students are invited to use "models" to of course would be longer and would not lead directly proof, which memorize new formulas. to restart a proof for a It becomes impossible one teacher does not allow Thus the of the result in part specific problem. to emerge, where there would be, a combination of the mixed procedures' are specific to the learnt in class and those which general formulations problem. This does not mean that he does not adapt to students' reactions, but the frame of the tasks he has planned, which of the conceptual field linked to the concept
these adaptations stay within do not include an exploration of absolute value. There
for his detecting an error due to an incorrect is also no possibility and not simply to an error in the calculation. learning of previous procedures of the work proposed and This leads further to a greater fragmentation If students the students only need to use the partial knowledge required. still cannot handle is possible the necessary it, it is further simplified. This is particularly to use a formula (model). It is not up to the students steps. At best they only need to answer, as a class, true when to determine the question it
CROSS-ANALYSIS OF THEMATHEMATICSTEACHER'SACTIVITY of how to solve each
281
they have
sub-task, and in particular how to use the model. All to do on their own is the calculation that was thoroughly prepared
collectively. as if the teacher, because of the constraints under The lesson proceeds sure that the time given to the activity of which he works, had to make on a new acquisition in this students is used on working (E) formula case and that he can trust it will be 'well done'. The calculation is care so that students apply what they must learn that day and fully prepared in particular the application of models. It is worth noting that most of the more or less the time allotted to student activity is spent on calculations, same as needed for the students to settle down to work. Among the insti tutional conditions limiting the teacher's in France considered space of freedom, the additional
time constraint imposed (in 2002) by the reduction of the time allotted to
lOth-grade mathematics 3. Teacher's courses activity has had strong effects. as management of
a dynamic We
environment
as now analyze the work of teachers from a psychological perspective a particular case of dynamic environment management: their action is con students and mathematical cerned with the relation between knowledge
(Rogalski, 2003). This relationship has its own dynamics: it is not only
determined cesses but is also evolving by the teacher's interventions through pro in class: beside the individual activity external to the work proposed and students develop during a lesson, the work done outside the classroom the processes (maturation, reorganization regulating cognitive acquisitions
are determining and forgetting) the dynamics of learning. The management the elaboration of scenarios has various components: of this environment a to didactical teacher's 'process', its real time corresponding establishing in the classroom while development of results which lead him to modify 'guides' the class and the evaluation his initial project. aims at identifying the whys and the hows he
The psychological approach that is, the functions fulfilled by their interven of the teachers' actions; tions and the modalities they realize these functions. General by which are perma and decision making such as diagnosis/prognosis functions nent functions a natural
and they are environment in any dynamic management these general features, the teachers' focus of interest. Beside trait: the 'objects of action' are hu work has a very important distinctive man beings - the students. Teachers' interventions consist in setting tasks for the students, acting as a mediator while their mathematical triggering and controlling didactical approach. Insofar as the activity the students activity of other psychological carry them out, as shown through the subjects
282
dents
on enlisting is a goal in the teacher's own activity, he is working the stu acts. for the proposed while tasks, which requires specific Moreover, student, teaching is addressed not only learning concerns each individual as a whole toward individuals but also - or mainly toward the classroom and we suggest it is particularly in schools. important general secondary issue focus in the analysis of the teachers' of their didactical interventions. activity is then to identify the
One
In the analysis didactical actions will
of the transcript of the lesson, already analyzed from a we will look for signs indicating the role of his perspective, aimed at winning the class over for the proposed tasks and we
assess the hypothesis that the central concern of his activity was the class as awhole, and not individual students. Our analysis was based mainly on verbal indicators, especially on discourse markers. to verbal ex The discourse markers used in speech give coherence a a of the existence link between what student says they signal changes; and what the teacher response expected are grammatically answers, or between from the student, maybe what the teacher says and the an oral response or action. They and do not alter the truth value of what is said
optional 1999). They have a double function: (a) they mark the structure (Schourup, content and play a role in the coherence of the verbalized of the teacher's to the class: words like then, that's it, there it is, or so - when it is discourse not used as a causal connective; the progress of the activ (b) they punctuate ity and may mark the role of the speaker: words like you know, I mean, etc. There were many such discourse markers in the lesson (180); they fell statements in two categories: that place students in (a) markers introducing their role as students by the use of the imperative mode or of instructions tense; these markers given in the present played a key role in teacher's at the students for the tasks; (b) markers addressed actions aimed enlisting to the class as a whole, punctuating the progress of the activity in class and were that all the students towards the same goal at guaranteeing working the same time.
3.1. How
is the action
of enlistment
of students performed? of students is a dominant
Our first hypothesis It was Bruner who
goal. in an operational the term of 'enlistment' proposed use of Vygotsky 's concept of the adult as amediator in the development of an to children (Wood et al., 1976; Vygotsky, It is the action of 1985). applied adult whose goal is to involve a child in a given task. Vannier-Benmostapha
is that the enlistment
while (2002) used the term in a study of the teacher's mediation teaching the same mathematical in three different institutional concept settings to pupils with various degrees of learning difficulties.
283
to make children or ado In the teaching process, enlistment is a means lescents play the role the educational institution assigns to them as students. It also aims to devolve to them the task the teacher has indicated. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the teacher's intervention in students' activities, we can see that an early enlistment maintained the duration throughout of the tasks is a necessary condition for the teacher to be able to act on the student/knowledge of the relation through students' accomplishment tasks. assigned Enlisting
in various ways, with two contrasting poles: may be performed and students for work, with the sup motivating through an autonomous on of collective the work; or, port contrary, strongly directing the students' - tasks it for well defined - and small per activity, triggering and orienting markers. and the succession of tasks forming, punctuating through explicit the activity of students through discourse markers Triggering used to 'trigger' the activity of the student who is interrogated, or of one or more student at their desks, are very frequent. The observed teacher "so" (done) mostly used the words "then" (alors, in French) and sometimes 3.1.1. with can be explicitly The wording "Well the same meaning. imperative: now to write down what then, copy it" or you just said9, "So, you're going as a answer: can must the student "Now, who explain it to question phrased him?," "Well then, Alice, can you come and do it? ". In both cases the imper is clear since the students immediately ative nature of the question respond
Markers
as have not been perceived by an answer or by an action. They obviously the continuation of the teacher's presentation rhetorical questions marking which is immediately followed by his own answer, such as: "Then, what are c and r here? c is equal to 6 and r is 1 ". These activity triggers are numer ous. The teacher we observed used them in almost half of his interventions (58 out of 110), mainly the word 'then' (51 occurrences).
the succession 3.1.2. Punctuating of tasks are two main linked to a repetition of the types: closing markers, "that's it!, so, do you agree?, ok?" and opening markers: result obtained, "then, so," explicit temporal indications of the next step, "and then," "now" of the next step, "first we're going to... ", "finally" etc., or an identification There "the last one is \x\ > 5". A 2", "let's continue", the closing marker follow the S below, where pattern significant or after the reminder of the result obtained, or else the may appear before closing markers may be absent and teacher simply repeats the last result question in exercise number obtained. <closing < temporal marker (S): = marker> and/or <reminder identification of result> of the next / <opening task> marker>
284
In the teacher's
and the 20 tasks of the lesson, 110 oral interventions, that there is a strong tem 24 S patterns. Thus we can conclude poral articulation of the students' activity structured by discourse markers, it / then>. These patterns of interaction, with a predominance of <that's there were which call schemes, used by the teacher, offer the students an es for the control of their activity by indicating when one component task is finished and the other begins. we may sential
students' task performing 3.1.3. Orienting means for the students on task is to orient their Another possible keeping task performing through proposed or imposed ways of acting. In the lesson was a forced use of the formula which plays this controlling there observed,
role.
seen examples where at a very early the teacher introduces, stage, a sub-task which forces the students to apply the formulas previously studied in class. Recall that teacher says "models" when he wants students We have by the teacher can be seen as a means to what has to for keeping the students enlisted through a strong orientation It was marked by the use of verbal indicators be done for task performing. use their formulas. This mediation which link the work after an explicit occasionally in progress. often, being done in the lesson to the model. Most to the model, the teacher would reference say "here" or "there", used as an equivalent of "here", as a reference to work to a general model:
In some cases he refers \x ?
< r is to of jc equals c with precision r, all right, so c\ equivalent we we a to want when have if have minus + here, |jc 2| ... we have to = write 2 (Tl) -(-2). - how are A and B defined? x < c ? r... and x > c + r, now you do it
here.
Sometimes an illustration back
treated as a generic it can be a specific exercise of the general model, for example:
case, or as
it was sometimes and some there we saw a case where possible times not; here we could ask the same question. (T9) before, when we had |jc| greater than 5, we said that... there it's not jc but jc+ 5, but it's done in exactly the same way. the lesson, out of the 17 tasks which were not generalisations, seven referrals to the 'general model' and four to a 'generic
During there were

case'.
CROSS-ANALYSIS OF THEMATHEMATICSTEACHER'SACTIVITY 3.2. Classroom as the focus of the teacher's enlistment as a whole.
285
activity with both individual
The processes of students' students and the classroom
are concerned The
of a focus being on the classroom as a whole, In the last case, the teacher and not on individual students. would use the pronoun There are other significant rather than 'vous9. 'tu9, on the whole indicators of the fact that the teacher was focusing class: from their (1) the way the teacher reacts to students' oral contributions, to share with the class the seats or at the blackboard, is an opportunity the whole class follow activity of the student who speaks, thus having the fragmenta the development of the task; (2) from this perspective, tion of tasks is also a way of constantly all the students work keeping on same the the of decision made when faced with task; (3) type ing a student's error or unexpected answer may also give insight into this point.
the succession 'we9 in punctuating can seen as an indicator be performing
use of the pronouns 'you9 or or of tasks in orienting students' task
3.2.1. There
to students' oral contributions The response are several possible reactions to students' contributions:
letting
them
a proposal, develop letting other students react, or directly interacting. In the last case, reaction may be a direct repetition; we distinguish three without evaluation, any explicit by a categories: repetition emphasized a and conclusion discourse marker, of an repetition positive expressing item. The identified with teacher's reaction may also involve with some correction; we also three categories: an implicit correction repetition generally which explicitly response wordings; as a question about the others' corrects an error. The teacher's corrected
and response agreement, oral response to students' answers is a way tomake his activity public. It is to the class and indicates the point reached in the development addressed or current of the task, and it is not necessarily linked to any previous evaluation. Table Almost I presents two to students' examples oral contributions. thirds of of the six categories made of teacher's responses
by students during the lesson (71 out of 109) are repeated by the teacher for the class. This confirms and that it is publicly done. Half how students' activity is closely managed almost equally of the teachers' reactions involves an element of correction, are half of direct them divided among the three categories; repetitions, which means that the teacher is not only often correcting wrong answers as soon as they are produced, but that he is making students' contribution to with the classroom. regards 'public'
the interventions
286
TABLE I
Categories Type of responses Example of teacher's responses Context
Direct repetition
repetition student's of the T: which value s:jc + 2 gives of... an absolute +2 and ?2 teacher to class
wording
student teacher student
at the blackboard to class from desk
T:jc + 2
repetition marker with a simple s: there's
T:
so, +2
and -2
teacher, discourse
with
the so
marker
repetition expressed conclusion the exercise
with
markers,
s: x is between 1.5
-2.5 and
student
at the blackboard of
and agreement of an item in
the correction during an exercise -
T:
that's conclude between
it, so now we that x is ?2.5
can
teacher,
with
the
indication that the

student's teacher, ambiguous student (same from answer after an formulation is valid
and ?1.5
Response of correction
with
an element
T: explain more clearly what you mean, what did we see s: so there's absolute in class? x ? c in the
the class used c in jc?
value
formulation
to say "there's brackets") T: the absolute x ? eis... value of teacher: formal
oral
formulation expression
of the ? c\ \x
Response with an implicit

correction
s: less
than or equal
to 0.5
student x + 2 =
writes 0.5
T:
to 0.5, about do you the rest of agree with
(simple repetition)
gives an implicit on the quality indication of the response teacher teacher is generalising in the class correction of an by instead of sets)
So, what you,
what Andr? wrote? Response with an explicit

correction of an error T: x then we ? c= have r... or -
ss.: and T: no, not and, x ? c = ?r
students teacher:
error often made students of ('and'
'or' for union
CROSS-ANALYSIS OF THEMATHEMATICSTEACHER'SACTIVITY 3.2.2. Incidents as
287
The
"decisionpoints" nature of the teacher's interactions with students allows him to 'public' know almost all the time what the students are doing: during some longer at their desks, he would walk around in phases of students' calculating the classroom contributions and look over he would their shoulders to see where at their written work. In oral their activity will lead them, and he would evaluate them on the spot. Sometimes, students were leaving the mathematical route he decided for them, either in their errors or in their not wait
ways of tackling whole classroom.
a task: his reactions
are indicative
of him focusing
on the
In the analysis of the teacher's activity we identified points at which he had to make a decision. This is particularly clear when we see how he that is, errors or unexpected interventions 'incidents', manages by students as soon as they are (Roditi, 2003). Errors are almost always corrected or answer is directly given by the teacher; identified: the right formulation the deep nature of the error is not questioned. There are probably several reasons. One is the possible a on the of difficulty making deep diagnosis questioning could engage a diagnosis conception create, therefore, process out of reach for the students, and which might a disturbance even in the cognitive of the if it could be of class, activity interest for the 'wandering' student. a solution to the exercise which students proposed episodes include the application of one of the 'models' presented in class. tried to relate the problem to one they were familiar with. Some proposals For solving equations with absolute value, one student said "we take out In several did not value and we solve the rest". Another the absolute for solving suggested, ? = can a new "we work with variable: ?x" could allow 1, |6 jc| (this students to use the model with the new variable and c = ?6). In such cases, the teacher was first trying to understand the proposal, and as soon as he identified a reason for himself - he stopped interacting with the student and came back learned to shared ways of working with the 'new' knowledge ? ? I see.., but what about ('So, |6 x\and\x 6| ?'). being is linked to the focus spot. Another a particular student on an erroneous on the class as a whole:
4. Crossing representativeness
the
two
analyses of the
of the
same
protocol, for
teaching The
and lesson, and learning
consequences
two analyses of the same protocol route (analysis of the mathematical to students and that of the teacher's discourse proposed during the lesson)
288
were done
ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI As we have seen, the results obtained in the two
independently.
converge and reinforce one another. Both show complementary analyses that the students' activity is fragmented and also reveal the central role the 'models' (mathematical in formulas) play in the teaching/learning process the case under scrutiny (concerning on it the algebra: certainly depends both support the hypothesis that the fragmentation content). Furthermore, of tasks into small and precise sub-tasks enables the teacher to lead students route as well as to enlist them and to through a predetermined cognitive maintain will that below. We on the representativeness then give some comments of this lesson for on students' this teacher, and infer implications learning from the twofold on and the of the freedom teacher perspective degree enjoys. a close control of the class. We elaborate on
4.1.
Fragmentation
of tasks into small units
The fragmentation of tasks (exercises) into "small" units has already been described in this paper and analyzed from the didactical point of view. It can also be seen as ameans of ensuring that, as the lesson proceeds, the class is on same on a task: the the whole which could be if, task, contrary, working was in various ways, approached proposed and the students were allowed to explore different possibilities, they would probably follow different paths. or their proposals would only be of interest to those Then their questions who were trying to elucidate the same problem at a given time, and the interventions of the teacher would be of interest only for them. In that case the teacher may no longer obtain the enlistment of all students. Some be to involved in their benefit from the inter may sufficiently exploration but would lose interest because actions, others, maybe many others, they would consider that the teacher's interventions were 'beside the point'.
4.2. How
representative
is the lesson
studied
the observation of only one lesson is not enough to characterize Obviously the practice of this teacher, not even of the whole of his activity on the of absolute value. subject The analysis of the interview with the teacher gave us some indications as to the representative character of the lesson, in which the teacher himself had chosen to be observed: "/ tried to choose a lesson as normal - in quotes - as possible in relation was a lesson given to a half-class as any other [...]. There to others [...Jit are other activities the tables in which the students work in groups in a different way, so they aren 't facing the blackboard it's always more they are facing but then I arrange the blackboard; but when or less the same".
cross-analysis His comments
of the mathematics
teacher's
activity
289
confirm
on the reason why he used the blackboard as he did also the importance he attaches to "not having the class lose interest": the whole class is working "when we go to the blackboard it's because together". The same concern is expressed when coming from a student them "to be involved a he says that when he validates it is "to keep the class involved9; in the lesson as it develops". This and to the
correct confirms
initiative
the teacher wants
the importance he attributes to enlisting the students fact that the class as a whole 'sticks' to the ongoing lesson.
(math Finally we have an indication which confirms the role of models as to be used) identified from a didactical ematical formulas perspective well as in the organization of the teacher's discourse (such as "you re member. asked if he could have done 'otherwise' he here..."). When I have "yes could given some explanations differently, but the gen eral frame of the lesson would have been the same because, after all, there aren't umpteen ways of working with equations with absolute values". ..,so answers:
studies in secondary based schools essentially Furthermore, previous on the first approach 1997; Robert, 2001; Robert and (Hache and Robert, Vandebrouck, 2003; Roditi, 2003) have always shown a great coherence of lessons of the in the practices of the same teacher. The organization at often occurs, especially Fragmentation the beginning of the presentation of new notions. The use of the blackboard common tomany, arise in class when during the varies. Difficulties, hardly same class there is an alternation between of knowledge the presentation type has few variations. by the teacher and the time devoted to work by the students. same
4.3. Our based
Conclusions inferences
regarding
students'
learning
are of knowledge students' potential acquisition concerning on a socio-constructivist theoretical framework integrating concepts
of each other's and their discussion developed by Piaget and Vygotsky is that the potential work.5 Our hypothesis activity that the teacher pro poses to the students, through the mathematics they work on, will, at least ob their of the determine knowledge underlying mathematical partially, we which tasks be From the data obtained infer may appropriated by ject. students deduce and what which are the object of their mathematical the teacher concepts during the lesson. through his interventions In the lesson observed, the subdivision of tasks in intermediate questions seem to allow and the constant prompting of students while they are working and enlistment succeed. them: both devolution the students to appropriate really participate in a mathematical activity which can contribute mathematical activity. We also is leading - mediating
Students
290
to an acquisition of a concept, or at least initiate it. Yet the analysis shows that the tasks of students are a priori isolated: they only deal with the few and studied chapter being require adaptations of what is learned. They a posteriori in by the subdivisions simplified presented the management of the lesson. There are reasons to fear that the cognitive of knowledge', may well be the victim of this component, 'organization are often further and of the fact that there is little dynamic fragmentation interplay content presented and its use in exercises. the mathematical If we examine this from the point of view of the mediation teacher between students and mathematical we see of students' activities management to tackle the solution of a problem. between by the that the how
knowledge leaves no room for them to wonder
The question of 'what has to be done' is same applies to the procedures used The the teacher. immediately given by for the solution of problems, even when the students are asked to provide the answers. Furthermore the time allotted to students' responses
only allows brief answers by some students to 'well formulated questions' ;only the time tomake the final and already well for the students, all of them, if possible, defined calculations, is less limited. The interventions provide a framework can do on their own. Nothing is left undefined, never face uncertainties: there is little room for autonomy. that activities We also observed referring to the same notion for what the students sented tools sequentially, or formulas, (definitions, solving procedures) the other. They only need to have knowledge of the tools needed ticular lesson and their use the teacher. Under the means to control often at different times: students use students
are pre their cognitive separately, one after
for a par is prompted by the subdivisions organized by to students there is no need to devolve these conditions
is one of the main factors of ac their activity, which view of quisition learning. They need not structure their to does it for them. Neither do they need tomobi the teacher act; knowledge assess to new situations. Finally, and their applicability lize 'old' knowledge in a constructivist the forced use of 'models' 'decontextualized' strongly favors to the 'contextualized': reasoning which goes from the to all it gives even less weight
that can actively develop the capacity of students to establish relationships, to explore different possibilities and to organise their knowledge. of the class results in the There is no certainty that this management fragmentation has not been devolved. dents of knowledge in students since students often do learn what being more or less implicitly taught, knowledge explicitly some participation of stu the lesson we did observe During that didn't For instance, the path proposed. follow to "take out the ab to above, a student proposed the the teacher disqualifies the rest"', even when value and then it's
in a discussion
in the example referred solute value and solve proposal with irony
("fine, we get rid of the absolute
cross-analysis
of the mathematics
teacher's
activity
291
and repeats his proposal. the student refuses to be discouraged easy!"), There were other similar episodes during the lesson: so we see that some in spite of a very strong students at least do not lose all their autonomy enlistment. of tasks closely con the students do 'follow' the fulfilment Besides, route and of a of the cognitive later allow albeit simply by listening. This may behaviour, participatory It is difficult to infer ifmost these steps by themselves. them to reproduce of them will be able to handle more complex activities on their own. trolled by the teacher both in the sense
4.4.
Teacher's
activity
and alternatives of freedom
open
to the teacher by the teacher are based impinge on his activity. is the official to absolute syllabus for values. The
The hypotheses on the analysis One comment this course.
on the degree of the various
enjoyed determinants which determinants in its reference value
of the important external It is very restrictive indicates
that "the absolute
to speak of the distance between and the textbooks the syllabus, the comments ent on this notion. The textbooks which
it easy of a number makes two numbers". We have to stress that are not completely coher an of propose implementation
in a sequence of small units. The program re the program are organized between the various new concepts stricts the inter-relation learned, and content because of its and of because those previously with acquired, the limited
space.
time allotted
to it. There
are more
constraints
than maneuvre
of the object to be taught and of the teacher's conceptions Furthermore, are of his the relation students/knowledge subjective determinants taught wants his the 'didactical process' he activity. They condition professional of to follow (planned cognitive route) as well as the management backed by the processes which develop during the lesson. Our hypothesis, is that this teacher believes of both analyses, the convergence that, in the case of absolute values, his job is to teach students how to apply models students formulas). (general mathematical Finally, when the wish to enlist the whole class leads to decisions analo
these determinants strongly gous to those based on cognitive conceptions, that the teacher will look it improbable reinforce one another. This makes for other alternatives. of very poor results in his students' acquisition Only the observation in his practice. of the knowledge taught could lead him to make changes since the present system But there is little chance of his being destabilized of situations in which students need to use hardly allows for the emergence anything other than locally procedural knowledge.
292
ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI 5. DISCUSSION AND PERSPECTIVES
Our twofold
to connect results approach comes from an imperious necessity on the organization of learning in the classroom with studies about profes sional practices. Indeed, in French research, as we recall below, there have been many studies allowing a fine-grained function diagnosis of classroom
to students' learning; but these studies gave few insights into ing according even when they knew and not change their practices teachers would why most in of the various studies of the agreed with these studies. Furthermore, on was the main focus students' issue, teaching/learning learning; teach was not really taken into account. Although ers' activity as a professional one centered on students two approaches used two theoretical perspectives, on we and the other think that their connection of the two differs teachers, from ours. After conclude relations between our approach and others, we addressing some research perspectives for the future. by articulating
5.1. French
research
on teachers
in the didactical of mathematics
institution insist on the place have developed within
Many French studies of the teacher within Brousseau's
on the didactics
the didactical system.6 They of didactic situations 1996; 1997; 1998) or (Brousseau, theory in the frame of Chevallard's 1999). anthropological approach (Chevallard, In both, the models proposed take into account the place of the subject mat ter in the educational 2001; Margolinas, system (Coulange, and epistemological constraints the institutional 2002). They that limit the
underline
of new situations the reg (Arsac et al., 1992), determine (re)production ulations didactical situation (Comiti and Grenier, the proposed affecting the constraints 1997; Mercier, 1998; Hersant, 2001), or, more generally, which limit the activity of the mathematics teacher (Perrin-Glorian, 1999). These as the studies focus their attention 'generic one', for instance, organisation of the didactical on the teacher, seen simultaneously as and on the student seen the 'didactical subject'. stresses that the theory of situations "describes the
Mercier,
space as a space of action for the students not the actual actions of the teachers, and the teacher, but it does describe (Mercier, 1998, p. 282). of the students or their interaction" to the individual is less attention given in these works Considerably exercise clear and this is a great difference with ours. It is of the profession, that their main aim is not to explain teachers' choices but to model types of research are different: about teacher training and other of the general constraints of the
the global system. Inferences from both our work may lead to building hypotheses works may lead to a better understanding system.
CROSS-ANALYSIS OF THEMATHEMATICS TEACHER'SACTIVITY 5.2. Research Schoenfeld centred on teachers in the class context
293
emphasised mined by their personal conception their own of mathematical knowledge, learning history and their beliefs about the ways students learn mathemat ics. He explains how, once these determinants to predict the decisions the teacher will make incident. He does not establish are identified, it is possible in case there is a (didactical) link between the teacher's de
(1998) proposed a theory where that the way teachers exercise
teaching is seen in context. He their activity is mainly deter
an explicit cisions and the learning of students, nor does he refer to the 'exogenous' constraints. We believe also have a that, on the contrary, these constraints direct influence on the teacher's do indeed have a social 5.3. Research Various stressed studies centred focused the determinants activity: and institutional component. in the mathematics in the mathematics of his activity
on communication on communication
classroom classroom
the existence
of (invariant)
Voigt used the term scribe those prevalent the lesson we analyzed). to discourse
'patterns of interaction9 (Voigt, 1985); to de coined by Heinrich Bauersfeld, 'funnelling9, in the so-called classrooms traditional (the case of More
the Sinclair-Coulthard's approach generally, studied in mathematics classrooms) (Sinclair (not analysis and Coulthard, 1975) "found in the language of traditional native-speaker a rigid pattern, where school classrooms teachers and pupils spoke ac
to very fixed perceptions of their roles and where the talk would cordingly seen to conform to highly structured sentences" be 1997). (McCarthy, is also found in studies on com Our focus on the interactive dimension, classes (Steinbring et al., 1998), initiated by the munication inmathematics German (Voigt, 1985; Krummheuer, events for in analyses of significant 1988, among others), and developed in class. with the teacher or other students students when they interact These studies are mainly focused on the students' point of view: the teacher of "learning opportunities" is seen as an organizer through the different in which the children participate (Cobb and White the teacher plays a key role in "fitting out routines and ways of interacting" (Wood, 1996, p. 102). on the interactive studies (1997; 2000) development Steinbring's types of interactions 1996, p. 215); nack, of mathematical He meaning regarding analyses of ideas and meanings knowledge. are constituted mathematical during the course of this process knowledge and and how do the communicative interaction], patterns [of classroom constraints the epistemol?gica! influence of the mathematical knowledge each other" (Steinbring, 1997, p. 79). His epistemological perspective and strongly "what kinds stress the role of mathematical school of the didactics of mathematics
294
the twofold
as perspectives from approach we propose could be considered two sides of a looking glass: ours is oriented towards the teacher's activity in mathematics' towards the student's activity in teaching, Steinbring's an important difference: mathematics is however He learning. There considers "mathematics and class as an autonomous culture in which the in a growth knowledge develops it as a place 2000, p. 146), we consider way" (Steinbring, self-referential where the teacher does a job whose aim is to act on the relation between students constraints to be learned, within and knowledge the framework on can use. resources him the he and imposed of understanding of mathematical
the
5.4. Research
bringing
together similar
different
theoretical
perspectives the 'teach
Although we tackle issues ing triad''. 'Mathematical (ML), and 'sensitivity
to those stressed by Jaworski:
norms in the first approach, but establishing are mainly ana fostering ways of working (in ML) analyzed through our second approach. SS is partly considered in its cognitive dimension in the first?it concerns and partly class to keep The the adaptation of tasks to observed in the second: interaction with individual students we enlisted. propose studied students' students activity? or with the
(Jaworski, 1998,2003), and ML are both considered
(MC), 'management challenge' of learning' to students' for teachers' (SS) analyzing practices the structure of our approach differs from hers. MC
shares important features with Even and a Schwarz mathematics class. These (2003), who high-school theoretical perspectives in the analysis authors also apply two different of the same mathematical lesson, and one of them is the activity theory on which our second approach is based. The results of their 'classic cognitive framework to 'consider the whole group of stu that it is possible approach' confirmed 'the central role played by the teacher'. dents as an entity' and recognize as conflicting. in the two approaches They interpret the results obtained This would merit an in-depth discussion.
5.5. Are
Conclusion
and perspectives
our findings of a general nature? The method we propose - a cross - show approaches analysis based on bringing together two theoretical the properties of teaching results that converge. It allowed us to determine It could also at a students. and its relation with the of activity activity to include the relation between later stage be extended teachers and the learning of students and thus go beyond regularities. the activities the description of of
CROSS-ANALYSISOF THEMATHEMATICSTEACHER'SACTIVITY This method mensions velopment, the activity institutional between the different permits systematic comparisons of teachers' activities in the classroom: moment in course
295 di de
in comparing content, type of class. It could also be useful of different teachers and thus examine the impact of social and determinants classroom by identifying what is invariant in their practice.7 in primary mathematics research education mathematics teachers' call for somewhat at the practices different approaches.
Interpreting (Krummheuer, 2000) or analyzing end of compulsory schooling might
class might be not the Indeed, the status of each child and of the whole same in primary education and in more advanced levels. Moreover, high on the research agenda should be the issue of how can much be validly inferred about the learning of students by studying the of teachers, since this is the main motivation for these studies on the teaching of mathematics and most particularly for those studies which to improve teacher training. Admittedly, aim at contributing it is reasonable activities to expect that students' route cognitive most reasonable would be related to the mathematical knowledge the teacher organizes for them. But to expect, even on the same as to prove. not is the grounds,
Notes
1. To alleviate will be used the text, the masculine the text. pronoun 'he', rather than the compound 'he or she'
throughout the same
2. The first level of the three in the French 'lyc?e'. All students (15 or 16 years old) at this
level 3. This vis follow term curriculum in mathematics. (Wood, Bruner, Ross): "This means as that vis-? is used and others by Bruner the tutor has the initial
the 3-yr-old task of enlisting we to 95 and decided take it in p. spite of the military teacher tries to keep the students in the class, with him, on mathematical 4. tasks.
the child connotation. even before
tutoring partner" It means that the they start working
In our approach, when we analyse the verbal exchanges between the teacher and the with concerned the teacher's interventions and their purpose. students, we are basically on the contrary, sees these exchanges An approach such as Steinbring's (1997, 2000), to use them as a help from the point of view of the individual student who wants in or Krummheuer like Voigt of the teacher/class study the interaction use as a means teacher also his "verbal in actions" class of reconsid may "couple". are his of in what the students other words, ering understanding (representation) doing, learning. Others, The as an "on-line" or on-the-spot in 1932. diagnosis; we have not studied it here.
5. Vygotsky's critique of Piaget's first two books on thought and reasoning in children
was published Piaget's response to Vygotsky's comments appeared in the
first English edition of Thought and Language (Vygotsky, 1962; Piaget, 1962/2000). (In the first Vygotsky's French edition: Vygotsky, 1985, pp. 45-100 et pp. 387 399.)
6. Teachers' d'?t? nents were in contributions in the last four ?coles examined practices presented Different studies focus on specific de Didactique des Math?matiques'. compo of the teachers' in the following they appear proceedings: practices;
296
Noirfalise, R. and Perrin-Glorian, M.-J. (ed.): 1995, Actes de la Willeme ?cole d'Et?
de didactique Bailleul, M., Comiti, des math?matiques, C, Dorier IREM, J.-L., Clermont-Ferrand. J.-B., Parzysz, B. and Salin, M.-H. Lagrange,
(eds.): 1997, Actes de la IXo?cole d'?t? de didactique des math?matiques, ARDM &
CA Bruz.
Bailleul, M. (ed.): 1999, Actes de laXo ?cole d'?t? de didactique des math?matiques, IUFM & ARDM, Caen.
Dorier, J.-L., Artaud, M., Artigue, M., Berthelot, R., and Floris, R. (eds.): 2002,
Actes de laXl?me ?cole d'?t? de didactique des math?matiques, La Pens?e Sauvage,

Grenoble. 7. Studies tend which the same compare the existence of teacher invariants. in different They situations are present or two different in the same teachers even
to confirm
teacher,
when he teaches very different contents. Maurice and All?gre (2002) observed it in
to students to find the answer. Other the time given show the role played studies by the contents in a study done in primary For (2000), being taught. example Zaragosa a problem to children found that the mode of devolving both on the school, depended experience procedures, of the teacher and on the type of situation: modeling versus application of arithmetic versus
geometry.
References
Arsac, tical Brousseau, Noirfalise G., Balacheff, situations', G.: N. and Mante, M.: 1992, Teacher's inMathematics dans (eds.), la th?orie Actes de role and reproducibility 23, des 5-29. situations ?cole in R. didactiques', d'?t? de didactique des and V. of didac
Educational 1996,
Studies
and M.-J.
'L'enseignant Perrin-Glorian IREM Theory
la 8?me
des math?matiques, G.: Brousseau, 1997, math?matiques Warfield (eds.), Brousseau, Chevallard, G.: Y.:
de Clermont-Ferrand, of didactical (trans.) N. des
pp. 3-16. in mathematics: M. Cooper, Grenoble: en R. Didactique Sutherland
situations Balacheff,
1970-1990, Kluwer
Academic
Publishers, situations
Dordrecht. La Pens?e Sauvage. du
1998, 1999,
Th?orie 'L'analyse
didactiques, enseignantes
des pratiques
th?orie
anthropologique
didactique', Recherches en Didactique des Math?matiques 19(2), 221-265. Cobb, P. andWhitenack, J.W.: 1996, 'Amethod for conducting longitudinal analysis of
classroom 213-228. Comiti, C. and Grenier, L.: et changements 1997, 'R?gulations didactiques des Math?matiques 17(3), 81-102. en Troisi?me. les syst?mes Une 'Enseigner d'?quation D.: B.B.: of competing 2003, 'Implications in mathematics Educational education', de contrat', videorecordings and transcripts', Educational Studies in Mathematics 30,
Recherches Coulange, R.
en Didactique 2001,
?tude
?cono
mique et ?cologique', Recherches enDidactique des Math?matiques 21(3), 305-353.

Even, and Schwarz, and for research 54,283-313. en classe', Recherches 'L'univers math?matique par le professeur propos? des Math?matiques 81-98. 21(1.2), en C. and Robert, A.: 'Un essai de pratiques effectives Hache, 1997, d'analyse ou comment un enseignant de seconde, classe fait fr?quenter ? les math?matiques Hache, C: 2001, en Didactique ses ?l?ves pendant la classe', Recherches en Didactique des Math?matiques 17(3), 103-150. theory of practice interpretations Studies inMathematics
Hersant, et pratiques Interactions didactiques d'enseignement au Th?se de Universit? Paris7. doctorat, proportionnalit? coll?ge, B.: 1998, 'Mathematics teacher research: and Jaworski, Process, practice of teaching', Journal Teacher Education 1, 3-31. of Mathematics M.: 2001, Jaworski, B.: 2003, 'Research Towards le cas
297
de la
the development
ing development: Educational Studies Krummheuer, G.:
into influencing and learn mathematics practice teaching a theoretical framework based on co-learning partnerships', 54, 283-313. des de
inMathematics 'Structures
des situations microscopiques d'enseignement in C. Laborde du premier (ed.), Actes franco-allemand math?matiques', colloque des math?matiques, La Pens?e Grenoble, pp. 41-51. didactique Sauvage, G.: 2000, classroom research in Krummheuer, 'Interpretative primary mathematics 1988, tion. Some Leontiev, Leplat, A.N.: J.: 1997, C: preliminary remarks', Zentralblatt
educa
der Mathematik 5, 124-125. f?r Didaktik Moscou: Edition du progr?s. conscience, 1975, Activit?, personnalit?, sur l'activit? en situation de travail, Paris: PUF. 'Regards 'Situations, milieux, (eds.), connaissances', Actes de la lie in J.-L. Dorier, ?cole d'?t? M. Artaud, M. and R. Floris de didactique
Margolinas,
2002,
des Artigue, La Pens?e Grenoble, pp. 141-155. math?matiques, Sauvage, J.-J. and All?gre, E.: 2002, 'Invariance des pratiques Maurice, enseignantes: temporelle aux ?l?ves pour chercher', Le temps donn? Revue Fran?aise de P?dagogie 138, 115 124. McCarthy, Press, Mercier, M.: 1997, Discourse analysis for language teachers, Cambridge University en Didactique
R. Berthelot
Cambridge. A.: 1998,
'La participation
des ?l?ves
? l'enseignement',
Recherches
des Math?matiques
Perrin-Glorian, M.-J.: de milieu', concept J.: 1962/2000, Piaget, of the child", 241-259. Robert, A.: 2001,
18(3), 279-310.
1999, 'Probl?mes Recherches
d'articulation de cadres du th?oriques: l'exemple en Didactique des Math?matiques 19(3), 279-322. on Vygotsky's 'Commentaries criticisms of "Language and thought in the child'", New Ideas in Psychology and reasoning and "Judgement 18, 'Recherches de math?matiques les pratiques des enseignants et du point de vue de l'apprentissage des ?l?ves en Recherches des Math?matiques Didactique d'enseignant', ?l?ves: une discussion en classe', sur du de
secondaire:
imbrication du m?tier
du point
vue de l'exercice
21(1/2), 7-56.
Robert, des A.: 2003 'T?ches adaptations 61-71. A. et activit?s des math?matiques au d?marrage introduites des exercices cherch?s Petit sur le jeu x 62,
Robert,
et coh?rent 'Le syst?me des pratiques des and Rogalski, J.: 2002a, complexe une double Canadian de Journal Science, of approche', enseignants math?matiques: des Mathematics and Technology Education de l'Enseignement (La Revue Canadienne
Sciences des Math?matiques et des Technologies) 2(4), 505-528.

Robert, des A. ?l?ves M.: 2002b, varier les activit?s math?matiques and Rogalski, 'Comment peuvent sur les ?nonc?s sur des exercices. et sur la Le double travail de l'enseignant Petit x 60, 6-25. F.: 2003, 'Recherches pendant sur des l'utilisation s?ances du tableau par des and Vandebrouck, de math?matiques
gestion Robert, A.
en classe',
enseignants ?.:
de seconde
d'exercices',
Recherches
en Didactique des Math?matiques 23(3), 389-424.

Roditi, de 2003, la multiplication et variabilit? Le cas des pratiques ordinaires d'enseignement. 'R?gularit? en Didactique en sixi?me', des d?cimaux Recherches des nombres
Math?matiques 23(2), 183-216.
298
Rogalski, J. :2003, 'Y a-t-il un pilote dans la classe ?Une analyse de Y activit? de l'enseignant
comme gestion A.: d'un environnement dynamique ouvert', Recherches en Didactique des
Math?matiques 23(3), 343-388.

Schoenfeld, 1998, Toward a Theory of Teaching-ln-Context, Tutorial 1975, httpV/www.berkeley. 107, 640-667. of Discourse, Oxford edu/faculty/aschc^nfeld/TeachlnContext/tic.html. L.: 1999, 'Discourse markers: Schourup, Sinclair, J.McH. and Coulthard, Oxford. of classroom interaction investigation inMathematics Studies 32,49-92. analysis perspective', M.G. of mathematical Zentralblatt f?r communication Didaktik in elementary in primary der Mathematik R.M.:
overview',
Towards
Lingua an Analysis
University
Press, 1997,
H.: Steinbring, mathematics Steinbring, H.:
'Epistemological Educational teaching', 2000, 'Interaction
The teaching: 5, 138-148.
epistemological
Bussi, H., Bartolini Steinbring, in theMathematics munication Reston, VA.
Classroom,
and Sierpinska, National
A.
(eds.):
Council
and Com 1998, Language of Teachers of Mathematics,
de tutelle et M.-P.M.: sensibles des situations 2002, Dimensions Vannier-Benmostapha, de cas dans trois institutions travail de l'enseignant de math?matiques. ?tude scolaires, et CM2, Th?se en CUP A, 4?me de Sciences de l'Education, technologique agricole
Universit? Paris5.
in classroom J.: 1985, 'Patterns and routines Voigt, des Math?matiques 6, 69-118. MIT L.: 1962, Thought and Language, Vygotsky, Vygotsky, Wood, L.: 1996: 1985, Pens?e 'Events Studies in et Langage, Editions learning mathematics: 30, 85-105. 1976, 'The role of tutoring dans Paris5. le processus in problem solving', Th?se Journal G.: interaction', Recherches en Didactique
Press, Sociales,
Cambridge, Paris. from
U.S.A.
Insights
research
in classroom',
Educational Wood,
inMathematics
D., Burner,
J.S. and Ross,
of Child Psychology
Zaragosa, S.: 2000, d'Universit?, Sciences
and Psychiatry 17, 89-100.

verbales l'Education, de d?volution, de doctorat de
Interactions
ALINE ROBERT Equipe 2 place E-mail: Didirem, Jussieu, Universit? 75005, Paris Paris!, France,
robert@math.uvsq.fr
JANINE ROGALSKI Laboratoire Cognition & Usages, Universit? Paris8/CNRS,
2 rue de la libert?, 93526 Saint-Denis Cedex 2, France,

E-mail: rogalskij@ univ-paris8.fr

25047173

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

25047173

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Cross-Analysis of the Mathematics Teacher's Activity.

ALINE ROBERT and JANINE ROGALSKI

the mathematical the way approaches:

KEY WORDS: mathematical

A complex practices: institutional determinants

ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI

who is performing a specific job (Rogalski, 2003).

1.2. A twofold perspective The double

the different students

propose was developed of the teacher's activity

us to analyze as the activity of is based

on activity theory (Leontiev, 1975; Leplat, 1997). The notion of activity is

is displayed and opened to students' activity (Hache, 2001) (bothPiagetian

plementarity. We types of means used for the students interactions dimension).

the fact that there are two main

what Furthermore, students' mathematical of the mathematical

activity, tasks, also has an impact

ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI

1.3. The The lesson

CROSS-ANALYSISOF THEMATHEMATICS TEACHER'SACTIVITY These

anymore. graphical representations Students began to solve an exercise;

precision 0.5 to [-2.5, -1.5]

T4: |jc? 2| < 0.5

solving equations absolute value. First exercise

Til: |jc| <4.5 T12: \x- 2| < 7

T15:|6-jc| T16: |*| > 5

? T17: |jc 5| = 1 T18: |3-jc| <7 T19: |jc+5| >4

ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI

ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI

The next three exercises from the one used

InT12, T14 and T15 theymust adapt the (E) formula.

be a real adaptation requires a generalization one.

for some students of what was

already used. T20 in this exercise and the

being learnt. We mentioned. We

ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI

CROSS-ANALYSIS OF THEMATHEMATICSTEACHER'SACTIVITY 22.12 solve As

in a specific mathematical presented seconds for this calculation).

Two are also

CROSS-ANALYSIS OF THEMATHEMATICSTEACHER'SACTIVITY of how to solve each

ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI

In the analysis didactical actions will

of students performed? of students is a dominant

Our first hypothesis It was Bruner who

is that the enlistment

ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI

In some cases he refers \x ?

Sometimes an illustration back

During there were

activity with both individual

The processes of students' students and the classroom

are concerned The

the succession 'we9 in punctuating can seen as an indicator be performing

use of the pronouns 'you9 or or of tasks in orienting students' task

ALINE ROBERTAND JANINEROGALSKI

student teacher student

at the blackboard to class from desk

repetition expressed conclusion the exercise

and agreement of an item in

the correction during an exercise -

that's conclude between

it, so now we that x is ?2.5

indication that the