Promoting Mathematical Communication in the Classroom: Two Preservice Teachers' Conceptions and Practices

By Jonathan L. Brendefur, Jeffrey A. Frykholm. 2000

161 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cbd57f2ac593ff2392ff1aab855608c189f4362b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Teachers’ professional practice conducting mathematical discussions (2016, background): “In univocal communication, there is a voice that prevails over all others, whereas, in dialogic communication, many partners participate in a similar way (Brendefur & Frykholm, 2000).”
Elementary Mathematics Teachers' Perceptions and Lived Experiences on Mathematical Communication. (2016, background): “A considerable amount of studies have focused on the concept of mathematical communication as an important classroom activity to foster mathematical thinking skills (Brendefur & Frykholm, 2000; Franke et. al, 2009; Pape, Bell & Yetkin, 2003).”
Redirecting, progressing, and focusing actions—a framework for describing how teachers use students’ comments to work with mathematics (2014, background): “Brendefur and Frykholm (2000) also present a fourth level of communication labelled instructive communication where the teacher participates closely along with the students and the progression is ‘altered to build upon and deepen the students’ present understanding of the mathematics at hand’…”
What Japanese and U.S. Teachers Think About When Constructing Mathematics Lessons: A Preliminary Investigation (2005, background): “In addition, these inquiries have often portrayed, in great detail, one or two key preoccupations that emerge for teachers in the process of constructing lessons (e.g., Brendefur & Frykholm, 2000; Smith, 2000).”
Mapping Mathematics Classroom Discourse and Its Implications for Models of Teaching (2008, background): “, IRE or IRF) (Cazden, 2001; Coulthard & Brazil, 1981; Mehan, 1985). This triadic structure has been criticized as encouraging "illusory participation" - that is, participation that is "high on quantity, low on quality" - because "it gives the teacher almost total control of classroom dialogue and s”