Ostendorf Classroom Discourse Assignment Comments

Reported Sequence

T: What is the point of order of operations? What does that mean? [calls on a student raising their hand] S: If you do the order of operations, if you dont do it, youll get your answers all mixed up and wrong. The more bigger the operationsnot bigger, but multiplying and division- you have to follow those first. T: Okayso what is an operation? Are we going to go to the doctors office? S: An operation is like a problemlike, I dont know T: Okay [calls on another student] S: Its like multiplying, dividing, adding. in a problem, we circle the operation T: Okay, she named three of themso its what we do to numbers. Are we going to circle the operation when we do the order of operations? What is an order? S: Its the way you put things T: Right, a certain way you put things and a certain way you do things. Are you going to shower before you get out of bed? S: Nooooooo [ a bunch of students yell out] T: Are you gonna get dressed before you take a shower? Thatd be silly Reported Sequence T: [Draws on the board 4/2*3 and solves the equation by writing 4/6] Is that what Im supposed to do? S: No

I would classify this discourse as a level 3, leading questioning. I chose this level because the teacher is eliciting previously learned knowledge. Not only is she eliciting previous knowledge about what the order of operations stands for and means but also is connecting outside of the classroom knowledge when she is talking about the order of events when you get ready in the morning (waking up, showering, and then putting on your clothes). She does not simply ask what does P stand for, what does E stand for in the order of operations for that would be a factual type of questioning. Her questions provoke a wide range of acceptable answers, which is another characteristic of leading questions. She is not looking for an exact, specific answer when she asks the question: What is the point of the order of operations? What does that mean? The teacher is ready to interpret and challenge any response to that question. In this sequence there is an explanation given by the teacher elicited from responses of the student. One critique that the NCTM standards may have for this question sequence is that the student who answered the question incorrectly was not asked to explain his or her thinking; the teacher simply said okay and gave the students the correct answer. To make this sequence more challenging she could have given groups example problems as a warm up. Each problem would involve the order of operations. Each group could get a few minutes to solve their problem and then share to the class how they solved it and why the chose to do certain operations first. This would recall factual knowledge but would also have students evaluate the math meaning or sense of their solutions including student-to-student interactions. The teacher could ask questions like is it possible to have two different answers to the same problem using the order of operations? Why is/isnt it possible? Students would be able to listen to, respond to, and question the teacher and one another (a standard of the NCTM).

Comments
There are two discourse level questions in this sequence. The teacher challenges the students to explain particular steps in their procedure when she asks Is that what Im supposed to do? and Why not? She asks them a clarifying question by saying how to YOU know which one to do first. This is not just asking students to show use of conceptual knowledge but is

Ostendorf T: Why not? S: It doesnt matter which one to do first T: How do you know which one to do first? You just pick one? Work from S: Work from left to right T: Exactly. Ask yourself which one comes first in line. Remember this is the same thing with addition and subtraction.

2
asking them to explain how they know. The second end of that question the teacher asks: You just pick one? Work from. This could be classified as a leading question. She is looking for a specific answer (work from left to right) but does not give them the answer. She elicits previously learned knowledge by leaving the answer for the students to come up with. Asking students these level 3 and level 4 types of questions allows the students to clarify and explain their previously learned knowledge. The first question alone asks students to evaluate a procedure done by the teacher. They explain and clarify why this procedure was done incorrectly through teacher-elicited leading questions. The NCTM may have an issue with the fact that the teacher offered up the information at the end about the two operations addition and subtraction. They would have preferred her to make conjectures and investigate how they could solve a problem with the other two operations in it. Standard three of the NCTM says that teachers should promote students to convince themselves and one another of the validity of particular representations, solutions, conjectures, and answers. She could have given the students a problem similar to the one they had just talked out using addition and subtraction. She could ask questions that relied on mathematical evidence from the problem done as a group to argue and determine the validity that addition and subtraction would follow the same rule: How can we use information from this problem to solve this addition and subtraction problem?

Reported Sequence T: Which operation comes first in this problem? [calls on student] S: Parentheses T: Good. So we dont do multiplication first even though its first in the problem? S: [students call out] No T: Why not? [calls on student] S: Because you always do parentheses first T: Now what? Ava? [Ava is a pseudonym] S: Then you do 7 times 4 T: What is 7 times 4? S: 28

Comments
Most of the questioning in this sequence is a level 2, factual questioning. . I chose this level because the students are answering fact questions and the teacher is leading the students to the answer such as in Which operation comes first in this problem? And what is 7 times 4? Also, there is no explanation given by the students or the teacher and there is no justification of any answer. There is however, a slight clarification of why the parenthesis was done before the multiplication. Because this question does not provoke a wide variety of acceptable answers I still classified this as recalling factual knowledge. The first student called on who answered because you always do parentheses first is clarifying the procedure so I could see this as being a level 4 type of question. The second student who answered the question correctly was not asked to explain her thinking. The teacher asked now what? which is recalling prior knowledge and what is 7 times 4? The student did not have to explain why she

Ostendorf
chose multiplication next or why she knew 7 times 4 equals 28.

In order to make this questioning sequence more challenging, the teacher could ask the students to clarify which operation was to be completed first orally or in writing. She could have encouraged all of the students to participate by writing down the order of operations in the problem on white boards. The teacher could have had the students model their own problem involving the order of operations in groups. Instead of asking factual questions she could have asked a question like What if we did multiplication in this problem before the parentheses? What would happen? What kind of answer would we get? This would all ow students to evaluate the math meaning behind the problem and determine themselves which answer is correct.

Reported Sequence T: So who remembers the acronym, the words that help us remember the order? [calls on student] S: PEMDAS T: P stands for? Show me with your arms S: Parentheses! [kids wave them in and out]

Comments
I would classify this discourse as a level 2, factual questioning. I chose this level because the teacher is eliciting previously learned knowledge. The leading question about what the P in PEMDAS stands for is not encompassing of multiple answers which is why this would not be a level three leading question. She is not looking for a wide range of answers when she asks for what P stands for. The element I like about this kind of factual questioning is that the teacher is not just eliciting previous knowledge about what the orders of operations are orally; she asks them to show her physically what it means . She does not however challenge the students to explain their thinking or evaluate an order of operations problem. This lower level type of questioning is to simply show possession of factual knowledge. In order to make this questioning sequence more challenging, the teacher could have the students orally present and dramatize the order of operations in accordance to their hand movements they had previously learned. This sort of activity uses the students themselves as models depicting the different operations PEMDAS stands for. The recall questions that the teacher asked attaches math words and notations to students ideas but does not probe or challenge student thought. She could have asked the class How is one way that we can remember the order of operations? The students then could have said PEMDAS or shown some of the operations with their corresponding hand movements. This way students would have an option in how to answer rather than just coming up with one correct answer.

Ostendorf Discourse is used to highlight the ways in which knowledge is constructed and exchanged in classrooms (Loewenberg, 1991, p.44). The discourse of a classroom is formed by students, the teacher, and the tools they work with (Loewenberg, 1991, p.44). The professional teaching standards (NCTM) follow this pattern in that they have set three standards describing productive discourse in terms of the students, the teacher, and the tools (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991). Through what I have observed, the teacher plays a crucial role in shaping the discourse of the classroom. The types of questions that are posed determine the atmosphere of the classroom and determine the audience that is to

participate in responding. The role of experimentation in constructing mathematical knowledge sets the overall attitude of the classroom. For example, if level five, exploration questions are frequently asked, experimentation and the acceptability of being wrong are two things that are welcome. In classrooms where the recalling of information are the only types of questions asked, the only answers that are correct and addressed are the right answers. No justification or explanation is welcome in this kind of setting. The assumption that teachers have the right answers and that the standard way of thinking is the only way will set your students up to just simply memorize facts and stay at a low cognitive level. Right answers do not always represent understanding (Loewenberg, 1991, p.45). This idea is one that I hope to carry into my future classroom. I want to make sure that wrong answers are not representative of a lack of understanding but represent different, and valuable, ways of thinking. I hope to promote the kind of environment where students feel safe and respect one another and themselves. Students need to feel

Ostendorf that engaging in mathematical questioning and thinking is normal and effective. A

lot of math classes that I have observed include some level of questioning but always follow up with the right answer. In a situation like this I would change the follow up to something more meaningful and probing. If a student gets something wrong or gives a different answer, I would explore their thinking rather than just say no and give them the correct, standard answer. I have noticed that the same students tend to answer most of the questions in math discourse. This may be because they feel safe answering questions knowing that they are right and using the standard method of problem solving. In order to encourage each student to participate I will have a lot of opportunities for sharing and using different problem solving methods. A few standards that I think are extremely important to have in a math classroom that follow the NCTM guidelines are that the teacher should pose questions that elicit, engage, and challenge each students thinking, listen carefully to students ideas, and decide when to provide information, when to clarify, and when to model (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991). These are standards that I will be focusing on as a future teacher in my classroom. I will encourage students to listen to, respond to, and question the teacher and one another, as well as use a variety of tools to reason, make connections, solve problems, and communicate (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991). These are standards that I will hold my future students accountable for. I plan to elicit this kind of math reasoning using pictures, diagrams, models, and technology.

Ostendorf Resources

Loewenberg, D. B. (1991) Whats all this talk about discourse? Arithmetic Teacher V. 39, pgs. 44-48 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991) Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA.