Aug. 2005 – May 2006

1. Report on Activity Structures & Turn Length Analytic Memos Identifying & Reflecting on Performance Gaps Mapping & Reflecting on Personal Beliefs Baseline Data Collection Study Group Pilot Study Cycles of Action Research A.R. cont… Aug. 2005 – May 2006 Aug. 2006 – May 2007 Aug. 2007 – May 2008 Aug. 2008 Confronting Practice: Critical Colleagueship in a Mathematics Teacher Study Group Lorraine Males, Michigan State University Research Questions Participants Data Analysis • The corpus was reviewed (41 project meetings) and summarized • in broad terms (Fairclough, 1992), using codes that reflected the • topic of the discourse. • 10 transcripts where chosen based on topic codes for transcripts in • that contained discourse in which the teachers shared • Each transcript was broken up into episodes by topic or theme. • Episodes broken up into question/advice blocks. • Each question/advice block coded for of which was coded for who • was doing the questioning, and who was being questioned, and • the type of question(s) asked (clarification, elaboration, probing, • challenging) [Choularaki & Fairclough, 1999]. • Notes were taken on how these question/advice blocks • related to the components of critical colleagueship (i.e., pushing • someone to reject flimsy reasoning, evidence of openness). • Is it possible to identify the aspects of critical colleagueship in a mathematics teacher study group? • What are some of the aspects of critical colleagueship exhibited by a group of mathematics teachers participating in a teacher study group as part of a project focused on teachers engaging in action research to improve mathematics classroom discourse? Brian Lord’s (1994) “Critical Colleagueship” Creating and sustaining productive disequilibrium through self reflection, collegial dialogue, and on-going critique. Embracing fundamental intellectual virtues. Among these are openness to new ideas, willingness to reject weak practices or flimsy reasoning when faced with countervailing evidence and sound arguments,accepting responsibility for acquiring and using relevant information in the construction of technical arguments, willingness to seek out the best ideas or the best knowledge from within the subject-matter communities, greater reliance on organized and deliberate investigations rather than learning by accident, and assuming collective responsibility for creating a professional record of teachers' research and experimentation. Increasing the capacity for empathetic understanding (placing oneself in a colleague's shoes). That is, understanding a colleague's dilemma in the terms he or she understands it. Developing and honing the skills and attributes associated with negotiation, improved communication, and the resolution of competing interests. Increasing teachers' comfort with high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty, which will be regular features of teaching for understanding. Achieving collective generativity – "knowing how to go on" (Wittgenstein, 1958) as a goal of successful inquiry and practice. Findings Project1 Phases Data for this study Herbel-Eisenmann, B. & Cirillo, M. (Editors, 2009). Promoting purposeful discourse: Teacher research in mathematics classrooms. NCTM, Reston, VA. 1 This data was collected as part of an NSF grant (#0347906) focusing on mathematics classroom discourse (Herbel-Eisenmann, PI). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. We would like to thank the teachers for allowing us to work in their classrooms.