Math Talk in Elementary Classrooms: What features are common? Leslie Banes, Rebecca Ambrose, Heather Martin, and Rachel Restani University of California, Davis Methods Mean Discussion Scores References Common Core demands students explain their mathematical thinking, yet this practice is still rare in elementary school classrooms (Walshaw & Anthony, 2008). The development of a math-talk learning community includes a shift in responsibility for learning from teacher to students (Hufferd- Ackles et al., 2004). All 3 rd and 4 th grade classrooms in district (n=20) visited once by two observers in Jan- Apr K-6 urban school district with 5 schools 88% received lunch subsidies; 45% ELLs 37% Hispanic, 16% White, 15% African American On average, teachers have been in the district for 15 years; <5% teacher mobility rate Some teachers participated in up to 3 years of PD with a focus on mathematical discussion. Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K., & Sherin, M. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80. Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551. Preliminary Findings Quantity of student talk and participation during math lessons was high. Connections between ideas and in-depth explanations (indicators of quality of class discussion) were much less frequent. Explanations consistently scored lowest, often lacking important elements of a concept or focused exclusively on procedure. Although student participation in math discussions is relatively high, there is still work to be done to increase the quality of complex discussion features. Suggests there may be phases in the trajectory of learning to orchestrate effective mathematical discussions: teachers may develop strategies for encouraging a variety of approaches and ensuring equitable participation before they succeed in pressing for student connections and explanations (Kazemi and Stipek, 2001; Hufferd-Ackles et al., 2004). Introduction Observers took field notes and independently scored discussions on four-point, five-category rubric (developed by project staff), then negotiated differences to settle on single score Inter-rater reliability (within 10% [two points] on overall score) was 76% Setting and Participants Discussion FeatureMean Score Explanations2.3 Connection between ideas 2.55 Opportunities to participate 3.05 Equitable participation3.6 Variety of approaches3.6 Total Score15.1 A mean equitable participation score of 3.6 indicates most students displayed evidence of independent thinking at least once during the lesson in most classrooms; only one classroom scored below a 3. Need language for funding agency. Purpose Increase understanding of mathematical discussions and how they are enacted in different classrooms Consider implications regarding support teachers might need to advance the level of discussion in their classrooms Observation Instrument Rubric features: Variety of approaches, Equitable participation, Opportunities to participate, Connection between ideas, and Explanations (See Restani et al., this conference) Opportunities to participate: frequency and time allotted for student talk in partners or whole-class Equitable participation: number of students who shared independent thinking in whole-class discussion