The role of appropriation in guided reinvention: establishing and preserving devolved authority with low-attaining students

Yvette Solomon,Stephen Gough,Susan Hough

doi:10.1007/s10649-020-09998-5

Yvette Solomon, Stephen Gough + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09998-5

Copy DOI

Abstract

Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) relies on the pedagogy of guided reinvention, in which opportunities for learning are created through the teacher’s orchestration of whole-class mathematical discussion towards a specific goal. However, introducing an RME approach to students who are accustomed to traditional teaching requires a substantial shift in roles, particularly with respect to the devolution of authority from teacher to student. In this study, we worked with low-attaining students, implementing RME to improve understanding of fractions. The analysis highlights how the introduction of guided reinvention is supported by extended wait time and teacher neutrality, but also by teachers’ appropriation of student strategies as a basis for supporting shared authority in the joint construction of mathematical ideas. The article considers the relationship between guided reinvention, appropriation and student agency.

Highlights

Background and contextAs Maass, Cobb, Krainer, and Potari (2019) point out, international evidence persistently highlights a mismatch between the innovative pedagogy advocated by mathematics education researchers and the reality of teachers’ practice
Drawing on an analysis of the same lesson taught by two experienced Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) teachers, we explore the strategies they use to establish the classroom norms that underpin guided reinvention
We investigate the role of appropriation in the establishment of new shared authority where students have no expectations of taking up this kind of agency in school mathematics, having always “defin[ed] themselves as outsiders with respect to mathematical discourse” (Amit & Fried, 2005, p. 165)

Summary

Introduction

Background and contextAs Maass, Cobb, Krainer, and Potari (2019) point out, international evidence persistently highlights a mismatch between the innovative pedagogy advocated by mathematics education researchers and the reality of teachers’ practice. As Francis, Connolly et al (2017) note, being placed in a low attainment group generates low self-expectations on the part of students, despite the fact that they may complain that the teaching they receive is lacking in interest and challenge (Francis et al, 2019). This recent research reflects long-standing evidence that students are aware that the procedural methods in lower attainment mathematics classes construct them as failures (Boaler, Wiliam, & Brown, 2000).

Methods

Results

Conclusion