Preservice teachers moved directly from attending to shaping more often than from attending to interpreting, and attending–interpreting links remained comparatively weak¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Transition counts show A→S occurred more frequently than A→I, suggesting preservice teachers often moved from attending directly to shaping without passing through interpretation. → Selen Galiç 2026 q2 i? ENA edge weights show attending–interpreting connections were weaker than interpreting–shaping and attending–shaping connections in Weeks 1 and 3. → Selen Galiç 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Selen Galiç 2026¶

Selen Galiç, Mathias Tejera, Sebastián Parodi, Markus Hohenwarter, Zsolt Lavicza. (2026). Preservice mathematics teachers' noticing in AI-based simulations: transitions among attending, interpreting, and shaping. ZDM – Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-026-01805-4

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

Group-level transition-frequency analysis across all coded noticing instances from the 17 preservice teachers over the three-week intervention. The article states the A→S transition "occurred more frequently than transitions from Attending to Inter- preting (A→I)".

"Transitions from Attending to Shaping (A→S) occurred more frequently than transitions from Attending to Inter- preting (A→I) suggesting that PTs more often moved di- rectly from attending to shaping rather than through inter- pretation."

Selen Galiç 2026 (2)¶

Selen Galiç, Mathias Tejera, Sebastián Parodi, Markus Hohenwarter, Zsolt Lavicza. (2026). Preservice mathematics teachers' noticing in AI-based simulations: transitions among attending, interpreting, and shaping. ZDM – Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-026-01805-4

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

ENA co-occurrence analysis at group level across the three weeks. The article reports attending–shaping edges were stable (0.47, 0.46, 0.46) while "Attending–Interpreting links remained comparatively weaker" with the printed weekly values, and concludes interpreting was more strongly coordinated with shaping than with attending.

"Connections between Attending and Shaping were also present across all three weeks (Week 1: 0.47; Week 2: 0.46; Week 3: 0.46), while Attending–Interpreting links remained comparatively weaker (Week 1: 0.30; Week 2: 0.54; Week 3: 0.23)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The dominant within-dimension noticing transition varied by week: attending in Week 1, interpreting in Week 2, and shaping in Week 3 — related
• Preservice teachers' interpreting and shaping dimensions show the strongest co-occurrence across all three weeks of AI-based simulation interactions — related
• Noticing in AI-based simulations was organised through both within-dimension continuity and between-dimension connections rather than a linear sequence — a broader claim this one bears on