Individual trajectories varied: 9 of 14 teachers increased dialogic noticing per episode, while two teachers slightly decreased, which the authors attribute to limits of the nondirective intervention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Per-participant counts (Table 3) show 9 of 14 participants increased dialogic utterances per episode after the intervention; three showed milder increases (participants 2, 6, and 13) and two showed a mild decrease (participants 5 and 9). → Benzi Slakmon 2024

Evidence¶

Benzi Slakmon 2024¶

Benzi Slakmon, Rotem Abdu. (2024). Learning to notice collaboration: examining the impact of professional development on mathematics teachers’ enhanced awareness in CSCL settings. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 19:137–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-024-09423-6

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive per-participant analysis of attending and responding utterance counts before and after the intervention (Table 3, totals 107 to 241 across the 14 teachers). The article reports the counts descriptively; no per-participant effect size or test is printed for individual trajectories.

"In particular, 9 of the 14 participants showed a change in at least one more dialogic utterance per episode after the intervention. Three participants showed milder increases (2, 6, and 13), and two participants showed a mild decrease (5 and 9)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The increase in noticing dialogue was accompanied by a decrease in noticing mathematical activity, described as attentional tunneling — a design consideration for integrated dialogue-plus-content noticing training — related
• Dialogic noticing gains occurred in nearly all episodes — with significant increases in episodes 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 — except episode 6, which did not change — related
• After a dialogic-focused professional development intervention, mathematics teachers noticed student dialogue significantly more, in both attending (83 to 170 cases) and responding (24 to 71 cases) — related
• The intervention significantly increased teachers' noticing of six dialogic attributes — persuasive interaction, one leads and another is led, agreement and collective attention, students have equal status, dialogic gap, and monologue — but not of dialogue-expansion attributes — related
• Student-focused noticing marginally increased (Cohen's d = 0.43) while teacher-focused codes showed no change (d = 0.06)
• The intervention increased teachers' talk moves but decreased authentic teacher questions, contradicting the dialogic-practice hypothesis for questions — related
• All participant pairs ranked the fully student-led Dialog E best, and disagreement about the elaborative-revoicing Dialog B reflected differences in values rather than in noticing — related