Review reports lecturers' discourses vary: distinct teaching styles and routine profiles despite superficially similar lectures¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2027: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The review reports that lecturers characterized as teaching within the traditional DTP format nonetheless differed: Weber (2004) discerned logico-structural, procedural, and semantic teaching styles, Hemmi (2010) identified progressive, deductive, and classical styles, and Viirman (2014, 2015) found differences in the frequency and character of routines across lecturers. → Karavi 2022
Evidence¶
Karavi 2022¶
Karavi, Mali, & Avraamidou. (2022). Commognition as an approach to studying proof teaching in university mathematics lectures. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12173
q2 · i? · review · r2
The review synthesizes Weber's (2004) observational and interview study of one lecturer's real analysis course and Hemmi's (2010) interview study of mathematicians' pedagogical views, reporting the style typologies each produced. It also reports Viirman found lecturers used routines in "different ways and to different extent".
"the studies provided the language to characterize the teaching styles of the lecturers that took into account students' learning (i.e., progressive, deductive, and classical (Hemmi, 2010), and logico-structural, procedural, and semantic (Weber, 2004))."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Commognitive analysis of lecturing offers micro-level insights into lecturer-student communication that non-commognitive approaches miss — a broader claim this one bears on
- Review reports lecturers' discourse contains endorsed and enacted meta-rules about doing mathematics that can model mathematical behavior — related
- Review reports TAs sharing the same agenda provided different meta-level learning opportunities through object-level adaptations — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
lecturer-discourse-variability-in-styles-and-routines |
title |
Review reports lecturers' discourses vary: distinct teaching styles and routine profiles despite superficially similar lectures |
description |
Review reports lecturers' discourses vary: distinct teaching styles and routine profiles despite superficially similar lectures |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
recheck_by |
2027 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-25 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — karavi-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.