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)¶

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? After the intervention, teachers noticed dialogic attributes significantly more than before (total noticing rose from 107 to 241 cases, p < 0.05). → Benzi Slakmon 2024 q2 i? Attending to dialogue rose significantly (83 to 170 cases) and responding to dialogue rose significantly (24 to 71 cases), both p < 0.05. → 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

Paired-samples t-test analysis (n = 14) of think-aloud interview utterances before and after an 80-minute dialogic-awareness lesson, coded for noticing stage and dialogic activity. The article reports "significantly (p < 0.05)" increases in total noticing (107 to 241), attending (83 to 170), and responding (24 to 71); no effect size is printed.

"After the intervention, teachers noticed the various dialogic attributes significantly (p < 0.05) more than in the pre-test (107 to 241 cases). Specifically, they attended to dialogue significantly (p < 0.05) more than in the pre-test (83 to 170 cases) and responded to dialogue significantly (p < 0.05) more than in the pre-test (24 to 71 cases)."

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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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
• 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 — 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• After the intervention, teachers' responses to dialogue focused on balancing student relations and eliciting dialogic gaps, yet some responses still promoted monologic narratives driven by mathematical correctness — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Subtle teacher guidance, not imposition, enables interdisciplinary integration in small-group deliberation — related
• A contrasting cases activity shifted the focus of preservice teachers' video noticing from teacher-focused to student-focused codes (significant time × subject-focus interaction)
• Student-focused noticing marginally increased (Cohen's d = 0.43) while teacher-focused codes showed no change (d = 0.06)