Qualities of Mathematical Discourse in Kindergartens

Investigation of Mathematical Discourse in Kindergarten

  • Authors: Per Sigurd Hundeland, Martin Carlsen, Ingvald Erfjord
  • Study Focus: Examined mathematical discourse in four kindergarten classes, distinguishing between two experimental and two control classes.

Research Background

  • Objective: Understand the characteristics of mathematical discourse in kindergarten education, emphasizing the significance of language for learning (based on Vygotsky's sociocultural theory).
  • Methodology: Combined qualitative and quantitative analyses to assess discourse dynamics.
  • Framework Used: Mathematical Discourse in Instruction (MDI) framework by Adler and Ronda.

Key Definitions

  • Mathematical Discourse: Communication involving mathematical concepts, vocabulary, and ideas.
    • Examples include counting, discussing geometric properties, and comparative sizes.
  • Three Levels of Mathematical Discourse:
    1. Level 1: Basic responses (one-word answers).
    2. Level 2: Longer responses (phrases or sentences).
    3. Level 3: Complex reasoning and arguments (why questions, explanations).

Methodology Details

  • Participants: 5-year-old children and their kindergarten teachers (KTs) across various mathematical activities.
  • Activities: Engaging tasks involved both guided and free play to develop mathematical understanding.
  • Data Collection: Video recordings of classroom activities, analyzed for discourse quality using MDI framework.

Findings from Experimental vs Control Groups

  • Duration of Activities: Experimental group spent significantly more time on mathematical activities (22-32 minutes) compared to the control group (8.5-11.5 minutes).
  • Engagement: KTs in experimental classes fostered deeper mathematical engagement and discussions.

Differences in Discourse

  • Distribution of Time:
    • Experimental classes showed higher children engagement under minimal teacher interference, allowing independent exploration.
  • Nature of Contributions:
    • Experimental classes had more substantial contributions from children, with higher levels of complex reasoning (Level 2 and 3) identified in their responses than in control classes.

Analytical Insights

  • Role of KTs: Essential for guiding discourse, ensuring all children participated, while maintaining the focus on mathematical objectives.
  • Verbal Utterances: Balance between mathematical and non-mathematical prompts kept discussions interactive.
  • Engagement Patterns: Although all children participated, contributions varied significantly, indicating different levels of comfort and engagement in discourse.

Implications for Teaching Practices

  • Professional Development: In-service training for KTs improves their ability to engage children in mathematical dialogue.
  • Curriculum Design: Emphasizing playful learning and inquiry methods enhances children’s mathematical understanding.
  • Future Research: Calls for further exploration on fostering deeper mathematical reasoning in early education contexts.

Conclusion

  • Summary: Effective mathematical discourse in kindergarten occurs via structured teacher guidance, active child participation, and prolonged engagement in mathematical activities. The research suggests that professional development for KTs is crucial for cultivating significant mathematical dialogues in early childhood education.