Orchestrating Whole Group Discourse to Mediate Mathematical Meaning

The most common pattern of classroom discourse follows a three-part exchange of teacher initiation, student response, and teacher evaluation or follow-up (IRE/IRF) (Cazden, 2001). Although sometimes described as encouraging illusory understanding (Lemke, 1990), triadic exchanges can mediate meaning (Nassaji & Wells, 2000). This paper focuses on one case from a study of discursive practices of seven middle grades teachers identified for their expertise in mathematics instruction. The central result of the study was the development of a model to explain how teachers use discourse to mediate mathematical meaning in whole group instruction. Drawing on the model for analysis, thick descriptions of one teacher’s skillful orchestration of triadic exchanges that enhance student understanding of mathematics are presented.

Adolescent Meaning Making of Past Experience

This study examined the meaning making processes of self-defining memories in adolescents, as well as how they co-construct the narratives of these events with their parents. The sample consisted of 53 students, aged 12-14, who came in for recorded laboratory sessions to discuss self-defining memories with their parents. These sessions were later coded on levels of meaning making and co-construction. These codes were, then, analyzed with the adolescents’ questionnaire scores regarding friendship quality, internalizing, and externalizing behaviors. The data revealed that adolescents and parents were both rated higher for more complex levels of meaning making and that those rated higher for more complex meaning making abilities had better friendship qualities. The implications of these findings were discussed in terms of their importance for parents supporting their children’s emotional expressivity, narrative abilities, and meaning making strategies.

Age Related Differences in Individual Quality of Life Domains in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Investigating individual, as opposed to predetermined, quality of life domains may yield important information about quality of life. This study investigated the individual quality of life domains nominated by youth with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Eighty young people attending a diabetes summer camp completed the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting interview, which allows respondents to nominate and evaluate their own quality of life domains. RESULTS: The most frequently nominated life domains were 'family', 'friends', 'diabetes', 'school', and 'health' respectively; ranked in terms of importance, domains were 'religion', 'family', 'diabetes', 'health', and 'the golden rule'; ranked in order of satisfaction, domains were 'camp', 'religion', 'pets', and 'family' and 'a special person' were tied for fifth. Respondent age was significantly positively associated with the importance of 'friends', and a significantly negatively associated with the importance of 'family'. Nearly all respondents nominated a quality of life domain relating to physical status, however, the specific physical status domain and the rationale for its nomination varied. Some respondents nominated 'diabetes' as a domain and emphasized diabetes 'self-care behaviors' in order to avoid negative health consequences such as hospitalization. Other respondents nominated 'health' and focused more generally on 'living well with diabetes'. In an ANOVA with physical status domain as the independent variable and age as the dependent variable, participants who nominated 'diabetes' were younger (M = 12.9 years) than those who nominated 'health' (M = 15.9 years). In a second ANOVA, with rationale for nomination the physical status domain as the independent variable, and age as the dependent variable, those who emphasized 'self care behaviors' were younger (M = 11.8 years) than those who emphasized 'living well with diabetes' (M = 14.6 years). These differences are discussed in terms of cognitive development and in relation to the decline in self-care and glycemic control often observed during adolescence. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents nominated many non-diabetes life domains, underscoring that QOL is multidimensional. Subtle changes in conceptualization of diabetes and health with increasing age may reflect cognitive development or disease adjustment, and speak to the need for special attention to adolescents. Understanding individual quality of life domains can help clinicians motivate their young patients with diabetes for self-care. Future research should employ a larger, more diverse sample, and use longitudinal designs.