This dissertation is a sequential qualitative case study that describes how prospective teachers begin to use strengths-based language and support students’ participation after participating in a digital learning experience on noticing and naming students’ mathematical strengths. The central research question guiding this work is: What feedback statements do prospective teachers (PTs) make before and after they receive explicit support for using strengths-based language and is there evidence of PTs’ sustained learning following this support? First, this study collected and analyzed prospective teachers’ feedback statements to students before and after a digital learning experience on noticing and naming students’ mathematical strengths (LessonSketch). The primary analysis used qualitative thematic coding to describe the type of language (strengths-based, mixed language, deficit-based, or uncommitted) used by six prospective teachers when making feedback statements and to qualify feedback statements. The secondary analysis followed two of the prospective teachers into field placements to determine if there was any evidence of sustained learning (as measured by PTs’ reflections on learning and moves in the classroom to support students’ participation). This study found that most (5 of 6) PTs moved from uncommitted or mixed language feedback statements to strengths-based feedback statements as a result of the digital learning experience. PTs went from mostly emerging strengths-based statements on the pre-assessment (20 of 28 statements) to primarily meaningful strengths-based statements on the post-assessment (22 of 28 statements). The overall finding from the secondary analysis is that while both PTs (Alicia and Marissa) showed positive shifts in their moves to support students’ participation only Marissa found the practice of noticing and naming students’ strengths as fundamental to her learning and teaching practice. On the other hand, both cases highlight examples of Marissa and Alicia, making specific and public feedback statements to position students' contributions positively and assign competence to students. Finally, tensions arise when PTs evaluate students’ responses for smartness while continuing to rank students’ responses and emphasize correctness.
|Commitee:||Brantlinger, Andrew, Chazan, Daniel, Levin, Daniel, Ramani, Geetha|
|School:||University of Maryland, College Park|
|Department:||Curriculum and Instruction|
|School Location:||United States -- Maryland|
|Source:||DAI-A 81/8(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Mathematics education, Teacher education|
|Keywords:||Assigning competence, Core instructional practices, Equity and access, Mathematical strengths, Preservice teacher education|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be