talking about teaching episodes

RICARDO NEMIROVSKY, CARA DIMATTIA, BRANCA RIBEIRO and

TERESA LARA-MELOY

TALKING ABOUT TEACHING EPISODES

ABSTRACT. This paper examines two types of discourse in which teachers engage

when discussing case studies based on classroom episodes, and the ways in which the

availability of video data of these episodes may motivate a shift in the mode of dis-

course used. We interviewed two pairs of secondary school mathematics teachers after

they had read a case study based on a 16-minute mathematics classroom episode taped

in a secondary school in the United States. During each interview, a multimedia version

of the case study, including video of the original episode, was available to the partic-

ipants. We identify two modes of discourse engaged in by the teachers during the

interviews: Grounded Narrative and Evaluative Discourse. We examine and identify the

characteristics of the two discourse forms, drawn from both video and textual analysis.

These characteristics are self-reflective talk, perspective, ethics, and linguistic patterns.

The identification of two modes of discourse is relevant for researchers and teacher

educators using case studies or video recordings. In addition, the findings provide

insight into how teachers are ‘‘seeing’’ classroom events in a video case study.

TALKING ABOUT TEACHING EPISODES

Twenty years ago a distinctive strand of literature on the roles and

uses of cases in teacher education emerged (Merseth, 1996; Shulman,

1986). Inspired in part by the long-term use of cases in management

and medical education (Barnes, Christensen, & Hansen, 1994), this

literature claimed that using cases of teaching could be pivotal for

teacher education. A rationale given was the need for teachers to learn

by reflecting in ways that are situated in the nature of teaching.

I envision case methods as a strategy for overcoming many of the most seriousdeficiencies in the education of teachers. Because they are contextual, local, and

situated—as are all narratives—cases integrate what otherwise remains separated(Shulman, 1992, p. 28).

Departing from the view of teaching as a process of applying

theoretical principles and portraying it as a practical endeavor, several

educators elaborate on the epistemology and learning associated with

‘‘practical knowledge’’ (Fenstermacher, 1994; Shulman, 1986; Sykes &

Bird, 1992), whose growth has traditionally been associated with rich

examples and engagement with specific situations of teaching.

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (2005) 8:363–392 � Springer 2005

DOI 10.1007/s10857-005-3848-3

Recent research on teacher thinking has broadened the conceptualization of theteacher from the one who operates with a narrow set of prescribed theories of

propositions to one who defines his or her knowledge as situation-specific, contextdependent, and ever emerging.... Teacher action derives from induction frommultiple experiences, not deduction from theoretical principles (Merseth, 1996,

p. 724).

Different taxonomies have been proposed for the identification of

different types of cases and ways of discussing them. For example,

Sykes and Bird (1992) propose that cases can be created and treated as

(1) instances of theories, (2) problems for deliberate and reflective

action, (3) material for the development of narratives, and (4) material

for the development of casuistry, that is, the internal and tacit logic

developed through the consideration of multiple cases. Shulman (1992)

distinguishes between cases ‘‘as occasions for offering theories to ex-

plain why certain actions are appropriate’’ (p. 3) and cases as ‘‘vehicles

for inquiry and debate regarding proper ethical and moral behavior’’

(p. 7).

In all instances, what counts is not only the content and structure

of the case itself but also the ways in which it is discussed and talked

about: ‘‘It matters both what is discussed and how it is discussed’’

(Merseth, 1996, p. 727). Many case studies are framed as research pa-

pers; therefore, teachers� talk about case studies often relates to their

views about research literature. A few studies have been conducted

into how educational research literature is read and talked about by

teachers, and how teachers tend to feel alienated from the academic

styles that they see represented in these papers. Kennedy (1997) for

example, gave samples of research papers adapted for teachers to read

and then interviewed them about their reactions. She discussed the

interplay between an author�s conclusions in the paper and the prior

beliefs and experiences that teachers often used to the evaluate them.

However, this work did not address methods of discourse engaged in

by the discussants, or the impact of the use of multimedia on styles of

discourse. This paper will attempt to address these issues.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions addressed in this study are:

• What types of discourse do teachers engage in when discussing

classroom-based cases?

• In what ways does the availability of classroom video motivate a

shift or further development in their modes of discourse?

364 RICARDO NEMIROVSKY ET AL.

• How do these discourse modalities relate to the mathematical

content of the classroom episode?

These research questions are of great relevance for researchers and

teacher educators, so that they are aware of what discourses are being

enacted, how to stimulate shifts across them, and how the use of video

can play in role in reflective discussion.

In this study, we identify and elaborate on two different ways in

which talk about cases of teaching occurs. We call one of these modes

of talk or discourse Grounded Narrative, whose aim is to articulate

descriptions of classroom events accounting for the available evidence.

We call the second type of discourse Evaluative Discourse. This type of

talk centers on the values, virtues and commitments at play in the

case. We find in the literature references to narrative construction

(e.g., Richert, 1991; Shulman, 1991), and to teacher evaluative talk

(Harrington & Garrison, 1992; Levin, 1993; Seago, 2000). However, a

detailed analysis of these two types of discourse, and of how teachers

project attitudes and meanings through these modes of talk, is missing

in the literature.

We also investigate the question of whether the availability of the

classroom video referenced in the written case study motivates

the development of the modes of discourse used. We conjecture that

the actual use of video is likely to have a deep impact on how a case

is ‘‘read’’ or ‘‘viewed’’. Thus, a case study that includes the classroom

video allows the reader/viewer to ascertain the extent to which the

conclusions of the case study seem well grounded and to generate

alternative interpretations (Sherin, 2004).

METHODOLOGY

The Study

We conducted and filmed interviews with three pairs of teachers. All

interviewees teach mathematics in schools located in the Boston,

Massachusetts area of the U.S. Prior to their interviews, the teachers

were asked to read a text-only research paper to prepare for discus-

sion. During the interviews they had access to the multimedia version

of the research paper, as well as their printouts of the original paper.

In this way, we explored how the availability of the classroom video

might make a difference in teachers� modes of talk and reflection.

The interviews were designed to be open conversations rather than

scripted exchanges. The participants were not requested to analyze or

365TALKING ABOUT TEACHING EPISODES

discuss the video in any particular way. The interviewer did not follow a

list of questions, but tried to generate interventions that would make

clearer and more explicit the issues that the participants cared about.

This interview approach requires that the interviewer is not a neutral

observer, but a participant whose role is to motivate the conversation

and to make it as explicit and clear as possible. In the following discus-

sion, we will use the terms conversation and interview interchangeably

since often the talk flowed freely without prompting from the

interviewer. Apart from Jesse Solomon, all names used are pseudonyms.

Video Analysis

Our approach to the analysis of the videotaped interviews shares a

number of commonalities with Interaction Analysis as described by

Jordan and Henderson (1995) and the interpretive approach described

by Packer and Mergendoller (1989). Rather than approaching the

filmed interviews with a predetermined coding scheme, we allowed the

analysis to ‘‘emerge from our deepening understanding’’ of the events

unfolding on the videotaped record (Jordan & Henderson, 1995, p. 43).

We analyzed the interviews with a sociolinguistic approach

(Goffman, 1981). Accordingly, we developed detailed transcriptions

that annotated tones of voice, gestures, utterance overlaps, gaze

direction, changing speed of utterances, and silences. Transcript anno-

tations are described in the Appendix. With the assistance of a socio-

linguist experienced in the multilayered study of conversations (Branca

Ribeiro), we produced a full transcription for these three interviews.

Through close readings of these transcripts, we worked to identify

ways in which the participants position themselves in the discussion, as

well as how the classroom events resonate in their life experiences.

The goal of this study was to examine a few cases in depth with the

idea that any conversation among teachers about classroom events

reflects certain types of discourse. While a given conversation can be

more or less clear in this respect, forms of discourse are always

present. We were not interested in describing all possible forms of

discourse; rather, we strove to compare just two.

Our characterization of evaluative and grounded narrative forms of

discourse does not rely on an isolated list of specific traits, but on the

articulation of examples; that is, of excerpted transactions in the con-

versation which convey the full sense of these discursive traits. The reli-

ability of the analysis is not given by the coincidence of interpretations

among researchers, but by making available to readers rich examples


transcribed in detail, so that it is possible for them to recognize (or not)

discursive forms similar to the ones proposed by the authors.

The Research Paper: The Content

In order to conduct the study we chose a research paper entitled

‘‘Mathematical Conversations’’, from which the authors had also

developed a multimedia version of the text (Solomon & Nemirovsky,

in press). The paper examined a 16-minute classroom conversation,

captured on video in a high school math class. The two main themes

of the ‘‘Mathematical Conversations’’ paper are the nature of

open-ended problems and the sources for the ‘‘sense of direction’’

emerging in a classroom conversation. The authors argue that what

makes a mathematics problem open-ended is not so much its textual

definition but the classroom culture within which it is discussed and

figured out. They also contend that the sense of direction of a mathe-

matical conversation does not follow pre-planned paths; instead it is

co-developed by the teacher and students.

We include here a description of the classroom episode encompass-

ing only those aspects that the reader would need in order to

understand the transcript of the interview study. The episode followed

a question posed by one student (Maria) about a homework problem

that she could not solve.

At the start of the class, the teacher, Mr. Solomon, asked the stu-

dents whether they had had difficulties with the homework, intending

to devote a few minutes to review the assignment. Maria said that she

did have difficulties with Problem #18, which gave a sequence of four

numbers: 1, 8, 27, 64,..., asked students to graph at least six points,

and to decide whether the sequence appeared to have a limit. Discus-

sion of this problem was not part of the lesson plan for that day.

Maria started by saying:

‘‘I couldn�t figure out what the next two would be. I figured- I did the differences,I did multiplication, I tried times 2 plus 4, times 2 plus 3. I tried that. I couldn�tget it. My mom couldn�t get it, and she told me just clean my room.’’

Students started to brainstorm possible rules including power and

linear relationships (e.g., 8Æ8=64; (1+8)Æ3=27; etc.). Mr. Solomon

recorded their ideas on the overhead projector. This interaction had

complex emotional and interpersonal nuances. While all ideas were

accepted for consideration, some were refuted with irony and others

engendered laughs by the providers of the suggestions themselves. At

one point Mr. Solomon asked the group whether they wanted him to


reveal the 5th term in the sequence. The group was divided. Some

students rejected that possibility because they felt that they should be

able to get it by themselves. Jamal argued that he had the solution but

would not tell it in order to ‘‘let others think.’’ After being pressured

by the students and Mr. Solomon, Jamal agreed to tell his solution.

Jamal thought that the solution was based on successive differences.

However, Jamal soon realized that he had made a mistake (he had

miscalculated one of the first differences as 21), therefore his idea

would ‘‘not work.’’ However, having the first differences written on

the transparency, other students started to play with patterns such as

the second digit being 7, 9, 7,... and the first digit being the sequence

of odd numbers, or the previous one plus 1, plus 2, plus 3, and so on.

Several students gave their opinions along the way on the value of

the ideas offered and of the conversation itself (e.g., whether Mr.

Solomon should tell the 5th number, requests to ‘‘move on’’ when

certain approaches seemed unfruitful, or assertions that four numbers

are too few to work with). Students proposed different 5th numbers

for the sequence: 121, 133, 113, and 123. Naomi made the case for 123

by postulating that the 4th first difference would be 59 because the

second digit alternates 7 and 9 and the first digit, 5, is next in the

sequence of odd numbers (so that 59+64 =123).

From the researchers� perspective, this defense of 123 was a turning

point of the conversation because hitherto the class held a tacit

assumption that there was a unique ‘‘right’’ number known by Mr.

Solomon. This assumption was also shared by Mr. Solomon in the

sense that he did have in mind a target value of 125. Mr. Solomon

responded to Naomi�s argument for 123 by saying, ‘‘Okay, that could

work.’’ His assertion marked an important shift for the class by

acknowledging the multiplicity of possible sequences.

Next, Nadia proposed the answer of 121. She started by asserting,

‘‘I didn�t stop at finding the difference between the numbers given. I

found the difference between the differences.’’ Apparently, Nadia had

generated 121 by assuming that the third difference of 6 remained

constant. After correcting an arithmetic mistake pointed out by Mr.

Solomon, she changed the 121 into a 125.

The bewildered reaction from some students was immediate, ‘‘This is

ridiculous! Differences from differences!’’ ‘‘This is crazy.’’ Mr. Solomon

recognized the connection between polynomial powers and the constancy

of successive differences. This is how he described it in his journal:

Although I knew something about the use of differences in determining the kindof polynomial equation, these ideas were not fresh in my mind and I was not


completely confident that I knew how or why a constant third difference indicatesa cubic function. It may have taken until the end of this episode for me to see

clearly.

Mr. Solomon explained to the class that even though he or the

textbook had an answer in mind, there are infinitely many possible

rules to continue the sequence; it just happens that the set 1, 8, 27, 64

is a familiar one, suggesting to many people the rule 13=1, 23=8,

33=27, … Several students reacted with a sense of ‘‘of course’’ (‘‘Oh,

yeah, I knew it!’’). Shortly afterwards, Mr. Solomon pointed out the

mathematical significance he had recognized in this technique of

successive differences:

‘‘So, what actually you just discovered is this method that people use to find outwhat kind of function describes their sequence. So, just by taking successive differ-

ences, if you kept doing this, and said, Oh! It�s always 6, that would automaticallytell you that you�ve found a 3rd degree function.’’

The Research Paper in Multimedia Format: VideoPaper

Videopapers1 are multimedia documents that include a text frame, a vi-

deo frame, and an image frame, the contents of which are interrelated

in multiple ways. (see Figure 1). Videopapers can be seen with a web

browser, and thus are readily accessible by a wide audience. All

the components are linked and synchronized. The ‘‘Mathematical

Conversations’’ videopaper contains the full 16 minute classroom video

on which the text was originally based; the video can be played, scrol-

led through, stopped, rewound, or otherwise viewed according to the

user�s preference. The video is captioned with the transcript of the con-

versation; the full transcript is also included within the text area of the

videopaper. The full text of the original paper is also included, with the

addition of buttons inserted in the text which play intervals of video

associated with particular passages. A slide show of images is displayed

alongside the video, showing an alternate view of the classroom and

additional information about the mathematics being performed.

DATA ANALYSIS

Interview 1 Grounded Narrative Discourse

The Interview with June and Ron

June and Ron are first-year secondary school mathematics teachers.

They were classmates in graduate school and seem comfortable in


conversation together. They had both read the ‘‘Mathematical Conver-

sations’’ case study before arriving at their interview, which lasted for

an hour and a half. Throughout the interview, June and Ron need

little intervention from Teresa, the interviewer. Typically, they begin to

answer her specific questions and then turn to other issues and inter-

ests. They continue each other�s utterances and continually refer to

incidents in their own experience.

At the beginning of the interview, Teresa gives some background

on how to navigate through the ‘‘Mathematical Conversations’’

videopaper. They experiment with some of the videopaper elements for

a few minutes. June asks for background on what the class had been

studying when this homework problem came about, and why they

worked through the problem using �differences of differences� and not

factoring. They then watch the video in its entirety. The next hour is

spent discussing the videopaper. Teresa then brings up the idea of

open-endedness, and Ron expresses his interest in this question,

relating it to his experience as a teacher. There is some discussion

about lesson planning and the definition of �open-ended�: whether

Mr. Solomon had meant this to be an open-ended discussion, or had a

particular answer in mind.

Ron and June then had a lengthy conversation, a segment of which

is presented below, in which they track the series of events leading to

Figure 1. Example of a VideoPaper with arrangement of video, image and textelements identified.


the idea of �differences of differences� and develop a narrative to

explain the students� thinking and participation. They continue track-

ing this idea of �differences of differences� until nearly the end of the

interview.

Annotated Transcript

June came to the interview interested in figuring out why Solomon�sclass had solved a problem of number sequences using successive

differences. For June, this solution was an unusual one, and she

wondered whether it would have ever taken place in her own class.

This concern led Ron and June to work on tracing the origins of this

idea within the filmed classroom conversation. Their data analysis was

grounded in their non-linear examination of the video, with references

back to the text paper, and took a form that we call ‘‘Grounded

Narrative.’’ For this section, we chose a 4-minute segment during

which June and Ron discussed the origins of the ‘‘differences of the

differences’’ idea and developed a growing sense of what kind of

persons the students were and of their subjective experiences. Our

commentaries are inserted throughout the transcription, in an attempt

to articulate how a grounded narrative unfolds. For clarity, the

transcript is annotated using conventions defined in the Appendix.

Segment 1.

The following excerpt begins right after Teresa asked ‘‘Do you have

any sense that there is one of those students that is a better student

than the others?’’ Ron said no, but June said yes and that ‘‘Jamal and

Nadia probably are used to struggling with stuff, working it through,

playing with the numbers.’’ Teresa asked ‘‘Can you show me?’’ June

pointed to instances of Jamal�s style of work, and then of Nadia:

June�s observations in [1] and [3] about Nadia combine her

memories from both her reading of the paper and her watching of the

1. June: [looking at paper]and then Nadia just keeps plugging away,and then she�s- she realizes she did (.) something ahm wrong withher subtraction,

[turns page fwd.]2. Teresa: mmm mmm.3. June: and (.) she said ‘‘okay, wait (.) I might have a different number.’’

I forget where that is [Turns page back.]And she�s- (.) like working away there, while y�know other people arediscussing stuff.=

4. Teresa: =mmm mmm.=


video. The image of Nadia ‘‘plugging away’’ and ‘‘working away’’

while everyone else is talking comes from the video (nothing is written

to that effect in the paper); however, June looked for a specific,

remembered quote by Nadia in the text [3]. June refers to the follow-

ing piece of transcript: ‘‘Nadia: wait, my numbers might change then’’.

Note June�s use of ‘‘where’’ in [3]: it alluded to a particular page in the

paper, as well as to a particular moment in the classroom episode

during which Nadia had uttered her request to ‘‘buy time’’ to correct

her mistake and change her prediction. This overlapping page/moment

was part of a broader classroom circumstance during which Nadia

was intensely working out her ideas while the class discussed other

issues, and of June�s attempt to validate her impression of Nadia being

used to ‘‘struggle with stuff.’’ This is an example of what we call

’’zooming in’’, that is, examining the particulars of a specific event

(e.g., Nadia fixing her mistake) while deepening the broader circum-

stances it is part of (e.g., Nadia�s style of work, her arithmetical

mistake opposed to her reasoning, etc.). The conversation goes on:

In [5] June found the text she was looking for (see Figure 2), but

instead of reading the line she had been quoting in [3] she reads one that

comes before (‘‘I didn�t stop at finding the differences’’); her choice

shifted the conversation from describing Nadia�s style of work to

addressing the question �Who had come up with the ‘‘difference of

differences’’ idea?� with the answer of Nadia. However, she immediately

added hesitation to her answer (‘‘I think’’), which had the effect of

leaving the question somewhat open. Ron, in his first utterance in this

Figure 2. Text of the case study that June quotes from and references in [5].

5. June: =okay, yeah. [Finds reference]Nadia says [quoting, see Figure 2] ‘‘okay. well I- I didn�t stop atfinding the differences.’’She�s the one who went to the differences between the differences.=

I think. (...)6. Teresa: =mmm mmm


segment (see [12]) will propose an alternative: ‘‘Maria said she did the

differences’’.

The point we want to highlight is that a grounded narrative

discourse attempts to address many questions at once. While June was

looking for a transcript line that would show Nadia�s work style, she

found another line, next to the one she was looking for, that seemed

to answer another question she had in mind: how did the ‘‘differences

of differences’’ idea come about? In other words, a grounded narrative

discourse can work on many layers in the text or video that strives to

narrate, referring to students� styles or the growth of ideas, and that it

often shifts across them.

Segment 2.

In [7] June describes the first two utterances reproduced in

Figure 2. Note how her description adopts the form of an ‘‘and then’’

narrative: ‘‘And then she got 12, (.) and 16, and then (.) Jesse [Mr.

Solomon] says �maybe it�s 18�. ’’ This is a ‘‘micro-narrative’’ because it

narrates two utterances that took only 18 seconds. As such, it is

another case of ‘‘zooming in’’. Another important quality of this

micro-narrative to point out is the way in which the narrative reflects

selective choices. For example, June did not include Nadia�s doubt

about her 16 (‘‘wait, did I get 16?’’).

7. June: [looking at transcription, see Figure 2] And then she got 12, (.) and16, and then (.)Jesse says ‘‘maybe it�s 18.’’ (laughs)

8. Teresa: mmm mmm.

9. June: And then Nadia says ‘‘okay wait,’’ and then she she goes back. (..)[turns to next page]And she�s she�s plugging away at the numbers while everyone else istalking,

okay, then she comes back.10. Teresa: mmm mmm.

[long pause, in which June seems to be reading the paper]

11. June: And then she says ‘‘125.’’ (.)So, she obviously (.) made the correction and went back up, anddid (.) the reverse of taking the differences by adding on 6 to get

the next one,and then 24 to get the next one and then 125.Cause that�s not recorded in the conversation, nor in the video.


June continues extending her narrative to encompass the sub-

sequent events. She says that Nadia ‘‘goes back’’ means that Nadia

returns to her notes to work out the new prediction by herself.

June�s assertion in [9] that while ‘‘everyone else is talking’’ is likely

to reflect both Nadia�s absence in the ensuing paper�s transcription as

well as June�s memory of having seen Nadia in the video working by

herself. Note that June excludes all the talk among students between

‘‘she goes back’’ and ‘‘then she comes back’’: because she is tracking

Nadia, what everyone else is saying becomes a background to

Nadia�s being away.

June marks Nadia�s ‘‘coming back’’ by making her publicly

announce ‘‘125’’. In the episode Nadia says several times that she

got 125, interposed with other dialogues going on in between. June

puts aside this multiplicity and the intervening dialogues by compact-

ing all of that into ‘‘and then she says 125’’. This is another aspect

of a grounded narrative: compressing multiple transactions into one

event or utterance. We call this ‘‘zooming out’’ in contrast to

‘‘zooming in’’ which, as we have seen, entails pulling apart all the

aspects that take place simultaneously or immediately together in an

event or utterance.

June asserts that Nadia�s process of getting 125 is not documented

in the paper or in the video. She feels that she is inferring how

‘‘obviously’’ Nadia had got it. However, there is an exchange in the

video that documents it (see Figure 3). It could be that June knows

how Nadia got the 125 because she thought of this result by herself,

without a conscious recollection of the exchange. The point here is

that a grounded narrative combines events experienced as ‘‘having

been seen’’ with others experienced as ‘‘being inferred’’, and that in

many cases the narrator makes this distinction explicit, as June did

in [11].

Figure 3. Transcript of video segment included in the VideoPaper, the text ofwhich is not included in the original paper.


Segment 3.

Grounded Narrative also changes the scope or boundaries of events.

Ron has been listening to June and flipping through the paper. He

suddenly jumps in:

So far Ron had been sitting quietly, apparently removed from the

conversation, but what June had said in [5] (‘‘She�s [Nadia] the one

who went to the differences between the differences.’’) sparks his

search in the paper. In [12] he announces a different possibility. Teresa

responds by asking for bearings in [13], ‘‘Where are you?’’ It is

understood that one is wherever one is paying attention or referring

to. ‘‘When she went home’’ was enough of a reference point to help

June and Teresa locate Maria�s intervention at the beginning of the

transcript included in the ‘‘Math Conversations’’ paper (see Figure 4).

The point of this commentary is to illustrate the shift in topics (i.e.,

from Nadia�s style of work to the origin of the ‘‘differences of differ-

ences’’ idea), and the accompanying shift in the range of events

encompassed by the narrative (i.e., Maria�s first utterance became a

new beginning for a narrative that would end with the same return

of Nadia with her ‘‘125’’). This segment also illustrates the use of

multiple data sources for the examination and discussion of ideas.

12. Ron: Maria said she did the differences. (..)13. Teresa: where are you?14. Ron: she said when she went home,=15. June: =yeah=

16. Ron: =she did the differences. She did multiplication.(..)Alright, so that�s where the word differences, I think, comes upfirst right?=

17. June: =ah

18. Ron: okay. (.) Then she says- wait- no then Margaret says there�s nosequence, [flipping pages]the only comment (...) but then for some reason, where does thedifferences come out?

19. June: Jamal again. (...)20. Ron: like who says 1 8 27 64? (...) I mean, 721. June: right here.

22. Ron: 27 (..)23. June: Jamal, here.=24. Ron: =yeah. the differences between, the differences between=


In [18], Ron closes the first instance of ‘‘differences’’ and inserts a

‘‘then’’ asserting a bridge to the ensuing instance which he does not

find as he flips pages. June finds it in [19] (‘‘Jamal again’’) and points

at its location on the paper [21, 23] (see Figure 5). Ron and June have

embarked on the development of a new narrative to account the

successive appearances of the term ‘‘differences’’. Turns taken in the

discourse [18–24] reflect another case of zooming out through which

all the events that took place between Maria�s utterance and Jamal�sare shifted to the background.

In [25] June notes that ‘‘Molly quickly says the other two numbers’’,

an observation that prompts Ron to read aloud a line in the paper�scommentary [26]. They aligned themselves with the interpretation of

Figure 4. Text of the case study that Ron alludes to in [12].

25. June: =yeah. (..) /he says-/ he comes up with 7 (.)then he ahm- Molly (.) ah- quickly says the other two numbers.

26. Ron: Molly said-she had she had

[pointing to the paper and quoting] ‘‘she had probably alreadytakenthe first differences.’’

27. June: alright yeah. She reacted that�s why.28. Ron: but Jamal was the first one that brought (that up) the differences

(.) in the discussion(there).=

29. June: =yeah and I think he sensed that, y�know, there were other people(.) since Molly saw it,y�know, he said ‘‘oh yeah yeah yeah.’’=

30. Teresa: =mmm mmm.=31. June: =he wanted to see them [the numbers] up there.(..)

and I think that sometimes kids do do that.They�ll- they�ll say ‘‘I know there�s something in there.’’ (.)

They don�t have to own it, necessarily though, y�know.=32. Teresa: =own it?33. June: own, like- (..) y� know, what is the pattern in the differences, but

there�s something there,y�know=

34. Teresa: =mmm mmm.=


Molly�s utterance articulated in the paper (‘‘alright yeah’’). Right after

asserting that Jamal had been the first to introduce this idea into the

discussion in [28], Ron moved toward searching for the next instance of

‘‘difference of differences’’ idea, but June began to further elaborate on

Jamal�s contribution. June thinks that Molly�s parallel uttering of the

sequence of differences added to Jamal�s ‘‘sense’’ that there was some-

thing significant and moved him to request that the numbers to be

written ‘‘up there’’ on the overhead projector. Jamal�s request triggereda feeling of familiarity in June [31], ‘‘I think that sometimes kids do do

that’’. June attempts to make explicit what that is by voicing what, she

thinks, kids sometimes think: ‘‘I know there is something in there’’.

Elaborating a narrative account is not merely a matter of highlight-

ing a sequence of events; each event has its own implications and

colors what the whole is about. This particular allusion to differences

led June to reflect on the dynamics between individual contributions in

a group conversation. It suggested the centrality of the common

overhead projector to shape group interaction and the inherent negoti-

ation of what deserves to be projected in front of everyone. Note how

a narrative account expresses at once grounded evidence (e.g. ‘‘here,

he says’’), interpretations (‘‘he sensed that there were other people...’’),

and the background of life experience (‘‘kids sometimes do do that’’).

The segment goes on as follows:

Figure 5. Text of the case study that June alludes to in [19].

35. Ron: =he just messed up the difference between 8 and 27.=

36. June: =yeah.=37. Ron: =he said 21.=38. June: =right.=

39. Teresa: =mmm mmm.40. Ron: okay (..) so he knew that there was some kind of-

well he knew (.) to go to the next step to take the difference.=

41. June: =mmm.[We skip a few lines in which Ron comments on technical issues]42. June: where did you see Molly say (..)43. Teresa: right here [pointing to paper, see Figure 6]

44. June: ‘‘there�s no pattern?’’Oh. (.) oh, okay. so she�d given up on that series.

45. Teresa: mmm mmm.


From [35] to [40] Ron examines Jamal�s intervention from a differ-

ent angle. According to him, Jamal felt he knew that the sequence of

differences would solve the problem. Seeing that Jamal gave up on the

sequence of differences because of his arithmetical mistake, June tries

to understand why Molly had also dismissed it. But Teresa only finds

the line in Figure 6. There are limits to how far one can zoom in,

given the availability of evidence. June could elaborate nothing further

on Molly�s decision to abandon the path of the differences.

Teresa and June zoom out all that happens between Jamal and

Molly�s dismissal of the sequence of differences and Nadia�s talk of the

differences of differences. Nadia was, as June had noted before, work-

ing quietly: ‘‘plugging away’’. The two narratives, the one that

attempted to account for what type of student Nadia is and the one

tracing the origins of the differences of differences idea, end up

overlapping. Since Nadia is ‘‘out of the picture’’ they cannot zoom

into how she decided to use constant second differences, an unusual

decision to June (‘‘because: y�know, who would think to go to the next

difference’’). The fact that June herself would not have attempted this

solution was a crucial aspect of June�s perception, prompting her to

wonder why Nadia had tried it.

46. June: yeah, that�s funny, because:: y�know, who would think to go to thenext difference,but (.) Nadia decided to.

47. Teresa: but how: (..) after how long? (...)

I mean the second-the next thing that they do is they go after the ahm- pattern of thenumbers,

going to the 7 the 9 and-48. June: yeah, right, and talking about primes and they�re all chatting away

there,

but you don�t see Nadia talking. I think she�s like (.) scribbling awayand seeingsomething. (...)

49. Teresa: can we see that in the video?50. June: mmm. No, every time she does speak the camera pans to her.=51. Teresa: =mmm. (.)52. June: she�s like out of the picture.

Figure 6. Transcript from paper which Teresa points to in [43].


DISCUSSION

Through our commentaries, we tried to characterize the development

of a Grounded Narrative discourse. We call it ‘‘narrative’’ because it

highlights a sequence of events over time with a common plot or issue

that unfolds throughout, and ‘‘grounded’’ because the narrator

invokes the available evidence to make the case that the narrative is

‘‘real’’ rather than fictional. The narrators themselves motivate the

issues that the narrative attempts to account for. For instance, the

unfamiliarity of the ‘‘difference of differences’’ idea was a crucial

motivation for June to understand where it came from and whether

this idea could have emerged in her own classroom. We have noted

several traits of how a Grounded Narrative unfolds.

The development of a grounded narrative encompasses characteris-

tic shifts that we have called ‘‘zooming in’’ and ‘‘zooming out’’.

Zooming in entails dwelling in a particular event while keeping in mind

the broader occasion, pulling apart the different aspects involved, and

sometimes developing a micro-narrative that takes place ‘‘within’’ the

event. Zooming out establishes direct continuity across events sepa-

rated in time while shifting utterances occurring in-between to the

background. There are limits to how deep the narrator can zoom in or

out imposed by the available evidence, a fact expressed by June in [52].

A Grounded Narrative attempts to make several points at once and

at times shifts its focus from one to another. A Grounded Narrative

also changes in scope or in the range of events that constitute it. An

example is [12] where Ron redirects the narrative from what kind of

student Nadia is to the origins of the ‘‘differences of differences’’ idea.

Because of the ‘‘grounded-ness’’ of the narrative, the narrator is care-

ful to distinguish between events that have been seen from the ones that

have been inferred (e.g., [11]), to point out the evidence (e.g., [12–14]),

and to signal when evidence comes from life experience (e.g., [31]).

Grounded Narrative is a discourse prevalent among certain

research traditions dedicated to the production of ethnographies and

case studies. The fact that June and Ron engaged spontaneously in

such a discourse suggests that it can be an activity of common interest

for teachers and researchers, perhaps, as it was the case here, when the

evidence can be examined in flexible, non-linear ways.

Interview 2: Evaluative Discourse

The Interview with Carol and Cher

Cher and Carol are secondary school mathematics teachers with

30 years of experience. They teach at the same school and seem to be


on friendly terms. They both read the text version of the paper prior

to the two-hour interview.

Carol comments that she had been ‘‘anxious to see in the video’’

how an open-ended question played out. Cher then brings up the issue

of ‘‘telling versus not telling’’. Both refer to Mr. Solomon in positive

ways. Carol, quoting text from the paper to ground her opinion, says

that he had created a level of comfort needed to work with

open-ended questions. They then comment on techniques to encourage

participation and student discovery.

Annotated Transcript

Toward the end of the episode in the ‘‘Math Conversations’’ videopa-

per, Mr. Solomon stood up as he said, ‘‘let me tell you something’’

and started an explanation about successive differences as a technique

to identify the degree of a polynomial. Up to that point he had been

seated next to the overhead projector, annotating students� suggestionsand asking for ideas. Cher and Carol commented three times during

the interview on this shift in stance. We include in this section these

three excerpts that occurred at the beginning (right after watching the

video), in the middle, and toward the end of the interview.

Segment 1.

Cher made the first allusion to the shift from ‘‘doing all of

that’’, namely, letting the students experiment with their ideas, to

explaining them. This is a change from receptive to authoritative

1. Cher: But then I thought- that it- after letting them do all that, thenhe�s- he explains it to them.

He should let them (..) continue to (.) to get the rest of that out,2. Teresa: mmm.

.... ..... .....

7. Cher: I think he should have let them (..) do that. If he was going to letthem do all that hard part,he should have let them finish it. (.) You know?

8. Teresa: /You think so?/=

9. Cher: =Yeah!10. Teresa: Wha- Why? Does-11. Cher: I mean, I think that would have been appropriate in the context

of the way that lesson was going.12. Teresa: /mmm mmm/13. Cher: If I had something going on like that, I would have tried to (.) get

them to (.) to tell me that.


teaching. She uses the subjunctive mode in her talk: ‘‘He should let

them continue...’’ Her ‘‘should’’ implied a course of action that she

deemed preferable. Cher qualified this assessment with a conditional:

‘‘If he was going to let them do all that hard part...’’ suggesting

that, during the previous phase of the episode, momentum was

building for the students to figure out the idea by themselves, but

Mr. Solomon cut them short through explicit telling. In other

words, Cher pointed out an inconsistency between Mr. Solomon�sintent throughout the episode and the way he concluded it.

In [13] Cher introduced another element that we take to be character-

istic of an evaluative discourse: ‘‘If I had something going like that ...’’,

which is a contrast between what the other did and what one would have

done.

Carol initiated in [18] a line of response to Cher�s disappointment

through which she justified Mr. Solomon�s shift into a ‘‘frontal’’

teacher: he was not prepared to continue the discussion and in the

end, he told them the answer. A second element in Carol�s justification

[acc] [acc acc]18. Carol: But he would have had to give them more examples. He would have

had to give them an example where the difference was one. You knowwhat I mean? At that point.

[dec]And then, he might be, the math teachers that you and I are ‘‘Oops,this is still homework.

I�ve got my plan.’’ [laughter]19. Carol: I�m sure he realized this was a valuable lesson.20. Cher: yeah.

21. Carol: But I think at some point, y�know, we all get to the points where,ahm, ‘‘this hasbeen good

|but we�ve got to move the ball.’’22. Cher: |Yeah ( ) We don�t know where he was in the lesson.

But it just seems after (.)dragging that all out,.... .... .....

26. Carol: /yeah/I honest- I honestly think that wasn�t- that if if he had gonein planning to teach finite differences, this is a great way to

bring up finite differences.27. Cher: yeah.28. Carol: If he had gone in planning to teach that, I�m sure (.) he would have

had appropriate examples.But this just kind of came out of the blue, I�m sure, (.)for him.


was the likelihood that time constraints had forced Mr. Solomon ‘‘to

move the ball’’. Note that Carol�s arguments are all framed as a

matter of identification between Mr. Solomon and themselves [18].

At times, the discussion reached an impasse in the face of the

unknown: ‘‘We don�t know where he was in the lesson’’. These

unknowns prompted Carol to build hypothetical scenarios to be

contrasted with the filmed events, ‘‘If he had gone in planning to teach

that, (...) But this just kind of came out of the blue.’’ Carol agreed

with Cher that it would have been good, ideally, to let students come

up with the final explanation but that the circumstances prevented

Mr. Solomon from doing so. She makes the case that she, Cher, and

Mr. Solomon share similar values as to what good teaching is, but

that they all face constraints forcing them to deviate from the ideal

course of action.

30. Teresa: well (.) also I think maybe if you gave them (.) a square- a seriesof squares,they�d figure it out.

31. Carol: yeah. But they�d have to see it.

32. Teresa: ( ) maybe, who knows. Because you might find ( )33. Cher: And the next thing would be

how to get that- how to get some terms of the ahm, y�know, thecoefficient?

34. Carol: Right, where it�s not- where it�s not the-35. Cher: (the greater) In other words, it�s ahm (.) like the 6.

(.) You�re dividing like by the 6 ( ) 3 factorial, so that�s gets you a 1for a coefficient.So that�s like the next (.) the next level up on the formula, how

to get the coefficients.36. Teresa: mmm mmm.37. Carol: [to herself] Like 2, 16, 54...38. Cher: But they could�ve discovered- they could�ve discovered that too.

But I don�t know, of course we don�t know how much time( laughs)

39. Carol: yeah! I mean,

but they have the MCAS they�re going to have to take too.I mean, I can see where you you do (.) get on your podium andstart giving them the answers.=

40. Cher: =yeah.=41. Carol: =And that�s the whole (.) I gathered from reading this, this was a

nice-

an example where (.) the teacher doesn�t feed the answers, thestudentskind of get them.


In [33] Cher described a hypothetical instructional sequence: after

‘‘getting’’ that the successive differences tell the power degree, the next

stage is to figure out how the constant in the successive difference

gives us the value of the coefficient.2 She deems in [38] that the stu-

dents could have discovered this next idea too. Carol restated possible

constraints that Mr. Solomon might have faced—the same ones that

they encounter in their own teaching—leading him to ‘‘feed’’ students

with the answer. At the same time she gathered from the paper that

this is a case of the teacher not feeding answers. This last remark

offered Cher [42] an opportunity to point out the inconsistency in the

ending of the classroom episode.

Like Carol�s previous assertion that Mr. Solomon would have had

examples to guide the students to reach the conclusion [18], Cher�s def-inition of ‘‘the next thing’’ [33] implies the notion of instructional

sequences formed by examples and steps that lead students to discov-

ery. The authors of the paper had not been trying to exemplify situa-

tions in which the teacher avoids feeding answers, but rather situations

in which the teacher works with the students to develop an emerging

sense of direction, as opposed to pre-designed instructional sequences.

Carol and Cher both admit that things can come ‘‘out of the blue’’

making the teacher unable to enact a good instructional sequence

because of lack of preparation or time; their disagreement was on

whether unknown circumstances had possibly justified Mr. Solomon�sdeparture.

The crux of the matter was the interplay between values and

actual states of affairs. An Evaluative Discourse is, on the one

hand, about values and commitments (e.g., it is good to let students

discover ideas by themselves, it is good to prepare sequences of

examples to guide students� discoveries, etc.) and, on the other

hand, about the practical circumstances that allow for or block the

fulfillment of these values; in between, there is the more or less

Ahm-42. Cher: Well, that�s what it says, [background voices] until until

the end there.43. Teresa: /mmm mmm./

44. Carol: But it might have been the bell was going to ring.[talking over each other:]

45. Cher: So I don�t know if that was him running out of time.

46. Teresa: ahm, right.


skillful performance of the instructional agents. Evaluative Discourse

deals with matters of ethics.

In [47] Teresa introduced a new dimension to the analysis: it

might be the case that Mr. Solomon stood up and explained

because the students deserved to be told. This remark brings into

play a wide range of issues (e.g. How does one know when stu-

dents have won the right to be told? Is there such a ‘‘right’’?),

which make ‘‘the shift’’ in his teaching appear as a genuine and

complex ethical dilemma.

Segment 2.

We skip several utterances in which they talk about two students;

Carol returns to Mr. Solomon:

47. Teresa: Do you- do you think – the students earned- ( )it was okay to tell them because they earned (laugh) the right toknow at this point.

48. Carol: Gee, I never thought of that! [overlapping with background voice

from Cher]49. Teresa: (The idea of) y� know, once you�ve worked hard enough on it,

may be it�s okay for you to find out the answer: oh- or the

explanation of why this works.

50. Carol:I really like the way the teacher�s ah- a little bit braver than I am(.) [laughter][dec]

in letting them go all these wrong ways, /and letting them / (..)

[acc] [dec]I mean wrong from getting the correct answer, and: (.) the false starts,all these-

all the false starts that, ahm, he allowed- (.).... .... ....I don�t know if I�d- (.) be that brave (laughs) for that amount of time,

to be letting them flounder.But it was amazing how (.) how they- (.) were so far off in some cases,/but they/ came right back without (.) intervention on his part.

[acc]/I mean that�s what amazed me in this whole thing./ He really- didn�tintervene that much,he just kept writing down ( )


Carol and Cher described the shift in diverse ways, from recorder

of students� suggestions to being authoritative, or from being one ‘‘of

them’’ to being the teacher. They bring their own appreciations of the

before/after based on what they themselves would do. Carol tells of an

admiring perception of what he did before, and Cher of a critical view

of what he did afterwards. To articulate this issue, Carol talked about

being ‘‘brave’’. That a teacher can be more or less brave implies that

there are risks that a teacher might decide to embrace or to avoid. In

this case, the risk stemmed from allowing students to ‘‘flounder’’ for

so long that they could lose themselves with flawed ideas without get-

ting ‘‘anywhere’’. The danger was that it might end up with a failure

situation with no sense of teaching and learning accomplishment.

Carol�s talk shows how an evaluative discourse brings into play all

ethical virtues, including courage, tolerance, and confidence.

Segment 3.

62. Cher: Yeah, I didn�t like him changing roles at the end. [laughs]63. Carol: I thought the bell was going to ring. I�m not as harsh as you are.64. Cher: She [Carol] was giving him the benefit of the doubt.65. Carol: Because you don�t know.66. Cher: I was thinking he should have just stayed there and just let it continue,

but you�re probably right, probably it was the end of the class (time).

51. Carol: It looked like he was sitting right with them. Like he was one of them.

52. Cher: Well, he was sitting down at the (.) right.53. Carol: yeah!54. Cher: And he didn�t get up. (.) Until right at the very end. ahm:

55. Carol: When he became a physical,56. Cher: right,57. Carol: authoritative (.) he knew it! He () the answer. You could see the

difference, right there.[overlapping conversation with Cher and Teresa in the background]

58. Cher: [gesturing towards computer screen] (and that�s- see that�s- thatwas- right-) He was one of them, and then he was- the teacher. So

ahm (.) ahm (.) I would have liked to see him continue,like I said, either (..) get more out of them, let them finish it off,or (.) if there were a time constraint, have them (.) have him (.) set

that as the next challenge59. Teresa: mmm mmm.60. Cher: to them and then (.) part of the homework.

61. Teresa: mmm mmm.


‘‘Being harsh’’, ‘‘Giving the benefit of the doubt’’: as with any

judgment, what counts is not only the deed that is being judged but

also the interpretive framework of the judge. One can be more or less

strict or lenient; moreover, this distinction is itself an expression of

values subject to debate. An evaluative discourse brings to the surface

the overall orientation of the speakers towards the events under

discussion—in this case, teaching, classroom dynamics, authority, and

so on. This is the subject of the ensuing transactions.

Carol strove to deflect Cher�s criticism of Mr. Solomon by referring

back to their practices. She described a situation that seems familiar to

Carol and Cher: the principal walking by and seeing that she ‘‘is

67. Carol: =Look at it this way. How many classes, how many times do younot stand up in front of your (class)?.... .... ....

71. Carol: and doing something. To be- to have- to have a new principal,

72. Teresa: mmm.73. Carol: an assistant principal walking ah- in the building now, they walk the

corridors a little-

a little more frequently than the previous ones did.And every time they walk by my room I�m in study hall. SoI�m sitting there.

They might not know it�s a study hall.3

I feel very self-conscious when they�re walking by my room andI�m seated.

[dec]As a teacher, I still take a negative connotation to being seatedduring a class.

74. Cher: You get that mentality.

75. Teresa: mm mmm.[acc]

76. Carol: I mean it�s ingrained in me, you have to be out there performing.

So that was my first observation of the film [looking at thecomputer monitor.] was, gee!/He was seated/ and it was a good thing. I mean I er- as I took it

as an imp- a supportive,[dec]

he�s part of the dis- not part of the discussion, he�s letting them do it,

[acc]and he�s (.) just writing down their observations. And hechanged roles. But it�s so hard.We�ve been doing that other role (.) for so long. Give him the

benefit of the doubt, [laughs]the bell was going to ring, [laughs]


sitting there’’. Carol and Cher suggested that over the years a certain

form of and outlook for teaching develops [74, 76] and that it is very

difficult to step outside of it. Because ‘‘you have to be out there per-

forming’’, any sign of not commanding the stage could put them at

risk for negative perceptions. Also implied in these reflections is the

role of those to whom teachers are accountable. These thoughts reflect

a large theme of ethics: where virtuous performance results from. One

might decide that being seated is the right thing to do, but a back-

ground of life experiences could prevent one from doing so (‘‘But it�sso hard. We�ve been doing that other role for so long’’).

In [76] Carol had commented that her first reaction after seeing the

film was ‘‘gee, he was seated’’. In reading the paper Cher and Carol

had imagined many aspects of the interaction on the basis of what was

‘‘normal’’ and to be expected from their ways of being in class. In [80]

Cher introduced another one of these aspects: the overall rhythm of the

interaction. When reading the paper they had imagined a slower pace

of exchanges. Watching the video led them to question their tacit

assumptions (‘‘I thought there was more silence’’). This type of talk

reflects perhaps one of the most interesting contributions of good video

documents: to make the viewers aware of their own implicit assump-

tions. A written transcription, no matter how detailed it is, leaves out

countless elements of the situation (facial expressions, tones of voice,

pace) that the reader tends to ‘‘fill’’ with whatever seems natural.4

Discussion

When speakers engage in an Evaluative Discourse, issues of values,

judgments, and commitments arise. The participants, as in this

[dec]

77. Carol: I mean I think he (.) gave them a lot of leeway.[acc]

I would have been tempted to say things myself in this dialogue.

78. Teresa: mmm.79. Carol: There were places where- his name isn�t there thatI would have been

saying something.=

80. Cher: =but it didn�t seem like there was a lot of- a lot of- dead airspace inthere though.

81. Carol: Oh, there was (none).82. Cher: You probably would have that.

83. Carol: It went a lot faster than I thought. I thought there was more silence,=84. Teresa: =mmm mmm.85. Carol: y� know as I was reading it.


example, examine teaching episodes in light of their concepts of what

good teaching is and strive to assess the present circumstances. The

following are the main characteristics that the annotated transcript

allowed us to point at:

(1) The use of the hypothetical past construction (conditional,

subjunctive) is widespread. Speakers repeatedly elaborate a contrast

between how things were and how things could/should have been.

Sometimes this contrast is a comparison between the teaching epi-

sode and a hypothetical instructional sequence, which is deemed

closer to an idealized course of events. At other times it is a distinc-

tion between teachers: what s/he did and what I would have done.

(2) All the central issues of ethics are in the foreground of an Evalua-

tive Discourse: the trade-off between ideal actions and practical

circumstances (‘‘We�ve got to move the ball’’ [21]), the playing out

between life experience and force of will (‘‘But it�s so hard. We�vebeen doing that other role for so long’’ [76]), and the conflicting

impulses to be consistent with and to depart from past traditions

(‘‘If he was going to let them do all that hard part...’’[7]). Skillful

performance, risk-taking, and coherence are some of the ‘‘factors’’

that speakers try to notice and account for.

(3) Interpretations aiming to relate what is and what ought to be pivot

on the ethical outlook of the speakers. They express themselves as

being more or less strict, lenient, sensitive, principled, and so forth.

Nevertheless interpreters can be flexible because they understand

that reality can force departure from optimal courses of actions

(e.g., Carol�s many arguments for how the circumstances were

likely to motivate Mr. Solomon becoming authoritative), and ques-

tioning tacit assumptions may prompt radical interpretive shifts,

such as Teresa�s argument in [47] that the students might have

‘‘deserved’’ to be told.

Evaluative Discourse is in our experience, by far, the most prevalent

mode used in conversations about videotaped teaching episodes.

Teachers, administrators, and researchers all tend to engage in Evalua-

tive Discourse. While the focus on hypothetical situations created by

this form of discourse offers an easy ‘‘way out’’ of the need to attend

carefully to the filmed events (because the speakers can effortlessly skip

to their own personal experiences or self-contained statements of val-

ues), we tried to show in this annotated transcript that this is not neces-

sarily the case, and that conversants engaged in Evaluative Discourse

can work hard to take the perspective of the filmed participants.


CONCLUSION

Two Types of Discourse

In the literature, we find references to teachers being ‘‘evaluative’’ and

‘‘judgmental’’ in their conversations about classroom episodes, but we

did not find a detailed characterization of how these attitudes are

expressed in their discourse, nor of what alternative discourse might

emerge when they are not being evaluative. In this paper, we have

distinguished two modes of discourse that emerge in conversations

about teaching episodes. The contribution of these findings is not the

mere stipulation of the two types of discourse but their sociolinguistic

characterization. We believe that, with the refinement of our ability to

recognize forms of discourse and to motivate or respond to them, both

types of talk may be used to contribute to the professional develop-

ment of participants with any level of experience.

The Grounded Narrative Discourse flows in a conversation whose

aim is to formulate narrative accounts of classroom events. These nar-

ratives, which strive to distinguish fiction from actuality by pondering

the available evidence, are at the same time acts of interpretation that

participants debate. The talk takes the form of ‘‘this...and then...and

then...’’ which correspond to highlighting successive ‘‘snapshots’’—like

a discrete sequence of photos portraying a continuous trip—whose con-

tinuity is imagined by speakers and listeners. By choosing particular

moments and voicing them through a temporal sequence, the narrator

conveys a sense of the whole: a sense of the ‘‘point’’ that she tries to

elucidate and better understand. The grounding of these choices and

temporal arrangements takes place through instances of ‘‘zooming in’’

and ‘‘zooming out’’; the former allows the narrator to separate aspects

of a complex interaction and the latter to put in touch events that

occur at different times.

The Evaluative Discourse emerges among participants striving to

ascertain ethical questions around the classroom episode. We use the

term ‘‘ethics’’ in the customary sense of dealing with matters of values,

virtues, and commitments. Ethics is of course pervasively present in

everyday life and talk, but it takes a particular significance in the talk

on teaching episodes because these episodes are often taken as exem-

plary of good or bad practices. The speakers in an Evaluative

Discourse have a propensity to use conditional and subjunctive speech;

they tend to posit a contrast between the events described in the

episode and other hypothetical courses of action, as well as between

what teachers and students actually did in the episode and what they or


their students would have done. The participants in an Evaluative Dis-

course bring to the subject not only their judgments but also the crite-

ria on the basis of which, they think, one should judge.

Use of Videopapers as Case Studies

Our analysis suggests that multimodality is relevant in both discourses.

The video allows for a depth of zooming in and out that goes beyond

what is possible using only textual descriptions. Videopapers also

allow the speakers to richly grasp the overall ‘‘climate’’ of an

interaction, and notice when things diverge from what participants

tended to project on the basis of their own previous experiences. The

textual analysis, on the other hand, offers a point of view: ideas and

questions with which to watch the episode. The text also conveys the

authors� take on how the classroom episode relates to broader issues

that matter to the speakers.

Both discursive types, Grounded Narrative and Evaluative

Discourse, emerge through talk about teaching episodes that include

an ever-present desire to ‘‘know more’’. No matter how detailed the

video portrayal of the classroom is, or the extents of the available

background information, participants always feel that countless

questions remain unanswered.

APPENDIX

Transcription Conventions

(.) noticeable pause or break in rhythm, less than 0.5 second(..) half second pause or longer(...) a second or longer pause. sentence-final falling intonation

? sentence-final rising intonation, phrase-final intonation (indicating more talk to come)- glottal stop or abrupt cutting off of sound

: lengthened sound (extra colons means more lengthening)underline emphatic stress/words/ spoken softly

//words// spoken very softly( ) transcription impossible


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research has been supported by the ‘‘Bridging Research and

Practice’’ project funded by the National Science Foundation, Grant

REC-9805289. All opinions and analysis expressed herein are those of

the authors and do not necessarily represent the position or policies

of the funding agencies. The authors would like to thank Jesse Solo-

mon for his generosity in providing us with access to his classroom

and his self-reflections.

NOTES

1 In order to produce a videopaper we have developed a software tool called

‘‘VideoPaper Builder’’ that allows authors to interconnect and synchronize the differ-

ent components without having to be a programmer or even technically confident.

The VideoPaper Builder can be downloaded from http://vpb.concord.org/.2 Let us call n the power of a polynomial; Cher is expressing the result that the

constant successive differences will be the coefficient of the nth term multiplied by n!3 The phrase ‘‘Study Hall’’ is used to describe a class period which is used by

students to work individually; although a teacher is present, they do not ‘‘teach’’

during that time.4 A video also keeps innumerable aspects out of view (whatever is outside of the camera

angle, out of focus, blocked by people standing in between, etc.); there is a great potential

disparity between the range of features that can be documented in text or in video media.

REFERENCES

Barnes, L.B., Christensen, C.R. & Hansen, A.J. (1994). Teaching and the case

method. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.Fenstermacher, G.D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledgein research on teaching. In L.D. Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education(pp. 3–56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

(words) uncertain transcription

= two utterances linked by = indicate no break in flow of talk(latching);—- overlapping speech: two people talking|—- at the same time

[acc] spoken quickly (appears over the line)[dec] spoken slowly (appears over the line)


Harrington, H.L. & Garrison, J.W. (1992). Cases as shared inquiry: A dialogical

model for teacher preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 29(4),715–735.

Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.Kennedy, M. (1997). How teachers connect research and practice. Mid-WesternEducational Research, 10 (1).

Levin, B.B. (1993). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion

and experience in teachers� thinking about cases. Unpublished Doctoral Disser-tation, University of California–Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

Merseth, K.K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In J. Sikula

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the Association ofTeacher Educators (pp. 722–744). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.

National Research Council (2001). The power of video technology in international

comparative research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Packer, M.J. & Mergendoller, J.R. (1989). The development of practical socialunderstanding in elementary school-age children. In L. T. Winegar (Ed.), Social

interaction and the development of children�s understanding (pp. 67–93). Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

Richert, A.E. (1991). Case methods and teacher education: Using cases to teachteacher reflection. In B.R. Tabachnik & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issues and practices in

inquiry-oriented teacher education (pp. 130–150). London: Falmer.Seago, N.M. (2000). Using video of classroom practice as a tool to study andimprove teaching, Mathematics Education in the Middle Grades: Teaching to

Meet the Needs of Middle Grades Learners and to Maintain High Expectations.Proceedings of National Convocation and Action Conference. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Sherin, M.G. (2004). Redefining the role of video in teacher education. In J. Brophy(Ed.),Using video in teacher education (pp. 1–27). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.

Shulman, J.H. (1991). Revealing the mysteries of teacher-written cases: Opening theblack box. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 250–262.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Shulman, L. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case

methods in teacher education (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Solomon, J. & Nemirovsky, R. (in press). This is crazy. Differences ofdifferences!’’ On the flow of ideas in a mathematical conversation. In

D. Carraher and R. Nemirovsky (Eds.), Journal for Research in MathematicsEducation VideoPaper Monograph (CD-rom special issue).

Sykes, G. & Bird, T. (1992). Teacher education and the case idea. In G. Grant (Ed.),

Review of Research in Education (Vol. 18, pp. 457–521). Washington, DC:American Education Research Association.

Teresa Lara-MeloyTERC

2067 Massachusetts Ave.

Cambridge, MA 02140

USA

E-mail: [email protected]


talking about teaching episodes

Documents