Abstract
A clinical task-based interview can be seen as a situation where the interviewer–interviewee interaction on a task is regulated by a system of explicit and implicit norms, values, and rules. This paper describes how documenting and mapping triadic interaction among the interviewer, the interviewee, and the knowledge negotiated can be used to increase procedural replicability of the interview and accuracy of drawn conclusions about the interviewee’s thinking process. Excerpts from interviews with 25 inservice mathematics teachers working on a task to make up a problem whose solution requires division of two fractions are discussed. The excerpts illustrate the relationship between methodological decisions taken by the interviewer during the interview and the applicability of the interview output to the research questions. A divergent analysis of the interviews with these teachers, which spanned over two years and were conducted by four interviewers, is used to offer a framework for analyzing data collected in clinical task-based interviews.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aronsson, K., & Hundeide, K. (2002). Relational rationality and children’s interview responses. Human Development, 45, 174–186.
Boden, D., & Zimmerman, D. (1991). Talk and social structures. Cambridge: Polity.
Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundation and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego: Academic.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Revised version). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Goldin, G. (2000). A scientific perspective on structures, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harel, G. (1993). On teacher education programs in mathematics. International Journal for Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 25, 113–119.
Harel, G. (2001). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DNR-based instruction. In S. Campbell & R. Zaskis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory (pp. 185–212). New Jersey: Ablex.
Harel, G. (in press a). What is mathematics? A pedagogical answer to a philosophical question. In R. B. Gold & R. Simons (Eds.), Current issues in the philosophy of mathematics from the perspective of mathematicians. Mathematical Association of America.
Harel, G. (in press b). The DNR system as a conceptual framework for curriculum development and instruction. In R. Lesh, J. Kaput, E. Hamilton, & J. Zawojewski (Eds.), Foundations for the future. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985) Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.
Schoenfeld, A. (2002). Research methods in (mathematics) education. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 435–487). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Grossen, M. (1993). Negotiating the meaning of questions in didactic and experimental contracts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(4), 451–471.
Van Someren, M. Y., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London: Academic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koichu, B., Harel, G. Triadic interaction in clinical task-based interviews with mathematics teachers. Educ Stud Math 65, 349–365 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9054-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9054-0