"Journal for
Research in
Mathematics
Education
The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education is an official journal of the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). JRME is the premier research journal in mathematics
education and is devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels—preschool
through college.
ARTICLE TITLE:

Toward Professional Development for Multimodal Teacher Noticing
AUTHOR NAMES:

Walkoe, Janet; Williams-Pierce, Caroline (Caro); Flood, Virginia J.; and Walton, Margaret

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER:

VOLUME:

10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0326

54

ISSUE NUMBER:

4

Mission Statement
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
advocates for high-quality mathematics teaching
and learning for each and every student.
CONTACT:

<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Copyright © 2023 by The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. www.nctm.org. All rights reserved. This material
may not be copied or distributed electronically or in any other format without written permission from NCTM.

Brought to you by Univ of Maryland - McKeldin Lib | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 12/04/24 05:26 PM UTC

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
2023, Vol. 54, No. 4, 279–285

Toward Professional Development for Multimodal Teacher Noticing
Janet Walkoe and Caroline (Caro) Williams-Pierce
University of Maryland
Virginia J. Flood
University at Buffalo
Margaret Walton
University of Maryland
Considerable research has been conducted on the critical role of gesture and action in children’s mathematical thinking. However,
teacher professional development (PD) has not tended to include specific supports for attending to nonverbal student thinking. In
this Brief Report, we argue for including supports for multimodal teacher noticing in teacher PD. We illustrate how a targeted
intervention can relatively quickly support teachers in learning to notice multimodal student thinking and demonstrate how shifting
teachers’ attention to gesture can enrich how they interpret the details of students’ thinking.
Keywords: Teacher noticing; Student thinking; Professional development; Video tagging

The importance of attending to student thinking in the classroom has been a focus of much work in teacher education
over the past few decades (e.g., Ball, 1993; Fennema et al., 1996; Franke & Kazemi, 2001; Jacobs et al., 2010; Levin et al.,
2009; and many others). In particular, professional development (PD) that supports teachers in noticing and interpreting
student thinking is on the rise (e.g., Arbaugh et al., 2019; Kang & Anderson, 2015; Luna & Sherin, 2017; Walkoe, 2015).
However, the majority of these PD experiences, while providing effective supports for helping teachers attend to students’
ideas, have not tended to include specific supports for attending to nonverbal student thinking (e.g., Sherin & van Es, 2009;
Walkoe & Levin, 2018), and this type of thinking may unintentionally be backgrounded.
In this Brief Report, we argue that supporting multimodal teacher noticing—assisting teachers in intentionally focusing
on the coordination of nonverbal (as well as verbal and written) student thinking (Arzarello, 2006; Radford, 2009) in support
of interpreting and responding to student thinking during classroom instruction—will further develop teachers’ abilities
to attend to, interpret, and decide how to respond to the depth of student thinking in the classroom. We first make the case
that we must explicitly support teachers in learning to attend to multimodal student thinking, specifically nonverbal student
thinking. We then illustrate how a targeted intervention can relatively quickly prime teachers to attend to nonverbal multimodal student thinking. We end with a discussion of the affordances of explicitly focusing teachers’ attention on nonverbal
student thinking. In particular, we demonstrate how shifting teachers’ attention to include gesture can enrich ways they
interpret and respond to student thinking.
Teacher Noticing
A growing body of work over the past decade has focused on teacher noticing—specifically, on how to help teachers
learn to attend and respond to the substance of children’s thinking. Definitions of teacher noticing often focus on key
processes such as attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond (e.g., Jacobs et al., 2010; Sherin et al., 2011). This
work has broadened our knowledge about what teachers attend to both when interacting with students in the classroom
(Sherin et al., 2008; Walkoe, 2015) and when discussing classroom video (Luna & Sherin, 2017; Sherin & van Es, 2005),
and about how to design PD to support teacher attention to the substance (not just correctness or incorrectness) of students’
thinking (Sherin & van Es, 2005; Walkoe, 2015). Historically, however, teacher noticing PD, such as video clubs, has
unintentionally foregrounded students’ speech (for example, by providing written transcripts with few gestures included)
or written artifacts, thus potentially drawing attention away from students’ nonverbal communication (e.g., Walkoe, 2015).
What is potentially missed when teachers background nonverbal student thinking?
A Classroom Vignette
The following is a description of a whole-class discussion in a ninth-grade algebra class. A teacher led students through
a worksheet on which they were asked to find an equation of a line, given its slope and a point on the line. In the e­ xercise

The guest editor for this article was Keith Leatham.

Brought to you by Univ of Maryland - McKeldin Lib | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 12/04/24 05:26 PM UTC

Janet Walkoe et al.

SA-NCTM-JRME230006.indd 279

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. www.nctm.org All
rights reserved.

26-04-2023 14:00:50

280

Toward Professional Development for Multimodal Teacher Noticing

being discussed, students were asked to find an equation of a line that had a slope of 0 and passed through the point
(−5, 3/4). As part of finding an equation of that line, the teacher asked the class what it meant for a line to have a slope
of 0. One student immediately raised her hand and volunteered, “It has to be a straight line.” At the same time, the
student traced what looked like a horizontal line with her finger in the air. The teacher then asked the student what she
meant by a “straight” line and asked her which way the line was going. She traced a horizontal and vertical line in the
air and seemed to have missed the students’ original gesture. Then the student tentatively replied, “Um . . . well, I think
it’s like. . . well, I just know it’s a straight line. I’m not sure which way it’s going.” The student hesitated and seemed
more unsure of herself than when she originally volunteered to share her idea. Other students volunteered and eventually the class decided the answer was in fact a horizontal line, and they worked to come up with an equation for the line.
Meanwhile, the student who originally volunteered her idea did not speak again in that portion of the lesson. Additionally,
she appeared doubtful and less confident than when she entered the conversation (initially raising her hand to volunteer
her idea).
In an alternative situation, the teacher could have explicitly attended to the student’s gesture (the student’s sketch of
the horizontal line in the air). She could have asked the student about what kind of line she was drawing with her finger,
building the conversation off that student’s initial response. Instead, other students’ ideas were elicited, and the first
student was not recognized as instrumental in the final consensus that the line was horizontal. This is one example of
a lack of attention to gesture taking opportunities away from a student and essentially shutting her out of the conversation. In our work with classroom video, we often see examples such as this in which nonverbal student thinking
is backgrounded.
The Importance of Multimodal Teacher Noticing
Several studies in cognition have demonstrated the importance of attending to multimodal aspects of students’
thinking. When teachers attend to gesture, they can recognize when students have expressed productive ideas with
their hands but are either (a) missing the words to describe them or (b) using misleading or incorrect terminology (a
gesture-speech mismatch; see Goldin-Meadow, 2005) as they share (Flood et al., 2015, 2020). Another important way
instructors have attended to and engaged with students’ gestures is by explicitly reproducing them, known as multimodal revoicing (Alibali et al., 2019; Flood, 2018; Shein, 2012). Multimodal revoicing has important pedagogical
functions that include reflecting learners’ multimodal contributions back to them for further consideration (Flood
et al., 2020) and reformulating gestures to help learners adopt more canonical ways of describing and representing
mathematical ideas (Flood, 2018). Arzarello and colleagues have explored instances in which teachers attend to children’s
gestures and actions to revoice and build on students’ multimodal thinking, leading them toward more formal ideas
(e.g., Arzarello & Paola, 2007). When teachers repeat and elaborate students’ gestures for the class during whole-class
discussions, they not only share important imagery with the class but also broadcast the message that gesture is a
useful and valuable way of making sense of content, emphasizing the importance of embodied knowledge and encouraging its use in the classroom (Flood, 2021). Overall, this collection of studies suggests that multimodal teacher noticing
is a valuable pedagogical resource.
Explicitly Supporting Multimodal Teacher Noticing
Teachers can and do attend to multimodal student thinking, such as gesture, especially when attending to the details
of children’s thinking as they work with manipulatives (e.g., Dominguez, 2019; Jacobs et al., 2010; Lam & Chan,
2020; Schack et al., 2013). However, explicit attention to nonverbal student thinking is not generally part of teacher
noticing PD design. As a result, teachers may miss opportunities to develop their multimodal teacher noticing.
Jacobs et al. (2010) investigated the extent to which teachers (enrolled in a PD program focused on analyzing children’s problem-solving strategies) attended to the detail in children’s thinking. The examples they provided of teachers
who did attend to the detail of students’ strategies often included teachers’ attention to nonverbal student thinking
such as action and gesture (e.g., counting on fingers). However, when teachers showed a lack of evidence of attending
to children’s strategies, they did not mention children’s nonverbal thinking. The authors may not have included
nonverbal student thinking in this part of their analysis because it was not an explicit focus of the PD. Yet, in backgrounding nonverbal student thinking, an opportunity was potentially missed to develop teachers’ multimodal
noticing. The teachers may have attended to more nonverbal detail in children’s strategies had it been a focus. We
argue that multimodal teacher noticing should be a specific focus of teacher noticing PD. In the next section, we give
an example of a short intervention aimed at supporting teachers to notice gesture when watching a video of
student thinking.

Brought to you by Univ of Maryland - McKeldin Lib | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 12/04/24 05:26 PM UTC

SA-NCTM-JRME230006.indd 280

26-04-2023 14:00:51

281

Janet Walkoe et al.

Methods
Our participants for this pilot study were four preservice teachers (PSTs1) enrolled in a mathematics methods course at
a large Mid-Atlantic university in the United States. In this study, we created a short experience,2 which we call the Gestured
Article Intervention. The intervention asked PSTs to watch three short video clips and answer questions about student
thinking. The video clips were taken from a ninth-grade student interview about a proportional reasoning task: “Maria
and Janelle are making lemonade. Maria mixes 2 cups of lemon juice with 3 cups of water. Janelle mixes 3 cups of lemon
juice with 4 cups of water. Whose mixture tastes more lemony?”
The three clips were chosen because they show a student, whom we call Red, working with manipulatives (white and
yellow blocks) to solve the problem. Historically, teachers have been shown to notice gesture specifically when they watch
children use manipulatives, such as blocks or even their own fingers (to count; Jacobs et al., 2011), thus teachers in the study
could be primed to notice gesture because of the nature of the clips. As the clips progress, more and more of Red’s thinking
is visible through her manipulation of the blocks, her writing, and her conversation with the interviewer. In the first clip,
Red makes models of Maria and Janelle’s mixtures and says they are the same or “equally lemony” because each mixture
has one more cup of water than lemon juice. The interviewer asks Red to make mixtures that “taste the same” as Maria and
Janelle’s mixture. As the clips progress and the interviewer asks Red more questions, Red realizes that Maria and Janelle’s
original mixtures are actually not proportional.
After the PSTs watched each clip, they were asked questions about student thinking in the clip.3 In this study, we focus on two
sets of question prompts: (a) After watching a small piece of an interview with Red, what interesting mathematical thinking did
you notice in the video clip? (b) What questions would you want to ask Red to understand her thinking? We focused on these
questions because we felt they best provided insight into teacher noticing. In particular, we focus on teacher noticing of student’s
thinking as composed of attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond (Jacobs et al., 2010). The first question addressed
what caught the PSTs’ attention and how they reasoned about it. In particular, the moment described by the PST helped us understand what they identified as important, and the way they discussed that moment gave us insight into how they interpreted the
student thinking they noticed. The second question addressed ways the PST might respond to the thinking they noticed.
After watching the three videos and answering the text-based questions, the PSTs were then asked to read a short article
about mathematical gestures and proof practices (Williams et al., 2012). The article focused specifically on how attending
to gesture alongside spoken language revealed more information about student reasoning and proving practices while
solving a conjecture, especially when compared with just examining spoken language. After reading, the PSTs watched
the same three video clips and responded to the text-based questions a second time. We hypothesized that having the
participants read the article would support the PSTs in noticing Red’s mathematical gestures and actions. To be clear, we
were not assuming that reading one article would permanently alter teacher noticing, but, instead, we were looking for
evidence that a small intervention could support the teachers to notice more nonverbal student thinking.
To analyze the pilot data, we looked at the PSTs’ responses to the text-based questions following each video clip. Each
response was assigned one of two observed student thinking codes according to the student thinking the PST discussed.
The codes focused on the mode of communication the PST mentioned. A Gesture/Action code (GA) was assigned if the
PST mentioned Red’s gestures or actions explicitly. A No Action code (N) was assigned if the PST did not address Red’s
nonverbal communication explicitly. In most cases the comments with a No Action code addressed Red’s verbal responses
alone. Examples of codes are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Examples of Coding Scheme
Code

PST text response

N: no mention of nonverbal The student sees an error and then reverts back to common denominator after trying to reduce the
communication explicitly
fraction of a large batch and not getting the beginning recipe. By relying on common denominator
through part-whole Red found the correct answer.
GA: gestures or actions
I find it interesting that when Red used traditional reasoning with pencil and paper, she uses the
were mentioned explicitly
misconception of additive reasoning. When she used the manipulatives in the video, she was able
to create proportional fractions for both Maria and Janelle. The more she is able to play around,
use actions and gestures, the better understanding she has of proportional reasoning.
1 The study participants are referred to as “PSTs” throughout, and any reference to a “student” is referring to the student in the video clips, pseudonym Red.
2 The intervention was designed on the LessonSketch platform (Chazan et al., 2018)—a media-rich platform in which the user could create online
experiences for users through video clips, question prompts, discussion boards, and cartoon depictions.
3 These questions were based on those developed as part of a larger video club development project (Sherin & Sherin, 2008–2011).

Brought to you by Univ of Maryland - McKeldin Lib | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 12/04/24 05:26 PM UTC

SA-NCTM-JRME230006.indd 281

26-04-2023 14:00:51

282

Toward Professional Development for Multimodal Teacher Noticing

Findings
We found that all four PSTs shifted from a majority of responses coded as No Action to a majority of responses coded
Gesture/Action from pre- to posttest. Table 2 shows each PST’s responses and how they were coded in the pre- and posttest.
This result is encouraging because this pilot study shows that introducing even a small intervention can shift teachers’
attention toward multimodal mathematical reasoning. We now present two examples to show that not only did the PSTs’
attention shift but also, perhaps more importantly, their attention to nonverbal student thinking helped the PSTs take a
more productive stance toward student thinking.
Table 3 presents an example of how one PST’s responses shifted from No Action to a Gesture/Action code. In the pretest
response to the first question, Jason concludes that because Red stated both are “equally proportional,” and saw the increase
is the same, she “believes they taste the same.” Jason listened to her statement and accepted that she believes this (incorrect)
relationship. He then goes on to state the correct response himself. If this were a classroom situation, he may have moved
on to another student or corrected Red’s thinking, as he did in his pretest response. However, in the posttest response, he
attends to Red’s multimodal thinking, including her gestures and the tone of her voice, noting that she “point[ed] to key
information within the problem.” So instead of focusing on incorrect reasoning, he focuses on Red productively indicating
important information in the problem. He also finds it “interesting” that she “sounds” like she was unsure, as if Red were
trying to convince herself that her reasoning was correct. Although voice prosody was not part of our initial focus, it is an
important multimodal resource, and we highlight that he discusses this when attending to gesture. Perhaps the nudge to
focus on gesture bootstraps attending to the entire semiotic expression of ideas. Jason finds her reasoning “interesting”
instead of merely assessing it as incorrect. His attention to her uncertainty is something he might act on.
Table 2
Summary of Findings (Pretest/Posttest) by PST
Pretest
PST name

Posttest

N

GA

N

GA

Jason

5

1

1

5

John

5

1

2

4

Monica

5

1

3

3

Darla

4

2

2

4

Note. N = No mention of nonverbal communication explicitly; GA = Gestures or actions were mentioned explicitly.

Table 3
Jason’s Responses
Question

Pretest

Posttest

What interesting
mathematical thinking
did you notice in the
video clip?

The student in the video uses additive reasoning
to state that the both the lemonades are
equally proportional. The students sees that
the cups of lemon and cups of water both
increase by 1. Since they both increase by the
same amount, the student believes that they
would taste the same. The concept of
proportionality is very interesting in this
video because proportional reasoning should
be multiplied or divided by the same number
instead of adding by the same number.

She uses additive reasoning, and the gestures she
makes consists of pointing to key information
within the problem, and writing out her
reasoning of 2 cups of lemon to 3 cups of lemon
for Janelle. It is interesting that she sounds
unsure and sounds like she is trying to
persuade herself of the reasoning.

What questions would you
want to ask Red to
understand their
thinking?

What are the total number of cups for each
mixture[?]

What if the cups of lemon were both decreasing
by 2 cups (Maria would then have 0 cups of
lemon, and Janelle have 1 cup of lemon)[?]

What is the definition of proportion?
Where do you use or see proportion in realworld scenarios?

Can you place the ratios in form of a fraction
(Which number goes on the bottom)[?]
Can you show me using the manipulatives your
thinking?

Brought to you by Univ of Maryland - McKeldin Lib | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 12/04/24 05:26 PM UTC

SA-NCTM-JRME230006.indd 282

26-04-2023 14:00:51

283

Janet Walkoe et al.

In fact, when we look at his second responses, the questions he would want to ask Red, he shifts from asking her questions
for which he sees one correct answer to asking process questions and questions that work to scaffold student thinking
without reducing the cognitive load, which can lead to better student mathematical understanding (Warshauer, 2015). So
here we see not only a shift in noticing but also a shift in how Jason would respond.
Table 4 presents another example in which we see similar opportunities emerge. Here, again, we see a shift in perspective. In the pretest response, Darla highlights the student’s incorrect reasoning, stating, “She believes . . . since they only
added one cup more of water for both Janelle and Maria’s mixtures, they will taste the same and are proportional.” In
addition, she focuses on the interviewer’s initial misunderstanding of Red’s response. Prior work in teacher noticing has
found that, early on, teachers tend to focus more on teacher actions (than students’) when asked to attend to student thinking
(e.g., Sherin & van Es, 2009). We see an example of this here. However, in the posttest response, Darla focuses solely on
student thinking. In addition, instead of dwelling on the incorrect response, she focuses on the fact that Red was “determining the relationship between the mixtures,” shown when she pointed to the blocks, thereby focusing more on the process
of student thinking. Additionally, Darla explains that Red was gesturing to try to persuade the teacher (i.e., interviewer).
Here Darla is focused on justification, an aspect of Standard for Mathematical Practice 3 (“construct viable arguments
and critique the reasoning of others”; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010, p. 6), albeit on a surface level. Thus, in the posttest response, Darla notices gesture and action and
shifts from a deficit-based interpretation of student thinking to a more resources-based interpretation—one that is more
consistent with a focus on the content, rather than correctness, of the student’s thinking.
In Darla’s follow-up questions, we see a similar shift as we saw with Jason. In the pretest response, her follow-up questions consist of single short-answer questions. In the posttest response, she shifts to an open-ended question that could
prompt more reasoning on the student’s part. We saw these types of shifts across all four examples. Specifically, when the
teacher shifted from no explicit attention to gesture to attending to gesture with the first question, the corresponding
follow-up questions were always open-ended probing questions versus those requiring short, specific answers.
Discussion and Conclusion
Much work in mathematics teacher education has supported teachers in attending and responding to the substance of
student thinking (Jacobs et al., 2011; Sherin et al., 2011; Walkoe, 2015; and others). Although this work has been fruitful,
the majority of this type of PD does not include a specific focus on supporting teachers in noticing nonverbal modes of
expression, such as gesture or action. Often, attention to nonverbal student thinking gets backgrounded. This can result in
overlooking valuable student thinking, as seen in our initial classroom vignette.
Table 4
Darla’s Responses
Question

Pretest

Posttest

What interesting
mathematical
thinking did you
notice in the
video clip?

In the end [the interviewer] thought when the student
referred to “one more” she meant to get to Janelle’s
mixture from Marial’s, all you had to do was add
another cup of water and lemon juice. The student
actually said that each mixture has one more cup of
water than lemon juice. In this case, she thinks
proportional is having the same amount added to
each quantity. She believes that although Janelle
will have more juice overall due to having more
cups, since they only added one cup more of water
for both Janelle and Maria’s mixtures, they will
taste the same and are proportional.

The student is determining the relationship
between the mixtures of lemon juice and water
are equal because the amount of water
increases by one when compared to the number
of cups of lemon juice. This is shown when she
points to the amount of lemon juice and number
of cups of water. She gestures this to the
teacher so she too can see the relationship in an
attempt to persuade her that her reasoning is
valid.

What does it mean to be proportional?

How can you further show your thinking with a
picture or gestures?

What questions
would you want
to ask Red to
understand their
thinking?

What is the percentage of lemon juice in the overall
mixture?
How many cups of lemonade will both mixtures have?
How much water is in each mixture?
Compare the fractions of lemon juice in the overall
mixture, do they give you the same fraction/
decimal/percentage?

Brought to you by Univ of Maryland - McKeldin Lib | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 12/04/24 05:26 PM UTC

SA-NCTM-JRME230006.indd 283

26-04-2023 14:00:51

284

Toward Professional Development for Multimodal Teacher Noticing

In this article, we illustrated how, with limited, direct support, PSTs can shift to notice gesture in a video clip when they
initially did not. Although this is potentially powerful insight for PD design, we acknowledge that this shift could have
occurred simply because, through the intervention, the PSTs understood what was being asked of them. In other words,
they may have performed well on a task once they knew what the goal of the task was, but one could question whether any
long-term change in noticing occurred. What is compelling, however, is not only that the shift itself happened, but that
when teachers attended to gesture and other nonverbal student thinking, they also appeared to take on a more productive
way of interpreting and potentially responding to the student thinking they noticed. We saw that, in the instances in which
PSTs attended to nonverbal student thinking, they discussed the productive thinking students displayed, rather than focus
on the students’ incorrect answers or stated facts. We also saw that attending to nonverbal student thinking affected PSTs’
potential follow-up questions for students—shifting from a focus on single-response questions to more open-ended questions.
We conclude that multimodal teacher noticing can potentially be a powerful skill for teachers to learn and one that needs
to be explicitly foregrounded in PD. This article suggests that supporting multimodal teacher noticing can be feasible with
relatively small interventions, and that doing so can support larger, more substantive shifts in teacher noticing, which could
lead to more participation and learning opportunities for students. Attending to gesture and action (and other forms of
nonverbal student thinking) may bootstrap a more productive and resources-based interpretation of student thinking, and
would be a valuable focus of teacher noticing PD.
References
Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J., Boncoddo, R., & Pier, E. (2019). Managing common ground in the classroom: Teachers use gestures to support students’
contributions to classroom discourse. ZDM, 51(2), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01043-x
Arbaugh, F., Graysay, D., Konuk, N., & Freeburn, B. (2019). The three-minute-rehearsal cycle of enactment and investigation: Preservice secondary
mathematics teachers learning to elicit and use evidence of student thinking. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 8(1), 22–48. https://doi.org/10.5951
/mathteaceduc.8.1.0022
Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 9(Special Issue), 267–299.
Arzarello, F., & Paola, D. (2007). Semiotic games: The role of the teacher. In J.-H. Woo, H.-C. Lew, K.-S. Park, & S.-Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the
31st conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 17–24). The Korea Society of Educational
Studies in Mathematics.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal,
93(4), 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1086/461730
Chazan, D., Herbst, P., Grosser-Clarkson, D., Fleming, E., Walkoe, J., & Alibegović, E. (2018). Describing curricular materials for mathematics
teacher education in an online, rich media platform. In J. Silverman & V. Hoyos (Eds.), Distance learning, e-learning and blended learning in
mathematics education: International trends in research and development (pp. 201–220). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90790-1_12
Dominguez, H. (2019). Theorizing reciprocal noticing with non-dominant students in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(1),
75–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09896-5
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s
thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403–434. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc
.27.4.0403
Flood, V. J. (2018). Multimodal revoicing as an interactional mechanism for connecting scientific and everyday concepts. Human Development, 61(3),
145–173. https://doi.org/10.1159/000488693
Flood, V. J. (2021). The secret multimodal life of IREs: Looking more closely at representational gestures in a familiar questioning sequence.
Linguistics and Education, 63, Article 100913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100913
Flood, V. J., Amar, F. G., Nemirovsky, R., Harrer, B. W., Bruce, M. R. M., & Wittmann, M. C. (2015). Paying attention to gesture when students talk
chemistry: Interactional resources for responsive teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400477b
Flood, V. J., Shvarts, A., & Abrahamson, D. (2020). Teaching with embodied learning technologies for mathematics: Responsive teaching for
embodied learning. ZDM, 52(7), 1307–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01165-7
Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 102–109. https://doi
.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4002_4
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1w9m9ds
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 41(2), 169–202. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.2.0169
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., Philipp, R. A., & Schappelle, B. P. (2011). Deciding how to respond on the basis of children’s understandings. In M. G.
Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 97–116). Routledge.
Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers’ ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science
Education, 99(5), 863–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21182
Lam, D. S. H., & Chan, K. K. H. (2020). Characterising pre-service secondary science teachers’ noticing of different forms of evidence of student
thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 576–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1717672
Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245
Luna, M. J., & Sherin, M. G. (2017). Using a video club design to promote teacher attention to students’ ideas in science. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 66, 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.019
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for
mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org

Brought to you by Univ of Maryland - McKeldin Lib | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 12/04/24 05:26 PM UTC

SA-NCTM-JRME230006.indd 284

26-04-2023 14:00:51

Janet Walkoe et al.

285

Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
70(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9127-3
Schack, E. O., Fisher, M. H., Thomas, J. N., Eisenhardt, S., Tassell, J., & Yoder, M. (2013). Prospective elementary school teachers’ professional
noticing of children’s early numeracy. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(5), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9240-9
Shein, P. P. (2012). Seeing with two eyes: A teacher’s use of gestures in questioning and revoicing to engage English language learners in the repair
of mathematical errors. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(2), 182–222. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.2.0182
Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. Routledge. https://doi
.org/10.4324/9780203832714
Sherin, M. G., Russ, R. S., Sherin, B. L., & Colestock, A. (2008). Professional vision in action: An exploratory study. Issues in Teacher Education,
17(2), 27–46. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ831297.pdf
Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (Principal Investigators). (2008–2011). Freezing time: Using digital video to help teachers reason about classroom
events [Grant]. Edison Foundation.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(3), 475–491. https://learntechlib.org/p/4824/
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328155
Walkoe, J. (2015). Exploring teacher noticing of student algebraic thinking in a video club. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(6),
523–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9289-0
Walkoe, J., & Levin, D. M. (2018). Using technology in representing practice to support preservice teachers’ quality questioning: The roles of noticing
in improving practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(1), 127–147. https://learntechlib.org/p/181146/
Warshauer, H. K. (2015). Strategies to support productive struggle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(7), 390–393. https://doi
.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.20.7.0390
Williams, C. C., Walkington, C., Boncoddo, R., Srisurichan, R., Pier, E., Nathan, M., & Alibali, M. (2012). Invisible proof: The role of gestures and
action in proof. In L. R. Van Zoest, J.-J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fourth annual meeting of the North American Chapter
of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 182–189). Western Michigan University.

Authors
Janet Walkoe, Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy, and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Caroline (Caro) Williams-Pierce, College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Virginia J. Flood, Department of Learning and Instruction, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260; <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Margaret Walton, Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy, and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Submitted July 26, 2021
Accepted November 3, 2021
doi:10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0326

Brought to you by Univ of Maryland - McKeldin Lib | Unauthenticated | Downloaded 12/04/24 05:26 PM UTC

SA-NCTM-JRME230006.indd 285

26-04-2023 14:00:51

" what are the main findings of the study?