Contextual Differences in Co-Construction of Knowledge With Social Justice Mathematics

• In Event: Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice: Supporting Critical Mathematics Instruction Amid Racial Justice Protests

Abstract

Mathematics teachers are showing increased interest in antiracist (Jackson et al., 2020; TODOS, 2020), abolitionist (Bullock & Meiners, 2019; Stovall, 2018, 2020), and social justice (NCSM & TODOS, 2016) pedagogies. Although mathematics teachers are increasingly using justice-oriented pedagogies, researchers have paid little attention to studying the influence of identity and power across different school contexts. This study focuses on social justice pedagogy in mathematics which has been referred to as TMSJ (e.g., Bartell, 2013; Discussant, 2006, 2016), Critical Mathematics (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2002; Frankenstein, 1983), or Social Justice Mathematics, SJM (e.g., Author C, 2015, 2020; Discussant, 2009). SJM involves dual goals of increasing mathematics understanding and critical consciousness of social issues to take action through co-construction of knowledge with students (Freire, 1970; Discussant, 2006).

The present comparative case study investigates two mathematics teachers’ co-construction of knowledge, drawing on Discussant’s (2016) conceptualization of community, critical, and classical knowledge. One case was a sixth-grade mathematics class in a Title I public middle school, with students of historically marginalized backgrounds with a Black teacher. The other was a sixth-grade mathematics class in an independent K-8 school with predominantly affluent, white students with a white teacher. This paper investigates the following research questions: (1) How did the case study teachers co-construct community, critical, and classical knowledge when using SJM? (2) Whose knowledge had power in the classroom, and how might this have been influenced by teacher and student racial and socioeconomic backgrounds?

Applying a sociopolitical lens (Gutiérrez, 2013; Nasir & McKinney de Royston, 2013) to analyze field note observations of classroom instruction, student and teacher interviews, teacher-designed SJM task sheets, and student work samples through qualitative thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998), I found differences in the two teachers’ co-construction of the three types of knowledge. Ms. Charles, at the Title I public school, predominantly co-constructed community and critical knowledge, yet was more directive with the classical, or dominant, mathematics. She explained that her focus on the classical mathematics was “crucial and essential and important because, especially with kids of color like we can’t be reliant on other people and we can’t be okay with being just mediocre.” Ms. Charles designed SJM tasks that leveraged students’ community and critical knowledge to offer entry points to the classical mathematics.

On the other hand, Maggie, at the independent school, co-constructed classical mathematics knowledge, yet was more directive in students learning community and critical knowledge. She explained her goals, “Since I teach privileged students at a private school, my goal is for them to recognize their privilege and to develop empathies for people who have different experiences than them to make the world a better place.” Like Ms. Charles, she may have been more directive with students learning community and critical knowledge because they were her primary learning goals. Case study teachers’ considerations of their students’ backgrounds influenced the level of co-construction of community, critical, and classical mathematics. Results help classroom teachers design SJM tasks specific for their students and the school contexts they work in.

Author

• Kari Kokka, University of Pittsburgh