In:Engagement in Professional Genres:
Edited by Carmen Sancho Guinda
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 301] 2019
► pp. 297–320
Chapter 16Silence and engagement in the multimodal genre of synchronous videoconferencing lectures
The case of Didactics in Mathematics
Published online: 24 April 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.16que
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.16que
Abstract
This chapter analyses how teachers, in synchronous videoconferencing lectures of Didactics in Mathematics, manage silence to promote engagement. The epistemology of Mathematics, with its specific semiotic resources, requires special consideration to guarantee an adequate acquisition of contents and teaching procedures. A qualitative approach allows the analysis of multimodal interaction during significant episodes of absence of talk, in a teaching-learning context with different communicative channels, oral for teachers (who are in front of the camera) and written for learners (who use the chat). Results reveal the importance of the multimodal strategies used to repair teachers’ and learners’ silence in two main situations: the IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) cycle initiated by teacher’s questions and the teaching exchange when interacting with materials.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1Communication through the chat in synchronous videoconferencing learning environments
- 2.2Teaching Didactics in Mathematics through SVLs
- 3.Methodology
- 4.Findings and discussion
- 4.1Absence of teacher’s talk: Asking questions
- 4.2Absence of teacher’s talk: Interacting with materials
- 5.Conclusions
References Appendix
References (26)
Almeida Bairral, Marcelo 2011. “Interagindo, Ouvindo o Silêncio e Refletindo sobre o Papel do Formador em Chat com Professores de Matemática.” Educar em Revista spe (1): 173–189.
Christie, Frances. 2000. “The Language of Classroom Interaction and Learning.” In Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Len Unsworth, 184–203. London: Cassell.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ehlich, Konrad, and Jochen Rehbein. 1986. Muster und Institution: Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommunikation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Ellis, Rod. 1992. “Learning to Communicate in the Classroom: A Study of Two Learners’ Requests.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 1–23.
Font, Vicent, Juan Godino, and Jesús Gallardo. 2013. “The Emergence of Objects from Mathematical Practices.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 82 (1): 97–124.
Goodwin, Charles. 2000. “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522.
Jewitt, Carey, Jeff Bezemer, and Kay O’Halloran. 2016. Introducing Multimodality. London/ New York: Routledge.
Klein, Mary. 2002. “Teaching Mathematics in/for New Times: A Poststructuralist Analysis of the Productive Quality of the Pedagogic Process.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 50 (1): 63–78.
Kozar, Olga. 2016. “Teachers’ Reaction to Silence and Teachers’ Wait Time in Video and Audioconferencing English Lessons: Do Webcams Make a Difference?” System 62: 53–62.
Llinares, Salvador. 2009. “Competencias Docentes del Maestro en la Docencia de las Matemáticas y el Diseño de Programas de Formación.” Uno. Revista de Didáctica de las Matemáticas 51: 92–101.
Manghi Haquin, Dominique. 2010. “Recursos Semióticos do Professor de Matemática: Funções Complementares da Fala e os Gestos para a Alfabetização Científica Escolar.” Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia) 36 (2): 99–115.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. “The Organization of Concurrent Courses of Action in Surgical Demonstrations.” In Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, ed. by Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron, 207–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moyer, Patricia S. 2001. “Are We Having Fun Yet? How Teachers Use Manipulatives to Teach Mathematics.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 47 (2): 175–197.
Radford, Luis. 2009. “Why Do Gestures Matter? Sensuous Cognition and the Palpability of Mathematical Meanings.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 70 (2): 111–126.
Rowe, Mary Budd. 1986. “Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be a Way of Speeding Up!” Journal of Teacher Education 37 (1): 43–50.
Schleppegrell, Mary. 2007. “The Linguistic Challenges of Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Research Review.” Reading & Writing Quarterly 23 (2): 139–159.
Strijbos, Jan Willem, and Gerry Stahl. 2007. “Methodological Issues in Developing a Multi-Dimensional Coding Procedure for Small Group Chat Communication.” Learning and Instruction 17: 394–404.
Thompson, Susan. 1998. “Why Ask Questions in Monologue? Language Choice at Work in Scientific and Linguistic Talk.” In Language at Work, ed. by Susan Hunston, 137–150. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Tobin, Kenneth. 1987. “The Role of Wait Time in Higher Cognitive Level Learning.” Review of Educational Research 57 (1): 69–95.
Uttal, David H., Kathyrn V. Scudder, and Judy S. DeLoache. 1997. “Manipulatives as Symbols: A New Perspective on the Use of Concrete Objects to Teach Mathematics.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 18 (1): 37–54.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Querol-Julián, Mercedes
Kim Pham, Chi & Su Li Chong
Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda & Inmaculada Fortanet-Gómez
Beltrán-Palanques, Vicent
Bernad-Mechó, Edgar & Inmaculada Fortanet-Gómez
2019. Organizational metadiscourse across lecturing styles. In Engagement in Professional Genres [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 301], ► pp. 321 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
