In the current mathematics curriculum reform movement in China, the intention is to not only upgrade the mathematics content, but also to reform the pedagogical strategies employed in Chinese mathematics classrooms (Huang, 2004). The interactive exchange of questioning and answering has been identified as the main type of content-related communication occurring in mathematics classrooms internationally (Hunkins, 1995). Given its prevalence in instruction internationally, the process of teacher question, student answer, and teacher response provides an obvious focus for any investigation of pedagogical reform in Chinese mathematics classrooms. Although research into classroom questioning is not new, evidence-based judgements regarding the effectiveness of any particular questioning strategy have provided a methodological challenge (Boaler & Brodie, 2004). This is not only because question asking per se is a sophisticated and variously practised art (Boaler & Brodie, 2004; Franke et al., 2009; Nathan & Kim, 2009), but also because there are pedagogical tensions regarding the creation of opportunities for students to express their mathematical understandings and communicate mathematical ideas, while ensuring the effectiveness of that mathematical communication in promoting student learning (Sherin, 2002). This study examines mathematics teachers’ strategies to cope with the tensions generated by attempts to reform questioning practices in China as an essential aspect of implementing the reform-based mathematics curriculum (Huang, 2004; Li & Ni, 2011). The investigation draws on a complex combination of video, interview, document and questionnaire data to implement a comparative case study approach in order to explore the employment of questioning practices in selected Chinese mathematics classrooms. The analytical entry point is the examination of the IRF (Initiation/Response/Follow-up) structures (Cazden, 2001) evident in the mathematics interactions. Specifically, this study investigated the purposes with which the teacher initiated questions, the extent to which the teacher built up mathematics communication on the basis of students’ responses, and the approaches through which the teacher built on students’ responses and facilitated students’ expression and communication of mathematics. While many studies have examined the structure of IRF sequences in Western classrooms, this analytical approach has not been utilised to any great extent in studying Chinese mathematics classrooms. The persistence of traditional instructional practices within the overarching goals of curricular and pedagogical reforms emerges as an illuminating tension in the context of Chinese mathematics education. The results have significant implications for the cross-cultural appropriation and implementation of forms of educational (and particularly pedagogical) reform.

Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature and impact of teacher questions. Proceedings PME-NA 26, Vol. 2, pp. 773-781. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380-392. Huang, F. (2004). Curriculum reform in contemporary China: Seven goals and six strategies. Journal of curriculum Studies, 36(1), 101-115. Hunkins., F. P. (1995). Teaching thinking through effective questioning (2nd edition). Norwood, MA: Christper-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Li, Q., & Ni, Y. (2011). Impact of curriculum reform: Evidence of change in classroom practice in mainland China. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 71-86. Nathan, M. J., & Kim, S. (2009). Regulation of teacher elicitations in the mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 91-120. Sherin, M.G. (2002). A balancing act: developing a discourse community in a mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(3), 205–33.