Our research focusses on the discursive and interactive dynamics of classroom practices, in order to gain insight into the mechanisms that produce disparities in mathematics achievement and practices that are likely to mitigate unequal attainment. In all countries there is a range of student achievement in mathematics, but in some countries (e.g., Germany) the range is wider and the gap between the highest achieving and lowest achieving students more profound than in others (e.g., Canada and Sweden). It is possible to have both high achievement and a narrow range of achievement, as in Finland and the Republic of Korea. However, there is a danger that efforts to raise average achievement could widen the gap, as has recently occurred in Sweden, unless the mechanisms by which this gap is created and sustained are better understood.

In our research we reconstruct the discursive and interactive dynamics that produce disparities in mathematical classrooms from a sociological perspective, based on work of Basil Bernstein (1990, 1996). We take an empirical cross-cultural comparative perspective in order to reveal mechanisms of emerging mathematical disparities within both nominally selective and inclusive educational systems, in Canada, Germany and Sweden (see, e.g., Gellert & Jablonka, 2009; Knipping, Reid, Gellert, & Jablonka, 2008).

Our research question is:

Which discursive and interactional mechanisms provoke a stratification of achievement within the mathematics classroom? What are the characteristics of these mechanisms in relatively homogeneous and in heterogeneous groups?

In our round table we will present and discuss four mechanisms that we have observed contribute to  stratification of achievement: Pace, individualisation, low expectations, and obedience.

1) Gellert will discuss an incident in which one interactional stratifying mechanism can be identified. This mechanism is related to a particular combination of change of pace/change of control over pace at a crucial moment of a problem solving activity. This mechanism is particularly convenient for stratifying relatively homogeneous groups of learners.

2) Jablonka will illustrate how the delegation of initiative to the students in highly individualised teaching  contributes to stratification of achievement. This mechanism includes the distribution of different criteria for legitimate mathematical contributions when the teacher guides the students towards more or less general mathematical investigations when walking between the desks and helping individual students.

3) Knipping & Straehler-Pohl will discuss how low expectations can contribute to stratification of achievement. In a context of low expectations the criteria for high achievement in mathematics are made invisible. Students who nonetheless take these criteria into account show higher achievement than those who do not.

4) Reid will discuss how stratification occurs in contexts in which stratification appears to be absent in classroom activity. When students have no opportunities to succeed academically and achievement is very low it is still possible to create a gap in achievement when required, by reference to other determiners like obedience.

Together these four components represent progress towards a better understanding of the mechanisms that produce disparities in mathematics achievement which contributes to the identification of practices that are likely to mitigate unequal attainment.

Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Class, codes and control, Vol. 4. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 5. London: Taylor & Francis. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Gellert, U. and Jablonka, E. (2009) “I am not talking about reality” – Word problems and the intricacies of producing legitimate text. In: L. Verschaffel, B. Greer, W. Van Dooren und S. Mukhopadhyay (Eds.) Words and worlds: Modelling verbal descriptions of situations (pp. 39-53). Rotterdam: Sense. Knipping, C., Reid, D.A., Gellert, U., & Jablonka, E. (2008). The emergence of disparity in performance in mathematics education. In J.F. Matos, P. Valero & K. Yasukawa (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Mathematics Education and Society Conference, Part 1 (pp. 320-329). Lisbon/Aalborg: Centro de Investigação em Educação, Universidade de Lisboa / Department of Education, Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University. Kroon, S., & Sturm, J. (2000). Comparative case study research in education: methodological issues in an empirical-interpretative perspective. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(4), 559-576. Mehan, H. (1992). Understanding inequality in schools: The contribution of interpretive studies, Sociology of Education, 65(1), 1-20. Wilcox, K. (1980). The ethnography of schooling: Implications for educational policy-making. Stanford (mimeo ED 199 809).