Developing a Talk-Moves-Based Learning Design for Systems of Linear Equations in Two Variables: A Design-Based Research Framework

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v5i3.2152

Authors

  • Nur 'Afifah Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara
  • Sahat Saragih Universitas Negeri Medan
  • Mulyono Universitas Negeri Medan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8358-3795

Keywords:

Classroom discourse, Design-based research, Instructional design, Mathematical communication, Systems of linear equations, Talk moves

Abstract

Mathematical communication in systems of linear equations in two variables requires students to connect representations, explain reasoning, and respond to mathematical ideas. However, existing instructional approaches do not always integrate classroom discourse, talk moves, and communication assessment into a coherent learning design. This methodological design study develops a talk-moves-based learning design for systems of linear equations in two variables and specifies an analytical protocol for its subsequent empirical validation. The study applies a design-based research framework comprising preliminary analysis, prototype development, iterative design, and retrospective analysis. The proposed design integrates multi-representational tasks, six talk moves, anticipated student responses, presentation orchestration, and oral and written mathematical communication assessment. A simulated dataset is used solely to illustrate the planned procedures for content validity, practicality, implementation, communication outcomes, and discourse analysis. The study produces a four-lesson instructional design and an accompanying analytical protocol that specify how design quality, implementation processes, mathematical communication, and classroom discourse can be examined in future empirical research. The contribution is a theoretically coherent and testable instructional design rather than evidence of instructional effectiveness. The design provides a structured basis for future classroom validation and may be adapted to other mathematical topics, including functions, ratios and proportions, and statistics.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA, USA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All. Reston, VA, USA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2014.

D. L. Ball and F. M. Forzani, “The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education,” Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 497–511, 2009, doi: 10.1177/0022487109348479.

K. S. Kuncoro, B. Kusumaningrum, D. Agustito, F. Meirani, and E. S. Lestari, “Mathematical communication skills in the context of linear equations: A study on students’ proficiency and self-esteem,” Psychology, Evaluation, and Technology in Educational Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 18–34, 2023, doi: 10.33292/petier.v6i1.178.

F. Lestariningsih, T. D. Chandra, and S. Rahardjoa, “Student mathematical communication in solving two variable system of linear equations,” Jurnal Pendidikan Sains, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2021, doi: 10.17977/jps.v9i1.15079.

M. S. Smith and M. K. Stein, 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions, 2nd ed. Reston, VA, USA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2018.

M. K. Stein and M. S. Smith, “Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection,” Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 268–275, 1998.

S. H. Chapin, C. O’Connor, and N. C. Anderson, Classroom Discussions in Math: A Teacher’s Guide for Using Talk Moves to Support the Common Core and More, Grades K–6, 3rd ed. Sausalito, CA, USA: Math Solutions, 2013.

L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan, and S. N. Clarke, Accountable Talk: Instructional Dialogue That Builds the Mind. Geneva, Switzerland: International Academy of Education, 2018.

E. Yackel and P. Cobb, “Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 458–477, 1996, doi: 10.2307/749877.

M. K. Stein, R. A. Engle, M. S. Smith, and E. K. Hughes, “Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell,” Mathematical Thinking and Learning, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 313–340, 2008, doi: 10.1080/10986060802229675.

The Design-Based Research Collective, “Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry,” Educational Researcher, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 5–8, 2003, doi: 10.3102/0013189X032001005.

T. Plomp and N. Nieveen, Eds., Educational Design Research: Part A—An Introduction. Enschede, The Netherlands: SLO, 2013.

S. McKenney and T. C. Reeves, Conducting Educational Design Research, 2nd ed. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2019, doi: 10.4324/9781315105642.

W. Sandoval, “Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research,” The Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 18–36, 2014, doi: 10.1080/10508406.2013.778204.

E. Kazemi and A. Hintz, Intentional Talk: How to Structure and Lead Productive Mathematical Discussions. Portland, ME, USA: Stenhouse Publishers, 2014.

N. Mercer and C. Sams, “Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems,” Language and Education, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 507–528, 2006, doi: 10.2167/le678.0.

A. Sfard, “There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 46, pp. 13–57, 2001, doi: 10.1023/A:1014097416157.

D. Lakens, “Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 4, Art. no. 863, 2013, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.

L. R. Aiken, “Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 131–142, 1985, doi: 10.1177/0013164485451012.

R. R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 64–74, 1998, doi: 10.1119/1.18809.

S. Michaels, C. O’Connor, and L. B. Resnick, “Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life,” Studies in Philosophy and Education, vol. 27, pp. 283–297, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1.

K. Erath, J. Ingram, J. Moschkovich, and S. Prediger, “Designing and enacting instruction that enhances language for mathematics learning: A review of the state of development and research,” ZDM Mathematics Education, vol. 53, pp. 245–262, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11858-020-01213-2.

S. Malone, K. Altmeyer, M. Vogel, and R. Brünken, “Homogeneous and heterogeneous multiple representations in equation-solving problems: An eye-tracking study,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 781–798, 2020, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12426.

C. Rüede, C. Streit, S. Y. Mok, and R. Laubscher, “Orchestrating productive classroom talk in Swiss second grade mathematics classrooms,” Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, vol. 44, pp. 385–415, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s13138-023-00224-2.

A. Ducharme, C. P. Smith, and B. King, “Pre-service teachers’ discourse moves during whole class mathematical discussions: An analysis and proposed framework,” Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 9–17, 2022, doi: 10.52214/jmetc.v13i2.9385.

O. G. Drageset and F. Ell, “Using positioning theory to think about mathematics classroom talk,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 115, pp. 353–385, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10649-023-10295-0.

N. Planas, J. Adler, and L. Mwadzaangati, “What is mathematics teaching talk for? A response based on three sites of practice in mathematics education,” ZDM Mathematics Education, vol. 55, pp. 521–534, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11858-022-01452-5.

P. Gustafsson, “Productive mathematical whole-class discussions: A mixed-method approach exploring the potential of multiple-choice tasks supported by a classroom response system,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 22, pp. 861–884, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10763-023-10402-w.

K. Komatsu, Y. Shinno, A. J. Stylianides, and G. J. Stylianides, “Development of local theories in design-based research in mathematics education,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 120, pp. 407–428, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10649-02

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2026-10-26

How to Cite

[1]
N. ’Afifah, S. Saragih, and Mulyono, “Developing a Talk-Moves-Based Learning Design for Systems of Linear Equations in Two Variables: A Design-Based Research Framework”, J.Math.Instr.Soc.Res.Opin., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 2251–2266, Oct. 2026.

Issue

Section

Articles