The analysis of teacher–student interaction when jointly solving routine problems in the primary education mathematics classroom has revealed that there is scarce reasoning and little participation on students’ part. To analyze whether this fact is due to the routine nature of the problems, a sample of teachers who solved, together with their students, a routine problem involving three questions with different cognitive difficulty levels (task 1) was analyzed, describing on which part of the problem-solving process (selection of information or reasoning) they focused their interaction. Results showed that they barely focused the interaction on reasoning, and participation of students was scarce, regardless of the cognitive difficulty of the question to be answered. To check whether these results could be due to the routine nature of the problem, a nonroutine problem (task 2) was solved by the same sample of teachers and students. The results revealed an increase in both reasoning and participation of students in processes that required complex reasoning. This being so, the main conclusion of the present study is that including nonroutine problem solving in the primary education classroom as a challenging task is a reasonable way to increase students’ ability to use their own reasoning to solve problems, and to promote greater teacher–student collaboration. These two aspects are relevant for students to become creative, critical, and reflective citizens.

ResumenEn este trabajo hemos analizado una misma situación educativa desde una doble perspectiva. En concreto, hemos analizado la interacción que mantuvo una profesora de 6° de Educación Primaria con sus alumnos utilizando, por un lado, el Sistema de análisis de la interactividad y construcción de sistemas de significado compartido creado por Coll, Colomina, Onrubia y Rochera, (1992) y, por otro, el Sistema de análisis de la interacción ideado por Sánchez, Rosales y Suárez (1999). El objetivo de este doble análisis es constatar las diferencias y semejanzas entre ambos Sistemas a la hora de analizar la práctica educativa. Para ello presentamos la forma de proceder de cada uno de los Sistemas de análisis y de forma detallada mostramos para cada caso los procedimientos seguidos para el análisis, las medidas empleadas y los resultados prototípicos que se obtuvieron. Los resultados de esta comparación nos muestran que aunque los objetivos de partida puedan ser los mismos existen claras diferencias entre ambas ... AbstractThe paper adopts a double perspective to analyse an educational situation. Specifically, we have analysed the interactions of a 6th year Primary Education teacher with her students using, on the one hand, the Interactivity system of analysis and the construction of systems of shared meaning created by Coll, Colomina, Onrubia, and Rochera, (1992) and, on the other hand, the Interaction system of analysis devised by Sanchez, Rosales, and Suárez (1999). The aim of this double analysis is to study differences and similarities between the two Systems applied to educational practice. Thus we present the procedure followed in each system of analysis, measures employed, and the prototypical results obtained. The results of this comparison show to us that even though clear the basic aims might be the same, there are clear differences between the two procedures. These differences affect both what is studied and how it is studied.

The Home Literacy model predicts different outcomes depending on formal and informal literacy practices carried out at home. However, this model does not explicitly consider the potential differences that the media (paper vs. tablets) in which these practices are carried out can have on performance. The present study explored this issue. Participants were 136 children aged 6–7 years old and their parents. The different activities performed at home were analysed through reports of the parents, and children were assessed at school for their reading performance (decoding and comprehension). Results showed how formal practices using traditional materials predicted reading comprehension, but informal practices did not predict any performance measure. The digital home literacy environment showed no impact on reading performance, suggesting that two different environments (paper and digital) might exist, each one of them having differential impacts on performance. Implications for research and education are discussed.