This study examined elementary and secondary prospective teachers’ (PTs’) abilities to analyze a classroom lesson in order to make claims about student thinking around specific mathematical learning goals based on relevant and revealing evidence. Previous research suggests PTs have some skills in analyzing evidence but apply them inconsistently. Our goal was to describe in more detail the strengths and weaknesses in PTs’ ability to analyze evidence of student thinking. Results indicate that PTs can make some appropriate claims about student learning in a lesson transcript, but more often make overly broad and general claims. PTs were able to support their claims with specific student work but often used poorly aligned evidence. PTs also often explicitly recognized the shortcomings of evidence from the lesson transcript, but then relied on that evidence to make claims about student thinking. Finally, PTs’ background, such as number of teacher education courses completed, does not appear to strongly influence their ability to make claims and support them with evidence, though secondary PTs were more likely to recognize the limitations of evidence than elementary PTs. These results have implications for teacher educators, pointing to the importance of designing interventions to help PTs look beyond the most visible and salient features of a lesson when analyzing student thinking.

本研究调查了小学和中学的准教师 (PT) 分析课堂课程的能力，以便根据相关和有启发性的证据就学生对特定数学学习目标的思考做出声明。先前的研究表明 PT 有一些分析证据的技能，但应用它们的方法不一致。我们的目标是更详细地描述 PT 分析学生思维证据能力的优势和劣势。结果表明，PT 可以在课程成绩单中对学生的学习做出一些适当的声明，但更多时候会做出过于宽泛和笼统的声明。PT 能够用特定的学生作业来支持他们的主张，但经常使用不一致的证据。PT 还经常明确认识到课程记录中证据的不足，但随后依靠该证据对学生的思维提出了主张。最后，PT 的背景，例如完成的教师教育课程的数量，似乎并没有强烈影响他们提出主张和用证据支持他们的能力，尽管二级 PT 比初级 PT 更有可能认识到证据的局限性。这些结果对教师教育者具有重要意义，指出了设计干预措施以帮助 PT 在分析学生思维时超越课程中最明显和最突出的特征的重要性。尽管二级 PT 比初级 PT 更有可能认识到证据的局限性。这些结果对教师教育者具有重要意义，指出设计干预措施以帮助 PT 在分析学生思维时超越课程中最明显和最突出的特征的重要性。尽管二级 PT 比初级 PT 更有可能认识到证据的局限性。这些结果对教师教育者具有重要意义，指出了设计干预措施以帮助 PT 在分析学生思维时超越课程中最明显和最突出的特征的重要性。