Showing posts with label Instruction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Instruction. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Rules that Expire: "Just add a zero!"

By Cassandra Hatfield, RME Assessment Coordinator

Many tips and tricks that we teach our elementary students as rules of mathematics, are introduced as a way to help students recall a procedure rather than truly promote their conceptual understanding of the content. However, many of these rules learned early on don’t hold true as students start to learn more advanced content in middle and high school.

An article in Teaching Children Mathematics, 13 Rules that Expire, by Karp, Bush and Dougherty addresses some of these common misconceptions. Let us know if you see these rules that expire in your classroom, and how you address them.

The first rule we are going to talk about is, "Just add a zero!"

When you multiply 4 by 30 what strategy do you use?

Consider these possible strategies for solving this problem:
Strategy A Strategy B
4 times 3 is 12.

Then add a zero and you get 120.
4 times 3 is 12. 

12 times 10 is 120.

At first glance one may think both of these strategies are appropriate. However, use the same strategies to multiply 0.4 by 30:
Strategy A Strategy B
0.4 times 3 is 1.2.

Then add a zero, so 1.20.
0.4 times 3 is 1.2. 

1.2 times 10 is 12.

The strategy of adding a zero to the right of the number when multiplying by a multiple of 10 only applies to whole numbers, and can’t be generalized. Additionally, utilizing this trick of “adding a zero” isn’t mathematically sound, and does not support students in reasoning and justifying their answer.

Let’s take a look at the mathematics behind Strategy B for each of the above problems.
4×30 0.4×30
4×3×10 0.4×3×10 Decomposition or Partitioning into Factors
(4×3)×10 (.04×3)×10 Associative Property of Multiplication
12×10=120 1.2×10=12

Elementary students can and do use the properties of operations when computing; it’s our job as teachers to help students see and understand the value of the mathematics behind each strategy.

Cluster problems are one way to support students with using facts and combinations they likely already know in order to solve more complex computations (Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M., 2016). Here’s a set of cluster problems that lead to 34 x 50. Consider how these problems are related and the rich discussion you can have with students about the properties of operations they used to get their final answer.

4×5
3×5
3×50
30×50
34×50

Karp, K.S., Bush, S.B., & Dougherty, B.J. (2014). 13 Rules that Expire. Teaching Children Mathematics, 21 (1), 18-25.

Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2016). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Creating New Learning Opportunities with FAQs

By Brea Ratliff, RME Secondary Mathematics Coordinator

One of the most important components of any informational resource is a section labeled “Frequently Asked Questions” or “FAQs”. The FAQ section is often easy to find, can be a very helpful tool when you need to quickly find the answer to a question you might have, or you need a reminder of a process or an idea you had seen previously and need a refresher. Whether you are a novice or an expert, the FAQs are helpful for everyone.

So, where are the FAQs in the classrooms? Would students know how to access answers to the pertinent and relevant questions they have about whatever concept they are learning? More important, as teachers, are we aware of some of the questions students might have which could be included in a FAQ section about our classroom?

Here are a few strategies for helping you establish an FAQ space in your math classroom.

1.  Have a clear understanding of your expectations. If we anticipate our students will rise to our expectations, we must be clear about what the expectations are. Many of our expectations are outlined in a syllabus or a letter that goes home to parents at the beginning of the year, but what about our expectations for learning mathematics in the classroom? Here are a few questions to consider:
  • What are my expectations for collaboration in the classroom?
  • What techniques will I use to ensure my students comprehend what they are learning?
  • What opportunities can I provide for students to communicate with me when they have questions about the math?
For the concept you are teaching, identify the major misconceptions or misunderstanding students might have. Understand the background knowledge necessary for being successful with this topic, as well as why the topic is foundational for future studies. Emphasize content vocabulary and mathematical processes. The FAQ is not only a resource, but can be used as an evaluative tool to help you identify what students do and don’t understand about a concept or unit of study.

Here are some example questions for a lesson or unit focused on dividing fractions:

2.  Get to know your audience. Most – if not all – people want to succeed in whatever they do, and can sometimes feel embarrassed to ask questions. I know many middle and high school students who would never raise their hands and tell their teachers, or the entire class, they don’t understand math concepts taught to them years earlier. I also know several highly educated adults who would rather “play it safe” and not ask questions, out of the fear of looking as if they don’t know something. An FAQ space can make learning accessible for everyone.

3.  Find your medium. So, now you’ve developed your FAQs, but where will you keep it? As I mentioned earlier, a syllabus can be a great starting point, but let your creative juices flow when selecting your medium. Try creating an FAQ bulletin board in the classroom, or maybe adding an FAQ section to your classroom website. Use Twitter as an FAQ space or create posters throughout the school so students can see and be reminded of these ideas outside of your classroom.

4.  Make it collaborative. One of the greatest rewards of being an educator is the gift of being a teacher and a student at the same time. To quote science fiction author Robert Heinlien,“When one teaches, two learn.” As you teach concepts, allow your students to draft and share questions to be added to your FAQs.

Please share some of your FAQ space examples with us on Twitter at @RME_SMU

Quote by Robert Heinlein. Think Exist http://thinkexist.com/quotation/when_one_teaches-two_learn/149371.html retrieved 23 September 2014

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Supporting English Learners in the Mathematics Classroom

By Dr. Deni Basaraba, RME Assessment Coordinator

The number of English Learners (ELs) in the United States is growing at an unprecedented rate that shows no signs of slowing. As of 2013, for example, over 60.6 million people (21%) spoke a language other than English in the home and, of those, 37.6 million (62%) spoke Spanish in the home (Ryan, 2013). Moreover, the National Center for Educational Statistics (2011) reported that the number of ELs attending public schools has increased in the last three decades, from 4.7 million to 11.2 million. In Texas specifically, the percentage of students classified as ELs increased from 15.3% to 17.5% from 2003 to 2013 and the percentage of students receiving bilingual or English as a second language services grew from 14% to 17.1% (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2014). This steady increase in the number of ELs attending our schools, combined with a persistent achievement gap in mathematics on both state and national assessments on which ELs exhibit consistently lower levels of proficiency than their non-EL peers, (NCES, 2013), underscore the need to ensure that our mathematics instruction incorporates evidence-based principles of instructional design and delivery to support the development of ELs mathematics understanding and proficiency.

Listed below are three research-based recommendations for supporting ELs mathematics understanding and proficiency.

Situate mathematics problems in contexts that are familiar to students. One of the primary goals of education is to provide students with instruction and practice in skills that they can generalize outside of the classroom to real-world contexts. Consequently, situating mathematics problems for students to solve in contexts that are familiar to them is important not only because it increases their likelihood of engaging in meaning-making actions that rely on conceptual understanding (as opposed to carrying out rote procedures) (Domínguez, 2011) but also because it increases students’ engagement in the problem-solving process (Brenner, 2002; Domínguez, LópezLeiva, & Khisty, 2014). Examples might include: grocery shopping, preparing meals, playing video games, reading books aloud to siblings and/or adults, or eating meals in the school cafeteria.

Focus explicitly on mathematical vocabulary. Although proficiency in mathematics requires students to think in terms of abstract ideas, concepts, and symbols that may be similar across languages, this does not support the common misconception that mathematics is “culture free” (Garrison & Mora, 1999). Rather, it could be argued that explicit instruction of mathematics vocabulary may be critical for some ELs because some mathematical words such as odd, times, table, or line may have specific mathematical definitions that are different than their meaning in everyday conversation (Fang, 2012; Garrison & Mora, 1999; Schleppegrell, 2007)

Strategically incorporate visual representations and manipulatives. One means of fulfilling the recommendation for developmental mathematics instruction put forth by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) is to scaffold students’ understanding of abstract mathematical concepts with concrete and visual representations. Concrete representations, or manipulatives such as tangrams, for example, can be used to provide students with tangible experience with mathematical concepts such as greater than and less than, larger and smaller, or concepts of size (e.g., small, smaller, smallest) (Garrison & Mora, 1999). Visual representations, such as graphs or tables, may be useful methods for helping ELs to communicate their preliminary understanding of complex mathematical concepts such as multiplication or division that can be represented graphically more easily than they can verbally or with written words. Not only do these representations provide ELs with opportunity to see and touch while simultaneously being exposed to new mathematical vocabulary, but they also provide ELs with access to the key mathematical concepts in formats that don’t require dependence on language (Cirillo, Bruna, & Herbel-Eisenmann, 2010).

References

Brenner, M. (2002). Everyday problem solving and curriculum implementation: An invitation to try pizza. In M. E. Brenner & J. N. Moschkovich (Eds.) Journal for research in mathematics education. Monograph (Vol. 11): Everyday and academic mathematics in the classroom (pp. 63-92). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Cirillo, M., Bruna, K. R., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2010). Acquisition of mathematical language: Suggestions and activities for English language learners. Multicultural Perspectives, 12, 34-41.

Domínguez, H., LópezLeiva, C. A., & Khisty, L. L. (2014). Relational engagement: Proportional reasoning with bilingual Latino/a students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85, 143-160.

Domínguez, H. (2011). Using what matters to students in bilingual mathematics problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 305-328.

Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 19-34.

Garrison, L., & Mora, J. K. (1999). Adapting mathematics instruction for English-language learners: The language-concept connection. Changing the Faces of Mathematics: Perspectives on Latinos, 35-48.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). NAEP data explorer [Data file].Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retreived from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx.

Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011. American Community Survey report (ACS-22). U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved 02/26/14 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). Linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 139-159.

Texas Education Agency (2014). Enrollment in Texas public schools: 2013-2014. (Document No. GE15 601 03). Austin, TX: Author.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Bringing the Associative Property of Multiplication to Life

By Cassandra Hatfield, RME Assessment Coordinator, and Megan Hancock, Graduate Research Assistant

The Institute of Education Science (IES) Practice Guide for Improving Mathematical Problem Solving in Grades 4 through 8 Recommendation five states that it is important to “help students recognize and articulate mathematical concepts and notation” (Woodward et al., 2012). One way to carry out this recommendation is to “ask students to explain each step used to solve a problem in a worked example” and “help students make sense of algebraic notation” (Woodward et al., 2012).

The Associative Property of Multiplication will illustrate this recommendation by going beyond a procedural skill and making connections conceptually that support the symbolic notation. Our goal is to give evidence that the Associative Property of Multiplication can be taught through multiple representations. Through our research we found that some representations are mathematically accurate, but may not provide students with a compelling reason to use this property.
When developing the concept of volume of rectangular prisms, decomposing the rectangular prism into layers allows students to make the connection with content they are already familiar with, arrays and area. This decomposition also exemplifies the Associative Property of Multiplication. Here are some examples of how the rectangular prism shown above can be decomposed in different ways.

 
  • A: 2 × (6 × 4)
  • B: (2 × 6) × 4
  • C: Supports commutative property of multiplication too
    • 2 × 6 × 4; 2 × 4 × 6; (2 × 4) × 6
By designing activities and lessons that support the decomposition of rectangular prisms into different layers, teachers can support students in making sense of the notation of Associative Property of Multiplication, A x (B x C) = (A x B) x C, and finding the volume of rectangular prisms. Explorations like this also support teachers in holding students accountable for understanding the notation because students can use the different models to support their explanation of their understanding.

Woodward, J., Beckmann, S., Driscoll, M., Franke, M., Herzig, P., Jitendra, A., Koedinger, K. R., & Ogbuehi, P. (2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4055). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http:// ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch/.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Closing the Learning Gaps: Strategies to ensure your students will be successful with the new TEKS


By Brea Ratliff, RME Secondary Math Research Coordinator

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are the state standards that identify the information students should learn and the academic proficiencies they should demonstrate in each grade level or course. The newly adopted math TEKS are evidence of increased expectations for mathematics education in the state of Texas. Although several changes have been incorporated into the math TEKS, our students do not have to enter the next grade or course with gaps in their understanding of mathematics. As educators, we are charged with the difficult task of meeting students where they are through our reflective practice, which includes the development of instructional techniques designed to support students as they learn mathematics. The biggest, and perhaps the most important step in this process, is for educators and administrators alike to analyze and become familiar with the new math TEKS. In this blog series, we will examine strategies to help teachers and students experience success with the new math TEKS.

Strategy 1: Identify your resources

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has published several resources for math teachers and administrators to help them transition into teaching the new math TEKS. These resources can be used to plan lessons, develop an understanding of the knowledge and skills addressed in a particular grade level / course, and foster conversations with parents and other stakeholders in your community about the changes in the state math standards.
  • Side-by-Side TEKS Comparison - this document compares the revised TEKS (adopted in 2012) to the previously adopted TEKS (revised in 2006) and allows the reader to see all of the major changes and shifts made to the math content and mathematical process standards. Documents for grades K through 8, Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 are available on Project Share. (Side-by-Side TEKS)
  • Vertical alignment charts - TEA has published four vertical alignment documents, which organize the TEKS by major concepts and show how these ideas are connected across grade levels / courses. These charts can also be accessed on Project Share. (Vertical Alignment)
  • STAAR Mathematics Resources - changes in the math standards have also impacted the state mathematics assessments. The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) assessments Assessed Curriculum, Blueprints, and Reference Materials documents have been updated to reflect these changes. (STAAR Math Resources)
  • Texas Response to Curriculum Focal Points - Revised in 2013, this document guides mathematics teachers in understanding the topics within each grade level that require the most emphasis, and can be used to inform instructional pacing and lesson development. This document is also available on Project Share. (TXRCFP)
After reviewing these resources, please share any questions or comments you might have with us via email or on Twitter (@RME_SMU). In the next blog, we will examine how these documents can be used to impact math instruction, with a specific emphasis on Number and Operation.

Friday, June 20, 2014

CAMT is Coming Up!

By Savannah Hill, RME Professional Development Coordinator

Looking for a good conference this summer? Come join us at CAMT - the Conference for the Advancement of Mathematics Teaching in Fort Worth on July 21 - 23. CAMT is an annual Texas conference for K-12 mathematics teachers. The conference is sponsored jointly by the Texas Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Texas Association of Supervisors of Mathematics, and the Texas Section of the Mathematical Association of America.

If you have never heard of the CAMT Conference, here is a little bit about them from their website:
The CAMT program consists of approximately 750 sessions, ranging from 90 minutes to three hours. The workshops and sessions consist of mathematics content and pedagogy appropriate for K-12 mathematics teachers. Outstanding speakers from all over the state and nation submit proposals to present sessions, and a program committee selects sessions most appropriate for the conference. Also, a large number of presenters are invited from all over the country to present featured sessions. Most session presenters are outstanding, practicing mathematics teachers, who present ideas for teaching that they have found effective in their classrooms. Many sessions involve hands-on learning activities that teachers can use in the classroom to address various topics in the mathematics curriculum. Effective use of manipulative materials in the classroom is an important component of the conference, and a number of sessions regarding manipulative use occur at each conference. Use of technology in classroom instruction is also an important component of the CAMT conference.
We have several members of our team presenting this summer. Come join us at one of the following sessions!
  • Engaging Models and Activities to Support Fraction Instruction - Monday, July 21, 10:00 - 11:00 and 11:30 - 12:30, CC 203A 
  • BYOD: RtI at Your Fingertips - Monday, July 21, 10:00 - 11:00, CC 120 
  • MSTAR: Understanding the Value of an Assessment Plan - Monday, July 21, 1:00 - 2:00, Omni FW 5 
  • PreCal 911: Engaging Activities to Save the Day! - Tuesday, July 22, 10:00 - 11:00, CC 201C 
  • Teacher T.O.M. - A Strategy for Reflective Practice - Tuesday, July 22, 11:30 - 12:30 and 1:00 - 2:00 Omni Stockyards 3 
  • ESTAR: Understanding the Value of an Assessment Plan - Tuesday, July 22, 1:00 - 2:00, Omni FW 5 
  • Implementing the NEW TEKS with Best Practices - Tuesday July 22, 1:00 - 2:00, CC 114 
  • Money Management: Developing Appreciation Through Mathematics - Tuesday, July 22, 1:00 - 2:00, CC 204AB 
  • Spaghetti & Meatballs and Algebraic Reasoning - Wednesday, July 23, 10:00 - 11:00, Omni Sundance 2 
  • ESTAR: Understanding the Value of an Assessment Plan - Wednesday, July 23, 2:30 - 3:30, Omni FW 5
Hope to see you there! 

Friday, March 14, 2014

Discovering Pi (π), 3.14159265359…

By Sharri Zachary, RME Mathematics Research Coordinator and RME Collaborator Patti Hebert, Garland ISD

As presented in the opening session of our RME conference, there are three key components that we, as educators, should maintain as we transition into the new math TEKS: (1) balance, where the emphasis is on students’ conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge (2) focus, where we centralize instruction around the “big” ideas, and (3) coherence, where the instruction is aligned within and across grade levels.

Consider this standard from the revised math TEKS for grade 7:
The student applies mathematical process standards to use geometry to describe or solve problems involving proportional relationships.

The student is expected to: 
5(B) –describe π as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter

In honor of Pi Day, I would like to share an activity that you may want to consider for use with your students, Sidewalk Circles. At the end of this activity, the students should be able to explain that:
  1. The distance from the center to the edge of a circle is "1" /"2" the distance from one side of the circle to the other side of the circle through the center (OR the distance from one side of the circle to the other side of the circle through the center is about 2 times the distance from the center out to the edge of the circle).
  2. The distance all the way around the outside of the circle is about 3 times the distance from one side of the circle to the other side of the circle through the center (discovery of Pi).
You will need the following materials for each team:
  • One (1) center tool (we used small funnels with shoelaces strung through the end of the funnel to keep the shoelace from coming through)
  • Chalk
  • One (1) pre-marked ribbon piece (with indicated measures, 10 cm, 23 cm, and 36 cm) 
  • One (1) 2.5 m piece of string 
  • One (1) tape measure
    Take the class outside to an unused pavement area. (If raining, let students use large pieces of butcher paper to complete this activity.)

    Student teams directions:
    1.  Pick a center point and mark it with a clear mark so that you will know where it needs to be every time you are creating a circle.
    2. Stretch your pre-marked ribbon out tight and wrap it around the piece of chalk so that the first mark on your ribbon is at the edge of the chalk.


    3. HOLD THE RIBBON TIGHT as you move the chalk around the center drawing a circle on the sidewalk. Work as a team and do not let the center move.
    4. You must take 3 measurements for EACH circle. Use the 2.5 m string. Lay it out, then take it to a measuring tape to find the actual measurement: a) From the center to the edge of the circle b) From one side of the circle to the other side of the circle THROUGH the center c) Around the outside of the circle.
    5. Repeat this process for the other 2 tape marks on your ribbon.
    The general premise is that each group of students will create sidewalk circles using the pre-marked lengths of the ribbon piece (one each: 10 cm, 23 cm, 36cm), a center point, and chalk. They will use string and a tape measure to find the distance from the center to the edge of the circle (radius) and the distance around the entire circle (circumference). They will repeat these processes for all three measurements until they have drawn one circle for each measurement. The group should discuss their measurements and use reasoning skills to analyze the relationships among the measurements.

    Friday, January 31, 2014

    What Makes a Pre-AP Math Course Pre-AP?

    By Sharri Zachary, RME Mathematics Research Coordinator

    Pre-AP courses are designed to prepare students for college. According to The College Board (2014), Pre-AP courses are based on the following premises:
    • All students can perform at rigorous academic levels
    • Every student can engage in higher levels of learning when they are prepared as early as possible
    As we transition into implementation of the revised Texas Essentials of Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), we have to ensure that Pre-AP courses still fulfill the purpose for which they are intended. The revised TEKS have added a level of academic rigor for ALL students in the general education classroom. Students are expected to deepen their conceptual understanding of math concepts, including reasoning and justifying their solution. This means that students in Pre-AP courses have to be met with challenges that expand their knowledge and skills and push them a notch above, toward the next level. We have to be cautious to avoid students receiving Pre-AP credit for course work that is not Pre-AP.

    Pre-AP Math Course Goals:
    • Teach on grade level but at a higher level of academic rigor
    • Assess students at a level similar to what is offered in an AP course (rigorous multiple-choice and free-response formats)
    • Promote student development in skills, habits, and concepts necessary for college success
    • Encourage students to develop their communication skills in mathematics to interpret problem situations and explain solutions both orally and written
    • Incorporate technology as a tool for help in solving problems, experimenting, interpreting results, and verifying solutions
    This is just a small list of goals for Pre-AP math courses. The College Board has official Pre-AP courses in mathematics (and English language arts) for middle and high school students offered through their SpringBoard program (The College Board, 2014). These courses offer rigorous curriculum and formative assessments consistent with their beliefs and expectations.

    The College Board. (2014). Pre-AP. Retrieved from http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/preap/index.html

    Friday, January 17, 2014

    Success With Elapsed Time: Part 2

    By Cassandra Hatfield, RME Assessment Coordinator

    Using the number line to facilitate students understanding of elapsed time can support understanding because it is a familiar model they have used with the base 10 system. Initially, in Success with Elapsed Time: Part 1 I discussed ways to support students in thinking about elapsed time out of context and support the transition to thinking about the base 60 system of time. In this part, I will focus on three basic underlying types of contextual situations that student’s encounter with elapsed time and how to use the structure of those problems to facilitate further use of the number line.

    Read through these three problems, and consider what the problems have in common and what is different about them.

    1 Sam’s school starts at 7:50 am. He goes to lunch is at 12:20 pm. How much time elapses between when school starts and when he goes to lunch?
    2 Jessie has soccer practice at 4:15pm. Practice lasts for 1 hour and 30 minutes. What time will practice end?
    3 Michelle’s mom needs her turkey to be done for dinner at 6:30 pm. It will take the turkey 4 hours and 15 minutes to bake. What time does the need to put the turkey in the oven?

    Using this model, it is clear to see that each problem has 2 of the 3 pieces of information:
    Basic Structure of Elapsed Time Problems
    1
    2
    3

    In working in classrooms on this topic, I found that it was effective to give students the opportunity to brainstorm in groups and then discuss the similarities and differences between the problems as a class. The students were able to realize the structure of the problems and that one part was missing without me providing the overarching model. By giving the students the opportunity to develop the model, I became the facilitator of the learning.

    As you are planning for lessons on elapsed time, plan to give students a variety of different problem types. Many traditional textbooks only offer problems with a start time and an elapsed time.

    Dixon, J. (2008). Tracking time: Representing elapsed time on an open timeline. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(1), 18-24.

    Monday, December 9, 2013

    Success with Elapsed Time: Part 1

    By Cassandra Hatfield, RME Assessment Coordinator

    One of the challenges many teachers face is how to teach students to calculate elapsed time. In fact, "on the 2003 NAEP assessment, only 26 percent of fourth graders and 55 percent of eighth graders could solve a problem involving the conversion of one measure of time to another" (Blume et al., 2007).

    This blog will focus on a strategy for computing the elapsed time, given a start and end time. The second blog of this series will focus on the three types of elapsed time solving story problems and how to support students in understanding the structure of those problems.

    Using a procedure similar to the standard algorithm to calculate elapsed time can be challenging for students because time is in a base 60 system and depending on the times given, students have to calculate considering the change from AM and PM.

    An open number line is an great tool that supports students in calculating elapsed time mentally. Before making the transition to the open number line, in a whole class setting have students count around the class by benchmarks of time and record the times on an anchor chart.
    When students understand the benchmarks of time it supports them in being flexible in which strategy they use. Some students will gravitate towards one strategy while other students will select the strategy that is most efficient for the times given.
    Calculating by benchmarks of time
    Calculating to benchmarks of time
    Some students will find it difficult to combine the minutes and hours when calculating to benchmarks of time. It is also important to focus your classroom discussions on how to combine benchmarks of time. An anchor chart to support this can also is beneficial for your students. Students will come up with many different ways. Here are just a few.


    We would love to get some feedback on transitioning to a number line for calculating elapsed time. Let us know how it goes!

    Blume, G., Gilindo, E., & Walcott, C. (2007). Performance in measurement and geometry from the viewpoint of Principles and Standards of School Mathematics. In P. Kloosterman & F.Lester, Jr. (Eds.), Results and interpretations of the 2003 mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 95-138. Reston, VA: NCTM.

    Wednesday, December 4, 2013

    Insight to ‘Teaching Math to Young Children’

    By Sharri Zachary, RME Mathematics Research Coordinator

    The National Research Council (NRC) and the National Council for Teachers in Mathematics (NCTM) describe two fundamental areas of mathematics for young children: 1) Number and Operations, and 2) Geometry and Measurement. According to the NRC (2009), conceptual development within number and operations should focus on students’ development of the list of counting numbers and the use of counting numbers to describe total objects in a given set. It is recommended that teachers provide students with opportunities to “subitize small collections [of objects], practice counting, compare the magnitude [size] of collections, and use numerals to quantify collections” (Frye et al., 2013). Conceptual development in geometry and measurement should support the idea that geometric shapes have different parts that can be described and include activities that model composition and decomposition of geometric shapes.
    The Institute of Educational Sciences (IES) released a practice guide recently on Teaching Math to Young Children. The recommendations put forth in the IES practice guide are:

    1. Teach number and operations using a developmental progression
    2. Teach geometry, patterns, measurement, and data analysis using a developmental learning progression
    3. Use progress monitoring to ensure that math instruction builds on what each child knows
    4. Teach children to view and describe their world mathematically
    5. Dedicate time each day to teaching math, and integrate math instruction throughout the school day
    These recommendations are intended to:

    • Guide teacher preparation that will result in later math success for students
    • Provide descriptions of early content areas to be integrated into classroom instructional practices
    • Assist in the development of curriculum for students in early grades
    To access/download the full IES practice guide, please visit http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=18

    Frye, D., Baroody, A. J., Burchinal, M., Carver, S. M., Jordan, N. C., & McDowell, J. (2013). Teaching math to young children: A practice guide (NCEE 2014-4005). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Educa-tion. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov

    National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

    Friday, November 22, 2013

    Identifying Error Patterns and Diagnosing Misconceptions: Part 1

    By Dr. Yetunde Zannou, RME Post Doctoral Fellow

    Identifying student error patterns, what they do, is the first step in diagnosing student misconceptions, the why behind the errors. Knowing what students do and most importantly why they do it yields invaluable information that teachers can use to guide instruction and bridge gaps in student understanding.

    Teachers can identify student error patterns and diagnose misconceptions using several tools such as student work, direct observation, and interviews. Each provides insight into how students think. In addition, certain assessments are designed to gather specific data about student error patterns and misconceptions based on the answers they choose. Classroom evidence and diagnostic assessments complement one another and contribute to the level of confidence a teacher can have in making instructional decisions to meet students’ demonstrated learning needs. This multi-part series will explore two main categories of tools teachers can use to identify error patterns and diagnose misconceptions: classroom evidence and diagnostic assessments.

    Using Classroom Evidence to Identify Error Patterns and Diagnose Misconceptions: Student Work

    Classroom evidence consists of student work, direct observation data, and interview data. Student work is identified as assignments (e.g., classwork, homework, quizzes, tests, projects, and portfolios) that students submit as evidence of learning stated objectives. Direct observations involve both listening to student responses within small and large group contexts and watching how they solve problems. Interviews probe students’ understanding through questioning about their thinking and can happen spontaneously or can be scheduled. Each type has unique strengths and can be used together to form a robust assessment system.

    Student work is commonly used to understand students’ skill and accuracy in performing mathematical procedures, their conceptual understanding, and their ability to apply that understanding in novel situations. In some cases, student work is also used to determine student readiness for new concepts and advanced learning activities. Though student work serves many purposes in the mathematics classroom, the following considerations can help maximize its use in identifying error patterns and diagnosing misconceptions:

    Vary problem sets in specific ways to reveal and confirm error patterns. Student work is often used to determine whether or not a student “got it”. As a tool for identifying error patterns and diagnosing misconceptions, activity selection and what specifically you want to know about student understanding take center stage. In other words, if you want to know if students can accurately apply an algorithm, student work might consist of calculations. To identify error patterns and diagnose misconceptions, select problems that are likely to reveal and confirm a variety of specific errors and misconceptions. Choose problems that vary slightly in order to ferret out where students may struggle.

    For example, if you want to determine if students can correctly subtract three digit numbers, select problems that: (a) do not require regrouping, (b) require regrouping from the tens or hundreds place, and (c) require regrouping from both the tens and hundreds place. A common misconception that students have with regrouping is treating each digit in a number independently without regard to its position in the minuend or subtrahend. Students with this misconception may subtract the smaller place value digit from the larger place value digit (e.g., To evaluate 742 – 513, the student subtracts 2 from 3 in the ones place because the 2 is smaller than 3) to get around regrouping. Including problems like this and looking for this error pattern can help teachers to see the misconception and teach students about the relationship between the number and place value. Ashlock (2010) provides a wealth of examples to illustrate how slightly varying problem types can help to identify and confirm error patterns in computation.

    Maximize your review time by carefully selecting problems. In higher grades especially, student work tends to cover a variety of topics and rarely focuses on a single concept. Balancing conceptual focus and cumulative review can be challenging. When using student work as a diagnostic tool (different from using a diagnostic assessment), less is more! If the goal is to identify gaps and make adjustments, the fewer and more strategic the problem set, the better. Assigning fewer, more strategic problems regularly provides teachers with timely information about emergent proficiencies and struggles when evaluating student work. This information can be gathered rather quickly and used to help teachers to group students accordingly, target common gaps in understanding, and guide instruction in general. In a classroom where student work is used as a diagnostic tool, cumulative assignments can be given periodically.

    Use student work to help focus further steps to identify and diagnose learning needs. It can be challenging to track student progress on a single concept or procedure over time through student work alone because assignments rarely revisit the same concept in the manner over an extended period of time. As such, a comprehensive assessment system is the best approach to identify error patterns and diagnose student misconceptions. Student work just may be a good first step! Other tools will be discussed throughout this series such as gathering classroom through direct observations and interviews, and later, diagnostic and progress monitoring assessments. As a first step in an overall assessment program, student work can provide teachers with focus—identify which students you may need to pay close attention to and what to look for in their work, behavior, and responses.


    Ashlock, R. (2010). Error patterns in computation: Using error patterns to help each student learn (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1999). Mathematics assessment: A practical handbook for grades 9-12. Reston, VA: Author.

    Thursday, November 14, 2013

    Mastering Explicit Instruction - Part 4

    By Dr. Deni Basaraba, RME Assessment Coordinator

    We have come to an end on our series on explicit instruction (Please see our previous posts for more information!). Van de Walle (2013) characterizes explicit instruction as highly-structured, teacher-led instruction on a specific strategy. He explains how this approach can help uncover or make overt the thinking strategies that support mathematical problem solving for students with disabilities.
    Here are our final thoughts on the elements necessary to carry out explicit instruction in the classroom.

    Monitoring the performance of all students closely to verify students’ mastery of the content and help determine whether adjustments to instruction need to be made in response to student errors. Closely monitoring student performance can also help you determine which students are confident enough in their knowledge of the content to respond when signaled and which students are cueing off their peers by waiting for others to respond first.
    Providing specific and immediate affirmative and corrective feedback as quickly as possible after the students’ response to help ensure high rates of success and reduce the likelihood of practicing errors. Feedback should be specific to the response students provided and briefly descriptive so that students can use the information provided in the feedback to further inform their learning (e.g., “Yes, we can use the written numeral 2 to show that we have two pencils”).
    Delivering instruction at a “perky” pace to optimize instructional time, the amount of content that can be presented, the number of opportunities students have to practice the skill or strategy, and student engagement and on-task behavior. The pacing of content delivery should be sufficiently brisk to keep students engaged while simultaneously providing a reasonable amount of “think-time,” particularly when students are learning new material.
    Providing distributed and cumulative practice opportunities to ensure that students have multiple opportunities to practice skills over time. Cumulative practice provides an opportunity to include practice opportunities that address both previously and newly learned content, skills, and strategies, facilitating the integration of newly learned knowledge and skills with previously learned knowledge and skills and supporting retention and fostering automaticity.

    Thanks for joining us on our journey with explicit instruction! Please feel free to leave comments below with your thoughts or questions!
      Baker, S. K., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51-73.

      Carnine, D. W. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130-141.

      Doabler, C. T., Cary, M. S., Jungjohann, K., Clarke, B., Fien, H., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., & Chard, D. (2012). Enhancing core mathematics instruction for students at risk for mathematics disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 48-57.

      Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally, 8th edition. Boston: Pearson.

      Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121-131.

      Thursday, November 7, 2013

      Mastering Explict Instruction - Part 3

      By Dr. Deni Basaraba, RME Assessment Coordinator

      We have been doing a series on how all students, particularly those who are struggling, benefit from the provision of explicit instruction (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Carnine, 1997; Doabler et al., 2012; Witzel, Mercer, & Miller, 2003). Van de Walle (2013) characterizes explicit instruction as highly-structured, teacher-led instruction on a specific strategy. He explains how this approach can help uncover or make overt the thinking strategies that support mathematical problem solving for students with disabilities.
      We started a list of the methods and elements of explicit instruction (see the previous two posts!). To continue this series of blogs, here are some additional elements of explicit instruction as well as examples and/or steps to carrying out these recommendations.

      Using clear, concise, and consistent language that is not ambiguous, does not introduce irrelevant or unnecessary information into instruction, and is consistent across teacher models, whole group practice, and to elicit student responses so that students know what they are expected to do. Here are some suggestions to help with this element:
      • Train interventionists to explain math content
      • Include math concepts, vocabulary, formulas, procedures, reasoning and methods
      • Use clear language understandable to students
      Providing a range of examples and non-examples to help students determine when and when not to apply a skill, strategy, concept, or rule. Including a wide-range of positive examples during instruction provides students with multiple opportunities to practice the using the target strategy or skill while including non-examples can help reduce the possibility that students will use the skill inappropriately or over-generalize it to inappropriate mathematics problems. For example, here are some examples and non-examples of an algebraic expression:
      • Example: Suppose we wanted to write an expression to find the total cost of movie tickets for different groups of people, given that tickets cost $7 each. We can define the variable "p" to represent the number of people in a group. Then the algebraic expression 7 x p or 7p represents the total cost of movie tickets for a group of p people.
      • Non-example:The expression 550 + 20 is not an algebraic expression because it does not contain at least one variable.
      Requiring frequent responses by relying minimally on individual student turns (e.g., asking students to raise their hand if they have the correct response) and relying more on the use of questioning to elicit various types of responses such as oral responses (e.g., having pre-identified partners or groups of students such as boys/girls, 1s/2s, apples/oranges respond), written responses, and/or action responses (e.g., thumbs up/thumbs down). Increasing the number of opportunities students have to respond during the lesson promotes a high level of student-teacher interaction, helps keep students engaged with the content, provides multiple opportunities for student practice with and elaboration on the newly learned content, and can help you monitor student understanding.

      We have four more suggestions for mastering explicit instruction! Stay tuned!!

      Baker, S. K., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51-73.

      Carnine, D. W. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130-141.

      Doabler, C. T., Cary, M. S., Jungjohann, K., Clarke, B., Fien, H., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., & Chard, D. (2012). Enhancing core mathematics instruction for students at risk for mathematics disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 48-57.

      Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally, 8th edition. Boston: Pearson.

      Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121-131.

      Mastering Explicit Instruction - Part 2

      By Dr. Deni Basaraba, RME Assessment Coordinator

      A couple of weeks ago, we discussed how all students, particularly those who are struggling, benefit from the provision of explicit instruction (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Carnine, 1997; Doabler et al., 2012; Witzel, Mercer, & Miller, 2003). Van de Walle (2013) characterizes explicit instruction as highly-structured, teacher-led instruction on a specific strategy. He explains how this approach can help uncover or make overt the thinking strategies that support mathematical problem solving for students with disabilities. 
      We started a list of the methods and elements of explicit instruction. To continue this series of blogs, here are some additional elements of explicit instruction as well as examples and/or steps to carrying out these recommendations.

      Beginning each lesson with a clear statement of the objectives and goals for that lesson so that students know not only what they are going to learn but why it is important and how it relates to other skills and strategies they have already learned. For example:
      • Today, we are going to continue our work with variables and expressions. You are going to learn how parentheses are used in expressions. You need this knowledge in order to solve algebraic equations.
      Reviewing prerequisite knowledge and skills prior to starting instruction that includes a review of relevant information not only to ensure that students’ have the prior knowledge and skills needed to learn the skill being taught in the lesson but also to provide students an opportunity to link the new skills with other related skills and increase their sense of success. For example:
      • First, let’s review. Tell your partner what a variable is. (A variable is a symbol that represents a number.) Yes, a variable is a symbol that represents a number. Look at these expressions (5 + x; t – 10). In the first expression, what is the variable? (X) Yes, x is a symbol that represents a number. Everyone, what is the variable in the second expression? (T) Let’s look again at the definition of an expression...
      Modeling the desired skill or strategy clearly to demonstrate for students what they will be expected to do so and can see first-hand what a model of proficient performance looks like. When completing these models, think aloud for students so that each step of the strategy or skill you perform is clear and to clarify the decision-making processes needed to complete the procedure or solve the problem. For example:
      • Look at this expression: 3 × ( 4 - 2). When an expression contains more than one operation, parentheses can be used to show which computation should be done first. So, when we have an expression, we first look for parentheses and do the operation inside the parentheses. In this problem, 4 - 2 is inside the parentheses, so I will do that operation first...
      Providing guided and supported practice by regulating the difficulty of practice opportunities from easier to more challenging and providing higher levels of guidance and support initially that is gradually decreased as students demonstrate success. For example:
      • Let’s do some problems together. Please stay with me so we can do these items correctly. Write this expression on your paper, but don’t solve it. Do we do the operations inside or outside of the parentheses first... 
      • Write this expression on your paper. Do we do the operations inside or outside of the parentheses first? Inside. Find the value of the expression.
      • (After several examples where the teacher slowly gives less help) Copy this expression and find the value of the expression. Don’t forget . . . parentheses first...

      Baker, S. K., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51-73.

      Carnine, D. W. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130-141.

      Doabler, C. T., Cary, M. S., Jungjohann, K., Clarke, B., Fien, H., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., & Chard, D. (2012). Enhancing core mathematics instruction for students at risk for mathematics disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 48-57.

      Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally, 8th edition. Boston: Pearson.

      Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121-131.

      Wednesday, October 9, 2013

      Mastering Explicit Instruction - Part 1

      By Deni Basaraba, RME Assessment Coordinator

      Research (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Carnine, 1997; Doabler et al., 2012; Witzel, Mercer, & Miller, 2003) indicates that all students, but particularly struggling learners, benefit from the provision of explicit instruction, which can be defined as a direct an unambiguous approach to instruction that incorporates instructional design and instructional delivery procedures (Archer & Hughes, 2011).

      Moreover, students benefit from having strategies for learning content made conspicuous for them but only when these strategies are designed to support the transfer of knowledge from the specific content being taught (i.e., the mathematics problems that are the focus of instruction during a particular class period) to a broader, more generalizable context (e.g., similar mathematics problems with similar or more complex types of numbers, similar mathematics problems presented during whole group instruction to be solved collaboratively, in pairs, or independently as part of homework) (Kame’enui, Carnine, Dixon, & Burns, 2011).
      What is explicit instruction?

      As noted previously, the idea of explicit instruction includes both instructional design and instructional delivery features, and requires that we carefully consider not only the content we plan to teach and the order in which that content is sequenced but also the methods we used to deliver that instruction to our students. In this series of blogs, we will provide you with elements of explicit instruction as well as examples and/or steps to carrying out these recommendations.

      Focusing instruction on critical content (e.g., skills, strategies, concepts, vocabulary) that is essential for promoting student understanding of the target content as well as future, related content.
      • The amount of time designated each day to explicit vocabulary instruction will depend upon the vocabulary load of the text to be read as well as the students’ general prior knowledge of the new vocabulary. 
      • Computer-assisted instruction can be another effective way to provide practice on newly-introduced vocabulary words. 
      • Other methods include using graphic organizers and semantic maps to teach the relationships among words and concepts.
      Organizing instruction around “big ideas” that can help students see how particular skills and concepts fit together. This will provide students with a clearer understanding of how content, skills, and strategies are related and can help students organize that information in their minds, making it easier for them to retrieve that information and integrate it with new material.

      Example: Fractions are numbers that can be represented in different ways.
      • Modeling part/whole relationship
      • Writing fraction numbers
      • Comparing fractions
      • Measuring fractions on a number line
      Sequencing skills in a logical fashion so that (a) students learn all prerequisite skills before being asked to perform the target skill, (b) high-frequency skills are taught before those needed less frequently, (c) skills and strategies that are similar and may be confusing to students are not taught in close proximity within the scope and sequence, and (d) easier skills are taught before more difficult skills.
      Breaking down complex skills and strategies into smaller units in an effort to minimize cognitive overload and the demands placed on students’ working memory. Teach skills in small, discrete steps that can be added to one another to form the target skill.
      • Present new information in small steps will give students enough to have success on the topic. 
      • Once students have mastered that step, reinforce the topic and add to it.

      Archer, A. L, & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York NY: Guilford.

      Baker, S. K., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51-73.

      Carnine, D. W. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130-141.

      Doabler, C. T., Cary, M. S., Jungjohann, K., Clarke, B., Fien, H., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., & Chard, D. (2012). Enhancing core mathematics instruction for students at risk for mathematics disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 48-57.

      Kame’enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W., Dixon, R. C., & Burns, D. (2011). Introduction. In M. D. Coyne, E. J. Kame’enui, & D. W. Carnine (Eds.) Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.) (pp. 7-23).

      Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121-131.

      Friday, September 27, 2013

      Combining Cognition and Metacognition During the Problem Solving Process

      By Dawn Woods, RME Elementary Mathematics Coordinator

      Mathematical problem solving extends beyond the application of mathematics skills and concepts to include the semantics and syntax of language and the situations that the language represents within social-cultural contexts. Sometimes when students consider word problems, they rely on coping strategies such as using key words or apply general strategies such as “draw a picture”, which can limit the student’s problem solving abilities (Clements & Sarama, 2009). However research is showing that when students are engaged in metacognition, or thinking about their thinking, that their problem solving competency increases through the awareness of their reasoning (Cambell & White, 1997; Goos, Galbraith & Renshaw, 2002; Caswell & Nisbet, 2005).

      Intervention Central, an online RtI resource, outlines a research-based strategy designed to engage struggling students in the problem solving process. Based on Montague’s work, students apply a “Say-Ask-Check” routine to stimulate metacognition as they work through the cognitive steps of the problem solving process (1992). During each step of the problem solving process, students are taught to “say” or self-instruct by stating the purpose of the step; “ask” or self-question what he or she plans to do to complete the step; and “checks” by self-monitoring the successful completion of the step. This “Say-Ask-Check” routine with close teacher support during instruction can increase the likelihood of student success.

      Following is an example of what the “Say-Ask-Check” routine could look like when applied to George Polya’s four-step mathematical problem solving techniques (1945; Wright, 2011).

      Problem Solving Steps "Say-Ask-Check" Routine
      Understanding the Problem Say (Self-Instruction): 
      “I will read the problem until I can restate the problem in my own words.”

      Ask (Self-Question): 
      “Do I understand the problem?”

      Check (Self-Monitor): 
      “I understand the problem.”
      Devise a Plan Say (Self-Instruction): 
       “I will create a plan to solve the problem.”

      Ask (Self-Question): 
      “What is my first step? What is the next step, etc.?”

      Check (Self-Monitor): 
      “My plan has the right steps to solve the problem.”
      Carrying Out the Plan Say (Self-Instruction): 
      “I will solve the problem”

      Ask (Self-Question): 
      “Is my answer reasonable?”

      Check (Self-Monitor): 
      “I carried out my plan to solve the problem.”
      Looking Back Say (Self-Instruction): 
      “I will check my work.”

      Ask (Self-Question): 
      “Did I check each step in my calculation?”

      Check (Self-Monitor): 
      “The problem appears to be correct.”


      Combining cognition and metacognition through using the problem solving process and the Say-Ask-Check routine increases a students’ awareness in his/her reasoning thereby increasing the likelihood of his/her academic success.

      References

      Campbell, P., & White, D. (1997). Project IMPACT: Influencing ad supporting teacher change in predominately minority schools. In E. Fennema & B.Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp 309-355). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

      Caswell, R., Nisbet, S. (2005). Enhancing mathematical understanding through self-assessment and self-regulation of learning: he value of meta-awareness. Building Connections: Research, Theory and Practice. Retrieved from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/handle/10072/2482 .

      Clements, D. & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: the learning trajectories approach. New York: Routlege.

      Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Education Studies in Mathematics, 49 (2), 193-223.

      Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230-248.

      Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

      Wright, J. (2011). Math problem solving: Combining cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Retrieved from http://www.interventioncentral.org/academic-interventions/math/math-problem-solving-combining-cognitive-metacognitive-strategies.

      Tuesday, September 17, 2013

      Technology as a Tool for Teaching Content

      By Sharri Zachary, RME Mathematics Coordinator

      Technology can assume many roles in education. It is often utilized as a resource, delivery system, or means of production (Yuan-Hsuan,Waxman, Jiun-Yu, Michko, & Lin, 2013). Previous research studies found that computer programs were particularly useful in instruction when they are purposeful in supporting the needs of all students, are factual, and provide students with new learning experiences. In addition, the research also revealed higher gains in academic performance when students were allowed to use computers in small groups rather than individually.

      In a recent study by the authors for grades K-12, the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student cognitive outcomes and affective outcomes were revisited to inform current instructional practice. Outlined are some key things teachers can do to integrate technology in their instruction, such that there is improvement in student outcomes:

      Cognitive
      • Allow students to collaborate in pairs or small groups with technological devices 
      • Develop instructional material that makes sense contextually 
      • Incorporate project-based learning that allows students to bridge skills and subject matter
      Affective
      • Include challenging activities in your instructional materials 
      • Ask higher-order questions 
      • Work together with your students to produce a result via technological device 
      • Emphasize collaboration in your teaching and their learning utilizing technology
      Yuan-Hsuan, L., Waxman, H., Jiun-Yu Wu, Michko, G. & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effect of teaching and learning with technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 133-n/a.

      Friday, September 13, 2013

      Connecting the Area Model to the Standard Algorithm

      By Cassandra Hatfield, RME Assessment Coordinator

      Using the area model for multiplication and using the standard algorithm for multiplication are often put in two separate and unrelated categories. Often times textbooks spend very little time developing the conceptual understanding and focus on the procedure of the standard algorithm.

      However, “as much time as necessary should be devoted to the conceptual development of the algorithm with the recording or written part coming later.” (Van De Walle, Karp, Bay-Williams, 2013). Students are more successful when they can relate their prior knowledge with a new concept. Designing lessons that connect the area model and partial products can then lead to the understanding of the standard algorithm. This powerful transition allows students to visually see the why behind the standard algorithm.

      The model below uses color to amplify the connection between the area model, the partial products strategy and the standard algorithm with 2-digit multipliers. Notice that the area model was drawn proportionally, not as a “window pane.” The importance of drawing area models proportionally was discussed in one of my previous posts, It's Not a Window Pane... It's an Area Model.


      It is important to consider the value of the digits rather than the digits themselves when using partial products or the standard algorithm. For example, when multiplying 20 x 20, use the base 10 language 2 tens times 2 tens is 4 hundreds or 20 times 20 is 400. Try to avoid “two times two.”

      Students can use the partial products strategy just as effectively as the standard algorithm. In fact, it is of utmost importance to give students the opportunity to explore, explain, and demonstrating their understanding of the value of the digits over the digits themselves.

      Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally, 8th edition. Boston: Pearson.

      Wednesday, July 24, 2013

      Back to School with a Home Run!

      By Cassandra Hatfield, RME Assessment Coordinator

      This summer I attended two trainings. Each training was aligned to different standards: (1) the newly revised Texas TEKS to be implemented in the 2014-2015 school year and (2) the Common Core State Standards. Although aligned to different standards, both of these trainings highlighted the math Process Standards in Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) and the National Research Council’s Strands of Mathematical Proficiency discussed in Adding It Up. A common theme exemplified through the trainings was that it is essential for mathematics instruction to move beyond rote procedural knowledge and for instruction to be grounded in conceptual understanding and mathematical reasoning.

      While attending these trainings I heard teachers, specialists, and administrators grappling with when and how to make this shift in instruction. Sherry Parrish’s resource Number Talks: Helping Children Build Mental Math and Computation Strategies is an incredible learning adventure that enables an individual teacher, a team of teachers, or a teacher leader to make changes in classroom instruction and build students repertoire of computational strategies in just five to fifteen minutes a day! By using this resource teachers are given the opportunity to “hit it out of the park” by:
      1. Promoting environment and community
      2. Facilitating classroom discussion
      3. Developing the role of mental math
      4. Providing purposeful computation problems
      I’ve implemented this resource in more than 25 classrooms over the past three years and have seen the joy from students as they move from being told how to compute to telling how they computed and seen the confidence they have build as they have moved from counting on their fingers to using flexible mental math strategies. In addition, many teachers I’ve worked with have used this resource to help them shift their teaching style into being a facilitator. In the beginning it can be overwhelming, but start with the basic fact problem sets and enjoy the journey with your students.

      Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). 2010. Common Core State Standards for mathematical practice. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). http://www.corestandards.org.

      National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

      Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

      Parrish, Sherry D (2010). Number talks: Helping children build mental math and computations strategies. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.

      Parrish, Sherry D (2011). Number talks build numerical reasoning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 18(3). 198–206.