For English language learners, diagrams can be a powerful tool to develop and communicate mathematical understanding. Imagine being a 6th grade student who is still learning English, sitting in a mathematics classroom and trying to navigate the lesson. You might wonder: What is the teacher saying I should do? Did my classmates solve it the way I did? Will the other students laugh at me when I try to explain how I solved the problem?
There is a need to arm students with noncognitive, or 21st Century, skills to prepare them for a more STEM-based job market. As STEM schools are created in a response to this call to action, research is needed to better understand how exemplary STEM schools successfully accomplish this goal. This conversion mixed method study analyzed student work samples and teacher lesson plans from seven exemplary inclusive STEM high schools to better understand at what level teachers at these schools are engaging and developing student 21st Century skills.
Students’ difficulties with argumentation, proving, and the role of counterexamples in proving are well documented. Students in this study experienced an intervention for improving their argumentation and proving practices. The intervention included the eliminating counterexamples (ECE) framework as a means of constructing and critiquing viable arguments for a general claim. This framework involves constructing descriptions of all possible counterexamples to a conditional claim and determining whether or not a direct argument eliminates the possibility of counterexamples.
Cognitive differences have historically led to deficit assumptions concerning the mathematical experiences that children with learning disabilities (LD) can access. We argue that the problem can be located not within children but instead as a mismatch between features of instruction and children’s unique learning abilities. In this paper, we investigate how one elementary school child, Jim, with specific visual motor integration differences constructed a unit fraction concept.
Background: Research suggests that teachers’ views of their students’ capabilities matter when attempting to accomplish instructional reform, particularly in settings serving historically marginalized groups of students. However, to date, this issue has received minimal attention in the scholarship and practice of mathematics instructional reform.
Game-based learning (GBL) has increasingly been used to promote students’ learning engagement. Although prior GBL studies have highlighted the significance of learning engagement as a mediator of students’ meaningful learning, the existing accounts failed to capture specific evidence of how exactly students’ in-game actions in GBL enhance learning engagement. Hence, this mixed-method study was designed to examine whether middle school students’ in-game actions are likely to promote certain types of learning engagement (i.e., content and cognitive engagement).
As teacher education shifts to focus on teaching beginners to do the work of teaching, assessments need to shift to focus on assessing practice. We focus on one teaching practice, eliciting student thinking, in the context of elementary mathematics. We describe assessments in two contexts (field and simulation). For each assessment, we describe the eliciting of three prospective teachers what could be seen about the skills of group of prospective teachers (N = 44).