At the intersection of mathematics and language: Examining mathematical strategies and explanations by grade and English learner status

Journal of Mathematical Behavior

Volumn 40, Issue , 2015, Pages 6-28

  Bailey, Alison L ^a   Blackstock Bernstein, Anne ^a   Heritage, Margaret ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b WestEd   (United States)

Author keywords

Discourse; English learners; English only and proficient students; Formative practices; Grade effects; Language; Mathematical explanations; Problem solving strategies; Standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957429737     PISSN: 07323123     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.03.007     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometrics issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231-257.
2. Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219-234.
3. Adger, C. T., Snow, C. E., & Christian, D. (2003). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
4. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147-179.
5. Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J. A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243-248.
6. Ayres, P. L. (2001). Systematic mathematical errors and cognitive load. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(2), 227-248.
7. Bailey, A. (2013). Implications of the Common Core for English Language Development/Proficiency (ELD/P) Standards: A role for learning progressions of language development. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association San Francisco, CA, April.
8. Bailey, A. L., Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Lord, C. (2007). Further specifying the language demands of school. In A. L. Bailey (Ed.), Language demands of school: Putting academic language to the test (pp. 103-156). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9. Bailey, A. L., & Carroll, P. (2015). Assessment of English language learners in the era of new academic content standards. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 253-294.
10. Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2014). The role of language learning progressions in improved instruction and assessment of English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 480-506.
11. Bailey, A. L., & Orellana, M. F. (2015). Adolescent development and everyday language practices: Implications for the academic literacy of multilingual learners. In D. Molle, E. Sato, T. Boals, & C. D. Hedgspeth (Eds.), Multilingual learners and academic literacies: Sociocultural contexts of literacy development in adolescents (pp. 53-74). New York: Routledge.
12. Baroody, A. J. (1984). The case of Felicia: A young child's strategies for reducing memory demand during mental addition. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 109-116.
13. Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89(1), 1-47.
14. Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Castellon. (2007). ELLs and standardized assessments: The interaction between language proficiency and performance on standardized tests. In A. L. Bailey (Ed.), Language demands of school: Putting academic language to the test (pp. 27-49). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15. California Department of Education. (2012). California English language development test. 2012-2013 edition. California Department of Education.
16. California Department of Education. (2014). California standards tests technical report. Spring 2013 administration. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/cst13techrpt.pdf.
17. Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.
18. Carr, M., & Davis, H. (2001). Gender differences in arithmetic strategy use: A function of skill and preference. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 330-347.
19. Carr, M., Steiner, H. H., Kyser, B., & Biddlecomb, B. (2008). A comparison of predictors of early emerging gender differences in mathematics competency. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 61-75.
20. Churchill, E. (2008). A dynamic systems account of learning a word: From ecology to form relations. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 339-358.
21. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English Language Proficiency Development Standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: CCSSO.
22. Franke, T. M., Ho, T., & Christie, C. A. (2012). The Chi-square test often used and more often misinterpreted. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 448-458.
23. Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls & women: 2004. NCES 2005 016. National Center for Education Statistics.
24. French, L. A. (1988). The development of children's understanding of "because" and "so". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45(2), 262-279.
25. Ginsburg, H., Kossan, N., Schwartz, R., & Swanson, D. (1983). Protocol methods in research on mathematical thinking. In H. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 7-47). Academic Press.
26. Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20(3), 267-272.
27. Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H. C., Garber, P., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in learning: Evidence for simultaneously activated strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(1), 92-107.
28. Halliday, M. A. K., & E. Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
29. Herman, J. L., & Linn, R. L. (2013). On the road to assessing deeper learning: The status of smarter balanced and PARCC assessment consortia. (CRESST report 823). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
30. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56-64.
31. Imm, K., & Stylianou, D. A. (2012). Talking mathematically: An analysis of discourse communities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 130-148.
32. Jisa, H. (1987). Sentence connectors in French children's monologue performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(5), 607-621.
33. Klein, D., & Manning, C. D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 423-430).
34. Kopriva, R., Gabel, D., & Cameron, C. (2011). Designing dynamic and interactive assessments for English learners that directly measure targeted science constructs. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1-4, conference abstracts.
35. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
36. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48-72). London: Routledge.
37. LeFevre, J., DeStefano, D., Coleman, B., & Shanahan, T. (2005). Mathematical cognition and working memory. Handbook of Mathematical Cognition, 361-378.
38. Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(01), 1-38.
39. Martiniello, M. (2009). Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and differential item functioning for English language learners in math tests. Educational Assessment, 14, 160-179.
40. Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common Core. In Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, Vol. 94 (p. 17). Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/2-mathematics-common-core-and-language.
41. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSIMath%20Standards.pdf.
42. Nippold, M. A., & Scott, C. M. (2010). Overview of expository discourse: Development and disorders. In M. A. Nippold, & C. M. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development and disorders (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
43. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (2001). Conference Report to Accompany H.R., 1, Rep. No. 107-334, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, 1st Session, December 13. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.
44. Pearson Assessments. (2011). Stanford 10 information packet. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/Images/PDF/Webinar/StanfordTestingInfoPacket1272011.pdf.
45. Rampey, B. D., Dion, G. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2009). NAEP 2008: Trends in academic progress. NCES 2009-479. National Center for Education Statistics.
46. Ravid, D., Dromi, E., & Kotler, P. (2010). Linguistic complexity in school-age text production: Expository versus mathematical discourse. In M. A. Nippold, & C. M. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development and disorders (pp. 123-150). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
47. Robinson, J. P., & Lubienski, S. T. (2011). The development of gender achievement gaps in mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school examining direct cognitive assessments and teacher ratings. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 268-302.
48. Saunders, W. M., & Marcelletti, D. J. (2013). The gap that can't go away: The Catch 22 of reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 139-156.
49. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139-159.
50. Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Siegler, R. S., & Lin, X. (2009). Self-explanations promote children's learning. Metacognition, Strategy Use, and Instruction, 85.
52. Snow, C. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships between language and literacy development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6, 5-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568549109594817.
53. Valdés, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 410-426.
54. Valdés, G., Kibler, A., & Walqui, A. (March 2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals: Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association.
55. van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and the common core standards. In K. Hakuta, & M. Santos (Eds.), Understanding language: Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards (pp. 44-51). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
56. Vukovic, R. K., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013). The language of mathematics: Investigating the ways language counts for children's mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2), 227-244.
57. Wilson, P. H., Mojica, G. F., & Confrey, J. (2013). Learning trajectories in teacher education: Supporting teachers' understandings of students' mathematical thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 103-121.
58. Zhu, Z. (2007). Gender differences in mathematical problem solving patterns: A review of literature. International Education Journal, 8(2), 187-203.