Development of mathematical communication in problem solving groups by language minority students

Bilingual Research Journal

Volumn 22, Issue 2-4, 1998, Pages 149-174

  Brenner, Mary E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011227608     PISSN: 15235882     EISSN: 15235890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15235882.1998.10162720     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Au, K. H., & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 11, 115-152.
2. Bishop, A. J. (1991). Mathematical enculturation: A cultural perspective on mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. Brenner, M. E. (1994). A communication framework for mathematics: Exemplary instruction for culturally and linguistically different students. In B. McLeod (Ed.), Language and learning: Educating linguistically diverse students (pp. 233-267). Albany: SUNY Press.
4. California State Department of Education (1992a). California Assessment Program, survey of academic skills grade 8-1992. Santa Barbara High School District. Sacramento, CA: Author.
5. California State Department of Education. (1992b). Mathematics framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.
6. Cohen, M. D., & Tellez, K. (1994). Implementing cooperative leaming for language minority students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 1-19.
7. Cuevas, G. J. (1983). Language proficiency and the development of mathematics concepts in Hispanic primary school students. In T. H. Escobedo (Ed.), Early childhood bilingual education: A Hispanic perspective (pp. 148-163). New York: Teachers College Press.
8. Cuevas, G. J., Mann, P. H., & McClung, R. M. (1986, April). The effects of a language process approach program on the mathematics achievement offirst, third and fifth graders. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
9. Dixon, J. K. (1995). Limited English proficiency and spatial visualization in middle school sudents’ construction of the concepts of reflection and rotation. Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 221-247.
10. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development ofthe intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
11. Forman, E. (1989). The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge. International Journal of Educational Research, 73,55-70.
12. Good, T. L., Mulryan, C., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Grouping for instruction in mathematics: A call for programmatic research on small-group processes. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning(pp. 165-196). New York: Macmillan.
13. Hall iday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as socialsemiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
14. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Holm, S., Kasimatis, E., & Petersen, B (n.d.). College Preparatory Mathematics I (Algebra I). Davis, CA: CRESS Center, University of Califomia.
16. Hoyles, C., Sutherland, R., & Healy, L. (1991). Children talking in computer environments: New insights into the role of discussion in mathematics learning. In K. Durkin, & B. Shire (Eds.), Language in mathematical education (pp. 162-175). Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
17. Jordan, C. (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educational program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16, 105-123.
18. Kagan, S. (1986). Cooperative learning and sociocultural factors in schooling. In Bilingual Education Office (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 231-298). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, State University ofCalifomia, Los Angeles.
19. Kasimatis, E., & Sal lee, T. (1993). Designing a new col lege preparatory math course: An overview. In N. Fisher, H. Keynes, & P. Wagreich (Eds.), Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences Issues in Mathematics Education, Mathematicians and Education Reform Proceeding (pp. 81-102, vol. 3). American Mathematical Society.
20. Khisty, L. L. (1993). A naturalistic look at language factors in mathematics teaching in bilingual classrooms. In Proceedings of the Third National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on middle and high school issues: vol. 2. (pp. 633-654). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
21. Khisty, L. L. (1995). Making inequality: Issues of language and meanings in mathematics teaching with Hispanic students. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajianf Eds. J New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 279-297). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
22. Kysh, J. (1991). Implementing the curriculum and evaluation standards: First year algebra. Mathematics Teacher, 84,115-722.
23. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-64.
24. Losey, K. M. (1995). Mexican American students and classroom interaction: An overview and critique. Review of Educational Research, 65, 283-318.
25. Macias, R. F. (1995, September). CA LEP enrollment continues slow growth in 1995. Linguistic Minority Research Institute Newsletter, 5, 1-2.
26. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
27. Mestre, J. P., & Gerace, W. J. (1986). A study of the algebra acquisition of Hispanic and Anglo ninth graders: Research findings relevant to teacher training and classroom practice. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 10, 137-167.
28. Minicucci, C., & Olsen, L. (1992). Programs for secondary limited English proficient students: A California study. Focus: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 5, 1-16.
29. Mullis, I. V. S., Dossey, J. A., Owen, E. H., & Phillips, G. W. (1991). The state of mathematics achievement: NAEP's 1990 assessment of the nation and the trial assessment of the states. Washington, DC: US Department ofEducation.
30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: author.
31. Phi lips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York: Teachers College Press.
32. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. NY: Routledge.
33. Risacher, B. F. (1994). A case ofequity reform in mathematics: The students and their response. Proceedings of the sixteenth annual conference ofthe North American chapter of the international groupfor the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 291-297). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.
34. Sallee, T. (1992, December). College prep math assessment in algebra and geometry: 1992 results. Paper presented at the Math Diagnostic Testing Conference, University ofCalifornia, Davis, Davis, CA.
35. Schoenfeld, A. S. (1992). Learning to think mathematically. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbookfor research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
36. Secada, W. G., & De La Cruz, Y. (1996). Teaching mathematics forunderstanding to bilingual students. In J. L. Flores (Ed.), Children of lafrontera: Binational efforts to serve Mexican migrant and immigrant students. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
37. Snow, M. A. (1990). Instructional methodology in immersion foreign language education. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 156-171). Newbury, C A: Sage.
38. Spanos, G., & Crandall, J. (1990). Language and problem solving: Some examples from math and science. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp. 157-170). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988).Rousingminds to life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Thornburg, D. G., & Karp, K. S. (1992, April). Resituating mathematics and science instruction for language different students. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Educational Association, San Francisco, C A.
41. University of California, Latino Eligibility Task Force. (1993). Latino student eligibility and participation in the University of California. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Division of Social Sciences.
42. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University.
43. Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147-176). New York: Plenum.
44. Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-39.