Teaching argument writing in math class: challenges and solutions to improve the performance of 4th and 5th graders with disabilities.

IF 2 2区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Reading and Writing Pub Date : 2023-06-09 DOI:10.1007/s11145-023-10459-7
Sharlene A Kiuhara, Joel R Levin, Malynda Tolbert, Breda V O'Keeffe, Robert E O'Neill, J Matt Jameson
{"title":"Teaching argument writing in math class: challenges and solutions to improve the performance of 4th and 5th graders with disabilities.","authors":"Sharlene A Kiuhara,&nbsp;Joel R Levin,&nbsp;Malynda Tolbert,&nbsp;Breda V O'Keeffe,&nbsp;Robert E O'Neill,&nbsp;J Matt Jameson","doi":"10.1007/s11145-023-10459-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Incorporating argument writing as a learning activity has been found to increase students' mathematics performance. However, teachers report receiving little to no preservice or inservice preparation to use writing to support students' learning. This is especially concerning for special education teachers who provide highly specialized mathematics instruction (i.e., Tier 3) to students with mathematics disabilities (MLD). The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of teachers providing content-focused open-ended questioning strategies, which included both argument writing and foundational fraction content, using Practice-Based Professional Development (PBPD) and Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) for implementing a writing-to-learn strategy called FACT-R<sup>2</sup>C<sup>2</sup>. We report the relative number of higher-order mathematical content questions that teachers asked during instruction, from among three different-level question types: Level 1: yes/no questions focused on the mathematics content; Level 2: one-word responses focused on the mathematics content; and Level 3: higher-order open-ended responses centered around four mathematical practices from the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Within a well-controlled single-case multiple-baseline design, seven special education teachers were randomly assigned to each PBPD + FACT-R<sup>2</sup>C<sup>2</sup> intervention tier. Results indicated that: (1) teachers' relative use of Level 3 questions increased following the introduction of the FACT intervention; (2) this increase was apart from the professional development training that the teachers had initially received; and (3) students' writing quality improved to some extent with the increase in teachers' relative use of Level 3 questions. Implications and future directions are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48204,"journal":{"name":"Reading and Writing","volume":" ","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10251315/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading and Writing","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10459-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Incorporating argument writing as a learning activity has been found to increase students' mathematics performance. However, teachers report receiving little to no preservice or inservice preparation to use writing to support students' learning. This is especially concerning for special education teachers who provide highly specialized mathematics instruction (i.e., Tier 3) to students with mathematics disabilities (MLD). The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of teachers providing content-focused open-ended questioning strategies, which included both argument writing and foundational fraction content, using Practice-Based Professional Development (PBPD) and Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) for implementing a writing-to-learn strategy called FACT-R2C2. We report the relative number of higher-order mathematical content questions that teachers asked during instruction, from among three different-level question types: Level 1: yes/no questions focused on the mathematics content; Level 2: one-word responses focused on the mathematics content; and Level 3: higher-order open-ended responses centered around four mathematical practices from the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Within a well-controlled single-case multiple-baseline design, seven special education teachers were randomly assigned to each PBPD + FACT-R2C2 intervention tier. Results indicated that: (1) teachers' relative use of Level 3 questions increased following the introduction of the FACT intervention; (2) this increase was apart from the professional development training that the teachers had initially received; and (3) students' writing quality improved to some extent with the increase in teachers' relative use of Level 3 questions. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数学课堂上的论点写作教学:提高四年级和五年级残疾学生成绩的挑战和解决方案。
研究发现,将论点写作作为一种学习活动可以提高学生的数学成绩。然而,教师们报告说,在使用写作来支持学生学习方面,他们几乎没有得到职前或在职准备。这对于为数学残疾学生(MLD)提供高度专业化数学教学(即三级)的特殊教育教师来说尤其令人担忧。本研究的目的是检验教师提供以内容为中心的开放式提问策略的有效性,该策略包括论点写作和基础分数内容,使用基于实践的专业发展(PBPD)和自我调节策略发展(SRSD)来实施名为FACT-R2C2的写作学习策略。我们报告了教师在教学过程中提出的三种不同级别问题类型中的高阶数学内容问题的相对数量:第一级:关注数学内容的是/否问题;第二级:一个单词的回答集中在数学内容上;第三级:围绕《数学共同核心国家标准》中的四种数学实践,提出高阶开放式回答。在一个控制良好的单例多基线设计中,七名特殊教育教师被随机分配到每个PBPD + FACT-R2C2干预层。结果表明:(1)引入FACT干预后,教师对三级问题的相对使用有所增加;(2) 这一增长与教师最初接受的专业发展培训无关;(3)随着教师相对使用三级问题的增加,学生的写作质量有了一定的提高。讨论了影响和未来方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
16.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Reading and writing skills are fundamental to literacy. Consequently, the processes involved in reading and writing and the failure to acquire these skills, as well as the loss of once well-developed reading and writing abilities have been the targets of intense research activity involving professionals from a variety of disciplines, such as neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and education. The findings that have emanated from this research are most often written up in a lingua that is specific to the particular discipline involved, and are published in specialized journals. This generally leaves the expert in one area almost totally unaware of what may be taking place in any area other than their own. Reading and Writing cuts through this fog of jargon, breaking down the artificial boundaries between disciplines. The journal focuses on the interaction among various fields, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Reading and Writing publishes high-quality, scientific articles pertaining to the processes, acquisition, and loss of reading and writing skills. The journal fully represents the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of research in the field, focusing on the interaction among various disciplines, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Coverage in Reading and Writing includes models of reading, writing and spelling at all age levels; orthography and its relation to reading and writing; computer literacy; cross-cultural studies; and developmental and acquired disorders of reading and writing. It publishes research articles, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and case studies. Reading and Writing is one of the most highly cited journals in Education, Educational Research, and Educational Psychology.
期刊最新文献
Subskills and sub-knowledge in Chinese as a second language reading comprehension: a structural equation modeling study Typing /s/—morphology between the keys? Initial validation of the handwriting proficiency screening questionnaire (HPSQ-C) translated to Spanish Understanding narratives in different media formats: Processes and products of elementary-school children’s comprehension of texts and videos Profiling text cohesion in the development of L2 Chinese reading materials: variation by text level and genre
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1