Difference between pages "Stein & Kaufman (2010)" and "Stein, Grover, & Henningsen (1996)"

From MathEd.net Wiki
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Raymond Johnson
m (formatting)
 
imported>Raymond Johnson
(title, notoc, outline, categories)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Title|Selecting and Supporting the Use of Mathematics Curricula at Scale}}
<span style="font-size: large">''Building Student Capacity for Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning: An Analysis of Mathematical Tasks Used in Reform Classrooms''</span>
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
* Authors: [[Mary Kay Stein]] and [[Julia Kaufman]]
The article ''Building Student Capacity for Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning: An Analysis of Mathematical Tasks Used in Reform Classrooms'' was written by [[Mary Kay Stein]], [[Barbara Grover]], and [[Marjorie Henningsen]] and published in the [[American Educational Research Journal]] in 1996. The article is available from Sage Publications at [http://aer.sagepub.com/content/33/2/455 http://aer.sagepub.com/content/33/2/455].
* Journal: [[American Educational Research Journal]]
* Year: 2010
* Source: http://aer.sagepub.com/content/47/3/663


== Abstract ==
== Abstract ==
This article begins to unravel the question, "What curricular materials work best under what kinds of conditions?" The authors address this question from the point of view of teachers and their ability to implement mathematics curricula that place varying demands and provide varying levels of support for their learning. Specifically, the authors focus on how teacher capacity (their level of education, experience, and knowledge) and their use of curriculum influence instruction. The study sample is 48 teachers implementing two standards-based mathematics curricula&mdash;''Everyday Mathematics'' and ''Investigations''&mdash;in two school districts. The data include interviews and surveys with teachers, as well as observations of instruction, over a 2-year period. Findings indicate that teachers' implementation of ''Investigations'' was considerably better than teachers' implementation of ''Everyday Mathematics'' in terms of maintaining high levels of cognitive demand, attention to student thinking, and mathematical reasoning. These implementation measures were not correlated to measures of teacher capacity across school districts. However, implementation measures were significantly correlated with teachers' lesson preparation that took into account the big mathematical ideas within curriculum. Further qualitative analysis indicated that the ''Investigations'' curriculum provided more support to teachers for locating and understanding the big mathematical ideas within lessons compared to ''Everyday Mathematics''.


== Outline of Headings ==
This article focuses on mathematical tasks as important vehicles for building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning. A stratified random sample of 144 mathematical tasks used during reform-oriented instruction was analyzed in terms of (a) task features (number of solution strategies, number and kind of representations, and communication requirements) and (b) cognitive demands (e.g., memorization, the use of procedures with [and without] connections to concepts, the "doing of mathematics"). The findings suggest that teachers were selecting and setting up the kinds of tasks that reformers argue should lead to the development of students' thinking capacities. During task implementation, the task features tended to remain consistent with how they were set up, but the cognitive demands of high-level tasks had a tendency to decline. The ways in which high-level tasks declined as well as factors associated with task changes from the set-up to implementation phase were explored.
* High-Quality Implementation and the Factors That Shape It
 
** What Constitutes a High-Quality Lesson?
== Outline of Article Headings ==
** What Factors Shape Implementation Quality?
 
* Methods
* Conceptual Framework
** Setting
** Mathematical Tasks
** Task Set Up and Implementation
* Methodology
** Data Sources
** Data Sources
** Sampling Procedure
** Coding
** Analysis Procedures
** Analysis Procedures
* Results
* Results
** Quality of Implementation
** Description of Mathematical Tasks
** Teacher Capacity and Use of Curricula
** Task Set Up
** The Relationship Between Implementation Quality and Variables Measuring Teacher Capacity and Use of Curriculum
** Task Implementation
** The Relationship Between Curricular Materials and Teachers' Patterns of Use
** Factors Associated With How High-Level Tasks Were Implemented
* Summary and Conclusions
* Discussion
** Instruction in Project Classrooms: Implications for Reform
** Implications for Research
 
== About ==
 
=== Mendeley ===
 
[http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/building-student-capacity-mathematical-thinking-reasoning-analysis-mathematical-tasks-used-reform-cl/ http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/building-student-capacity-mathematical-thinking-reasoning-analysis-mathematical-tasks-used-reform-cl/]
 
=== APA ===
 
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. doi:10.3102/00028312033002455
 
=== BibTeX ===


==Corrolary==
;APA
: Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics curricula at scale. ''American Educational Research Journal'', 47(3), 663–693. doi:10.3102/0002831209361210
;BibTeX
<pre>
<pre>
@article{Stein2010,
@article{Stein1996,
author = {Stein, Mary Kay and Kaufman, Julia H.},
author = {Stein, Mary Kay and Grover, Barbara W. and Henningsen, Marjorie A.},
doi = {10.3102/0002831209361210},
doi = {10.3102/00028312033002455},
journal = {American Educational Research Journal},
journal = {American Educational Research Journal},
keywords = {curriculum,educational reform,instructional practices,longitudinal studies,mathematics education,teacher knowledge},
number = {2},
number = {3},
pages = {455--488},
pages = {663--693},
title = {{Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms}},
title = {{Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics curricula at scale}},
url = {http://aer.sagepub.com/content/33/2/455.short},
url = {http://aer.sagepub.com/content/47/3/663},
volume = {33},
volume = {47},
year = {1996}
year = {2010}
}
}
</pre>
</pre>
[[Category:Journal Articles]]
[[Category:Journal Articles]]
[[Category:American Educational Research Journal]]
[[Category:American Educational Research Journal]]
[[Category:2010]]
[[Category:1996]]
[[Category:Curriculum Use]]
[[Category:Curriculum Use]]
[[Category:Elementary Mathematics]]

Latest revision as of 05:15, 30 October 2013

Building Student Capacity for Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning: An Analysis of Mathematical Tasks Used in Reform Classrooms

The article Building Student Capacity for Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning: An Analysis of Mathematical Tasks Used in Reform Classrooms was written by Mary Kay Stein, Barbara Grover, and Marjorie Henningsen and published in the American Educational Research Journal in 1996. The article is available from Sage Publications at http://aer.sagepub.com/content/33/2/455.

Abstract

This article focuses on mathematical tasks as important vehicles for building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning. A stratified random sample of 144 mathematical tasks used during reform-oriented instruction was analyzed in terms of (a) task features (number of solution strategies, number and kind of representations, and communication requirements) and (b) cognitive demands (e.g., memorization, the use of procedures with [and without] connections to concepts, the "doing of mathematics"). The findings suggest that teachers were selecting and setting up the kinds of tasks that reformers argue should lead to the development of students' thinking capacities. During task implementation, the task features tended to remain consistent with how they were set up, but the cognitive demands of high-level tasks had a tendency to decline. The ways in which high-level tasks declined as well as factors associated with task changes from the set-up to implementation phase were explored.

Outline of Article Headings

  • Conceptual Framework
    • Mathematical Tasks
    • Task Set Up and Implementation
  • Methodology
    • Data Sources
    • Sampling Procedure
    • Coding
    • Analysis Procedures
  • Results
    • Description of Mathematical Tasks
    • Task Set Up
    • Task Implementation
    • Factors Associated With How High-Level Tasks Were Implemented
  • Discussion
    • Instruction in Project Classrooms: Implications for Reform
    • Implications for Research

About

Mendeley

http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/building-student-capacity-mathematical-thinking-reasoning-analysis-mathematical-tasks-used-reform-cl/

APA

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. doi:10.3102/00028312033002455

BibTeX

@article{Stein1996,
author = {Stein, Mary Kay and Grover, Barbara W. and Henningsen, Marjorie A.},
doi = {10.3102/00028312033002455},
journal = {American Educational Research Journal},
number = {2},
pages = {455--488},
title = {{Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms}},
url = {http://aer.sagepub.com/content/33/2/455.short},
volume = {33},
year = {1996}
}