Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining fourth-grade mathematics writing: features of organization, mathematics vocabulary, and mathematical representations

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increasingly, students are expected to write about mathematics. Mathematics writing may be informal (e.g., journals, exit slips) or formal (e.g., writing prompts on high-stakes mathematics assessments). In order to develop an effective mathematics-writing intervention, research needs to be conducted on how students organize mathematics writing and use writing features to convey mathematics knowledge. We collected mathematics-writing samples from 155 4th-grade students in 2 states. Each student wrote about a computation word problem and fraction representations. We compared mathematics-writing samples to a norm-referenced measure of essay writing to examine similarities in how students use writing features such as introductions, conclusions, paragraphs, and transition words. We also analyzed the mathematics vocabulary terms that students incorporated within their writing and whether mathematics computation skills were related to the mathematics vocabulary students used in writing. Finally, we coded and described how students used mathematics representations in their writing. Findings indicate that students use organizational features of writing differently across the norm-referenced measure of essay writing and their mathematics writing. Students also use mathematics vocabulary and representations with different levels of success. Implications for assessment, practice, and intervention development are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agostino, A., Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2010). Executive functions underlying multiplicative reasoning: Problem type matters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 286–305. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. W., & Jeffery, J. V. (2007). Genres of high-stakes writing assessments and the construct of writing competence. Assessing Writing, 12, 60–79. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2007.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicer, A., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2013). Integrating writing into mathematics classroom to increase students’ problem solving skills. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 361–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonato, M., Fabbri, S., Umlità, C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). The mental representation of numerical fractions: Real or integer? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1410–1419. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, J. L., & Newton, K. J. (2012). Fractions: Could they really be the gatekeeper’s doorman? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 247–253. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breaux, K. C. (2010). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—Third edition: Technical manual. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. (2004). Writing in math. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charalambous, C. Y., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2007). Drawing on a theoretical model to study students’ understandings of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 293–316. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coker, D. L., & Ritchey, K. D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of writing in kindergarten and first grade: An investigation of production and qualitative scores. Exceptional Children, 76, 175–193. doi:10.1177/001440291007600203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correnti, R., Matsumara, L. C., Hamilton, L., & Wang, E. (2013). Assessing students’ skills at writing analytically in response to texts. The Elementary School Journal, 114, 142–177. doi:10.1086/671936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, D. I. (2009). Creating optimal mathematics learning environments: Combining argumentation and writing to enhance achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 905–930. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9144-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culham, R. (2003). 6 + 1 traits of writing: The complete guide. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2011). Supporting informational writing in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 64, 406–416. doi:10.1598/RT.64.6.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ediger, M. (2006). Writing in the mathematics curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33, 120–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhard, G., Gordon, B., Walker, E. V., & Gabrielson, S. (1994). Writing tasks and gender: Influences on writing quality of black and white students. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 197–209. doi:10.1080/00220671.1994.9941244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espin, C. A., Weissenburger, J. W., & Benson, B. J. (2004). Assessing the writing performance of students in special education. Exceptionality, 12, 55–66. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1201_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387. doi:10.2307/356600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Zumeta, R. O., Schumacher, R. F., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Hamlett, C. L., et al. (2010). The effects of schema-broadening instruction on second graders’ word-problem performance and their ability to represent word problems with algebraic equations: A randomized control study. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 440–463. doi:10.1086/651191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, A., Olinghouse, N. G., & Graham, S. (2013). Fifth-grade students’ knowledge about writing process and writing genres. The Elementary School Journal, 113, 565–588. doi:10.1086/669938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516–536. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M. A. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896. doi:10.1037/a0029185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Hebert, M., Sandbank, M. P., & Harris, K. (2016). Credibly assessing the writing achievement of young struggling writers: Application of generalizability theory. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 39, 72–82. doi:10.1177/0731948714555019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall-Mills, S., & Apel, K. (2015). Linguistic feature development across grades and genre in elementary writing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46, 242–255. doi:10.1044/2015_lshss-14-0043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, J. M., Hedrick, W. B., & Wood, K. D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 261–280. doi:10.1080/10573560590949377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Reid, R., & Mason, L. H. (2011). Self regulated learning processes and children’s writing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 187–202). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E., & Monk, C. A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 18–32. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.87.1.18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. (2008). How accurate are ESL students’ holistic writing scores on large-scale assessments?—A generalizability theory approach. Assessing Writing, 13, 201–218. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2008.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery, J. V. (2009). Constructs of writing proficiency in US state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability. Assessing Writing, 14, 3–24. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2008.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jitendra, A. K., Petersen-Brown, S., Lein, A. E., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kunkel, A. K., Jung, P. G., et al. (2013). Teaching mathematical word problem solving: The quality of evidence for strategy instruction priming the problem structure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 51–72. doi:10.1177/0022219413487408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., & Wanzek, J. (2015). Kindergarten predictors of third grade writing. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 27–37. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostos, K., & Shin, E. (2010). Using math journals to enhance second graders’ communication of mathematical thinking. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 223–231. doi:10.1007/s10643-010-0390-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancl, D. B., Miller, S. P., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence with integrated strategy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27, 152–166. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00363.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2011). Self-regulated strategy development for students with writing difficulties. Theory Into Practice, 50, 20–27. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.534922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, D. S. (2008). Communication in mathematics: Preparing preservice teachers to include writing in mathematics teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics, 108, 334–340. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17846.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 68–84. doi:10.1177/00224669070410020301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. P., & Hudson, P. J. (2006). Helping students with disabilities understand what mathematics means. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(1), 28–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, E., & Panchyshyn, R. (1995). Vocabulary considerations for teaching mathematics. Childhood Education, 72, 80–83. doi:10.1080/00094056.1996.10521849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, E. E., & Pendergrass, M. R. (1997). Effects of mathematical vocabulary instruction on fourth grade students. Reading Improvement, 34, 120–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: Effects on students’ problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 32–47. doi:10.1037/a0021995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olinghouse, N. G. (2008). Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21, 3–26. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PARCC. (2015). Grade 3 performance based assessment practice test. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved from: http://parcc.pearson.com/resources/practice-tests/math/grade-3/pba/PC194835-001_3MathOPTB_PT.pdf.

  • Parmar, R. S., Cawley, J. F., & Frazita, R. R. (1996). Word problem-solving by students with and without mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 415–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, S., Childs, R., & Kennedy, K. (2004). Written feedback and scoring of sixth-grade girls’ and boys’ narrative and persuasive writing. Assessing Writing, 9, 160–180. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2004.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, M. E., & Fontaine, L. (2009). Designing vocabulary instruction in mathematics. Reading Teacher, 63, 239–243. doi:10.1598/RT.63.3.7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popp, S. E. O., Ryan, J. M., Thompson, M. S., & Behrens, J. T. (2003). Operationalizing the rubric: The effect of benchmark selection on the assessed quality of writing. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Powell, S. R. (2016). An analysis of mathematics vocabulary from kindergarten through eighth grade. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Powell, S. R., & Driver, M. K. (2015). The influence of mathematics vocabulary instruction embedded within addition tutoring for first-grade students with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 221–233. doi:10.1177/073194871456574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, S. R., & Hebert, M. A. (in press). Influence of writing ability and computation skill on mathematics writing. The Elementary School Journal.

  • Psychological Corporation. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, S. (2010). A model for scaffolding writing instruction: IMSCI. The Reading Teacher, 64, 47–52. doi:10.1598/RT.64.1.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riccomini, P. J., Smith, G. W., Hughes, E. M., & Fries, K. M. (2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 31, 235–252. doi:10.1080/10573569.2015.1030995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159. doi:10.1080/10573560601158461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. (2011). Stata statistical software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stonewater, J. K. (2002). The mathematics writer’s checklist: The development of a preliminary assessment tool for writing in mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 324–334. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18216.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., & Jackson, C. (2012). Developing representational ability in mathematics for students with learning disabilities: A content analysis of grades 6 and 7 textbooks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 24–38. doi:10.1177/0731948711429726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verlaan, W. (2009). Making writing count: Writing as a means of improving mathematics learning. In J. Cassidy, S. Garrett, & M. Sailors (Eds.), Literacy coaching: Research and practice: 2009 CEDER Yearbook (pp. 179–198). Corpus Christi, TX: Center for Educational Development, Evaluation, and Research, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi College of Education.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Scholarly Enhancement Program at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and start-up funds at the University of Texas at Austin. We specifically thank Mallory Johnsen, Julia Roehling, and Sally Fluhler for assistance with data gathering and scoring. We also extend thanks to the teachers and students who participated in this project. Statements do not reflect the position or policy of the university, schools, or persons, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 301 Barkley Memorial Center, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA

    Michael A. Hebert

  2. Department of Special Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Sarah R. Powell

Authors
  1. Michael A. Hebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah R. Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Hebert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hebert, M.A., Powell, S.R. Examining fourth-grade mathematics writing: features of organization, mathematics vocabulary, and mathematical representations. Read Writ 29, 1511–1537 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9649-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9649-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation