Advertisement

Efficacy of a learning trajectory approach compared to a teach-to-target approach for addition and subtraction

  • 66 Accesses

Abstract

Although basing instruction on a learning trajectory (LT) is often recommended, there is little direct evidence to support the premise of a “LT approach”—that to be maximally meaningful, engaging, and effective, instruction is best presented one LT level beyond a child’s present level of thinking. The present report serves to address the question: Is it necessary to teach each contiguous level of a LT or can instruction be similarly or more effective when skipping levels, provided the necessary exemplars are made? In a multimethod research study that included individual teaching experiments embedded inside of a quasi-experimental research design, one group of 13 kindergartners received instruction based on an empirically-validated LT for addition and subtraction (the “LT” treatment). The counterfactual, “skip” treatment (n = 12), received instruction focused mainly on levels at least two levels above their present level for the same amount of time as the LT treatment. More children in the LT treatment exhibited greater addition and subtraction learning during sessions and from pretest to posttest than children in the skip treatment. Implications for future study are discussed.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1

(adapted from Sarama & Clements, 2009)

Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that the names of levels of the learning trajectory always end with “±”; however, because many similar terms appear in the problem type names, which are likewise capitalized in the literature, we also distinguish the learning trajectory names with boldface. The names were not elaborated for changed to keep consistency between this paper and the sources of the names (Clements & Sarama, 2014; Sarama & Clements, 2009, and LearningTrajectories.org).

References

  1. Baroody, A. J. (1995). The role of the number-after rule in the invention of computational short cuts. Cognition and Instruction,13, 189–219.

  2. Baroody, A. J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2019). Teaching and learning mathematics in early childhood programs. In C. Brown, M. B. McMullen, & N. File (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of early childhood care and education (1st ed., pp. 329–353). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell Publishing.

  3. Carnine, D. W., Jitendra, A. K., & Silbert, J. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricular materials from a pedagogical perspective: A case study of fractions. Remedial and Special Education,18(2), 66–81.

  4. Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. H. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction: Building on the knowledge of students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research,17(5), 457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(05)80005-9.

  5. Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator,36(1), 6–11.

  6. Clarke, D. M., Cheeseman, J., Clarke, B., Gervasoni, A., Gronn, D., Horne, M., et al. (2001). Understanding, assessing and developing young children’s mathematical thinking: Research as a powerful tool for professional growth. In J. Bobis, B. Perry, & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond (Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (Vol. 1, pp. 9–26). Reston: MERGA.

  7. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

  8. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Baroody, A. J., Joswick, C., & Wolfe, C. B. (2019). Evaluating the efficacy of a learning trajectory for early shape composition. American Educational Research Journal,56(6), 2509–2530. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219842788.

  9. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., & Day-Hess, C. A. (2008/2019). REMAResearch-based early mathematics assessment. Denver, CO: Kennedy Institute, University of Denver.

  10. El’konin, D. B., & Davydov, V. V. (1975). Children’s capacity for learning mathematics. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Soviet studies in the pyschology of learning and teaching mathematics (Vol. 7, pp. 1–11). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  11. Fantuzzo, J. W., Gadsden, V. L., & McDermott, P. A. (2011). An integrated curriculum to improve mathematics, language, and literacy for Head Start Children. American Educational Research Journal,48, 763–793.

  12. Frye, D., Baroody, A. J., Burchinal, M. R., Carver, S., Jordan, N. C., & McDowell, J. (2013). Teaching math to young children: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

  13. Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on learning and teaching addition and subtraction of whole numbers. In G. Leinhardt, R. Putman, & R. A. Hattrup (Eds.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 53–187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  14. Fuson, K. C. (2004). Pre-K to grade 2 goals and standards: Achieving 21st century mastery for all. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 105–148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  15. Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology,47(6), 1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025510.

  16. Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  17. Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities,38, 293–304.

  18. Ginsburg, H. P., & Baroody, A. J. (2003). Test of early mathematics ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro Ed.

  19. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,1, 155–177.

  20. Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., Dyson, N., Hassinger-Das, B., & Irwin, C. (2012). Building kindergartners’ number sense: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Educational Psychology,104(3), 647–660. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029018.

  21. Maloney, A. P., Confrey, J., & Nguyen, K. H. (Eds.). (2014). Learning over time: Learning trajectories in mathematics education. New York, NY: Information Age Publishing.

  22. Murata, A., & Fuson, K. C. (2006). Teaching as assisting individual constructive paths within an interdependent class learning zone: Japanese first graders learning to add using 10. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,37(5), 421–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034861.

  23. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

  24. National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  25. NGA/CCSSO. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

  26. Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  27. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York, NY: Routledge.

  28. Shepard, L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2018). Classroom assessment principles to support learning and avoid the harms of testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,37(1), 52–57.

  29. Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  30. Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

  31. Steffe, L. P., Thompson, P. W., & Glasersfeld, E. V. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  32. Wu, H.-H. (2011). Understanding numbers in elementary school mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

  33. Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature,358, 749–750.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education through Grant R305A150243. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education. Although the research is concerned with theoretical issues, not particular curricula, a small component of the intervention used in this research have been published by some of the authors, who could have a vested interest in the results. Researchers from an independent institution oversaw the research design, data collection, and analysis and confirmed findings and procedures. The authors wish to express appreciation to the teachers and students at the Ricks Center, Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver who participated in this research.

Author information

Correspondence to Douglas H. Clements.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 838 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clements, D.H., Sarama, J., Baroody, A.J. et al. Efficacy of a learning trajectory approach compared to a teach-to-target approach for addition and subtraction. ZDM Mathematics Education (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01122-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Achievement
  • Curriculum
  • Early childhood
  • Instructional design/development
  • Learning trajectories
  • Learning environments
  • Mathematics education