Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 257–281 | Cite as

An initial framework for the language of higher-order thinking mathematics practices

  • Megan E. Staples
  • Mary P. Truxaw
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article presents an examination of the language demands of cognitively demanding tasks and proposes an initial framework for the language demands of higher-order mathematics thinking practices. We articulate four categories for this framework: language of generalisation, language of comparison, language of proportional reasoning, and language of analysing impact. These categories were developed out of our collaborative work to design and implement higher-order thinking tasks with a group of Grade 9 (14- and 15-year-olds) teachers teaching in a linguistically diverse setting; analyses of student work samples on these tasks; and our knowledge of the literature. We describe each type of language demand and then analyse student work in each category to reveal linguistic challenges facing students as they engage these mathematical tasks. Implications for teaching and professional development are discussed.

Keywords

Academic language Mathematics Tasks Higher-order thinking Language functions 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adler, J. (1999). The dilemma of transparency: seeing and seeing through talk in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2002). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume III (pp. 285–310). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). Australian curriculum: mathematics. Downloaded January 9, 2012 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.
  4. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: the case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2), 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conley, M. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: what we know about the promise, what we don’t know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 84–106.Google Scholar
  8. Connecticut State Department of Education (2003). CAPT Mathematics 2003 administration: released items and scored student responses. Downloaded January 8, 2012 from http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/capt/resources/released_items/capt2/2003/capt_2nd_gen_math_2003_released_items.pdf.
  9. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) & National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf.
  10. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  11. Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 2. Literacy (2nd ed., pp. 71–83). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2007). The National Curriculum 2007. Downloaded August 1, 2011 from http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/.
  13. Easdown, D. (2009). Syntactic and semantic reasoning in mathematics teaching and learning. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 40(7), 941–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2007). Making content comprehensible for English learners: the SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2010). The SIOP model for teaching mathematics to English learners. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Friel, S. N., & Markworth, K. A. (2009). A framework for analysing geometric pattern tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(1), 24–33.Google Scholar
  18. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  19. Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense: teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, J., Normandia, B., & Greer, S. (2005). Communicating mathematically: comparison of knowledge structures in teacher and student discourse in a secondary math classroom. Communication Education, 54(1), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs, J., Hiebert, J., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D. (2006). Does eighth grade mathematics teaching in the United States align with the NCTM Standards? Results from the TIMMS 1995 and 1999 videos. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
  24. Khisty, L. L., & Chval, B. (2002). Pedagogical discourse and equity in mathematics: when teachers’ talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 4(3), 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamon, S. J. (2006). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Lemke, J. L. (1989). Making text talk. Theory into Practice, 28(2), 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: from thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Brooklyn and Ottawa: Legas.Google Scholar
  28. MacGregor, M. (2002). Using words to explain mathematical ideas. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(1), 78–88.Google Scholar
  29. MacGregor, M., & Price, E. (1999). An exploration of aspects of language proficiency and algebra learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKenna, M., & Robinson, R. (1990). Content literacy: a definition and implications. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 34, 184–186.Google Scholar
  31. Moje, E. B. (2006). Integrating literacy into the secondary school content areas: an enduring problem in enduring institutions. Ann Arbor: Adolescent Literacy Symposium, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  32. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  33. O’Halloran, K. L. (1999). Towards a systemic functional analysis of multisemiotic mathematics texts. Semiotica, 124(1/2), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: a multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Halloran, K. L. (2003). Educational implications of mathematics as a mutisemiotic discourse. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: from thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 185–214). Brooklyn and Ottawa: Legas.Google Scholar
  36. O’Brien, D., & Stewart, R. (1990). Preservice teachers’ perspectives on why every teacher is not a teacher of reading: a qualitative analysis. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 101–129.Google Scholar
  37. O’Brien, D., Stewart, R., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pesek, D., & Kirshner, D. (2000). Interference of instrumental instruction in the subsequent relational learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 524–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: communication in mathematics classrooms. London, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  40. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: a functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: a research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Setati, M. (2002). Researching mathematics education and language in multilingual South Africa. The Mathematics Educator, 12(2), 6–20.Google Scholar
  43. Sfard, A., Nesher, P., Streefland, L., Cobb, P., & Mason, J. (1998). Learning mathematics through conversation: is it good as they say? For the Learning of Mathematics, 18, 41–51.Google Scholar
  44. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.Google Scholar
  45. Stacey, K., & Vincent, J. (2009). Modes of reasoning in explanations in Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Staples, M., & Truxaw, M. (2009). A journey with justification: Issues arising from the implementation and evaluation of the Math ACCESS Project. Proceedings of the thirty-first annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, [CD-ROM], Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  47. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: an analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.Google Scholar
  48. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: a casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  49. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Veel, R. (1999). Language, knowledge and authority in school mathematics. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: linguistic and social processes (pp. 185–216). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, A. A. (2011). A social semiotics framework for conceptualizing content area literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacies, 54, 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options