Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing mathematics written communication through expository writing supported by assessment strategies

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study concerns expository writing in mathematics as well as the contribution of assessment strategies to the development of mathematics communication. We studied four 8th grade students (aged 12–13) working in a group, in order to perform three expository writing tasks, which were assisted by feedback and the use of supporting assessment documents (a script and an assessment criteria grid in the form of rubrics). Our findings suggest that there was some positive development in the students’ expository writing throughout the study, particularly regarding interpretation and justification. The group of students was able to properly interpret what was asked of them, with reasonable levels of correction and completeness. Throughout the tasks, the group gradually included more relational justifications, instead of vague statements, rules, or procedural descriptions. Students used multiple types of representation. In general, further explanations were made through verbal language. The assessment strategies contributed to such development, despite some prevailing limitations.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert, L. R. (2000). Outside-in–inside-out: Seventh-grade students’ mathematical thought processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(2), 109–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atieri, J. (2010). Literacy + Math = Creative connections in the elementary classroom. Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Back, R., Mannila, L., & Wallin, S. (2009). Student justifications in high school mathematics. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 291–300). Lyon, France. (http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/edition-electronique/cerme6/wg2-12-back.pdf) Accessed December 2013.

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 9–25). London: SAGE Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. Accessed Dec 2013

  • Borasi, R., & Rose, B. J. (1989). Journal writing and mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 347–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S., Andolina, M., Zuza, M., & Furman, R. (2004). Minute math: An action research study of student self-assessment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 213–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2003). Classroom discussions. Using math talk to helps students learn. Sausalito: Math Solutions Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D., Waywood, A., & Stephens, M. (1993). Probing the structure of mathematical writing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D., & Pearce, D. (1990). Perspectives on writing activities in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2(1), 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: the art of science. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361–374). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, G. (2008). Perspectives on representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 176–201). New York: Taylor and Francis.

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessard-Hébert, M., Goyette, G., & Boutin, G. (2005). Qualitative research. Foundations and practices. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, E. (2010). Fifth-grade students’ use and preferences for mathematically and practically based explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, L., & Pugalee, D. (2004). Using journal writing to explore “they communicate to learn mathematics and they learn to communicate mathematically”. Ontario Action Researcher, 7 (2) (http://oar.nipissingu.ca/PDFS/V722.pdf - January 2014).

  • NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCTM (2009). Guiding principles for mathematics curriculum and assessment. (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/21400954/Guiding-Principles-for-Mathematics-Curriculum-and-Assessment - March, 4th 2013).

  • Ntenza, S. (2006). Investigating forms of children’s writing in grade 7 mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunziati, G. (1990). Pour construire un dispositif d’évaluation formatrice. [To construct a formative assessment device.] Cahiers Pédagogiques, 280, 47–62.

  • Pinto, J., & Santos, L. (2006). Modelos de avaliação das aprendizagens. [Models of assessment of learning.] Lisboa: Universidade Aberta.

  • Porter, M., & Masingila, J. (2000). Examining the effects of writing on conceptual and procedural knowledge in calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 165–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugalee, D. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: Looking for connections through students’ work in mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 236–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugalee, D. (2004). A comparison of verbal and written description of students’ problem solving processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, E., & Sacristan, A. (2003). Influential aspects of dynamic geometry activities in the construction of proofs. In S. Dawson & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the 25th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol 4, pp. 119–126). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

  • Santos, L. (2002). Auto-avaliação regulada: porquê, o quê e como? In P. Abrantes & F. Araújo (Eds.), Avaliação das aprendizagens [Regulated self-assessment: why, what and how? In P. Abrantes & F. Araújo (Eds.), Assessment of learning] (pp. 75–84). Lisboa: Das concepções às práticas.

  • Santos, L. (2008). Dilemas e desafios da avaliação reguladora. In L. Menezes, L. Santos, H. Gomes, & C. Rodrigues (Eds.), Avaliação em Matemática: Problemas e desafios [Dilemmas and challenges of assessment for learning. In L. Menezes, L. Santos, H. Gomes, & C. Rodrigues (Eds.), Assessment in Mathematics: Problems and challenges] (pp. 11–35). Viseu: Secção de Educação Matemática da SPCE.

  • Santos, L., & Pinto, L. (2009). Lights and shadows of feedback in mathematics learning. In Tzekaki, M., Kaldrimidou, M. & Sakonidis, C. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 5, pp. 49–56). Thessaloniki, Greece

  • Santos, L., & Pinto, J. (2010). The use of feedback in written reports and portfolio: An assessment for learning strategy. Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education. Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 14(3), 281–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, L., & S. Dias. (2006). Como entendem os alunos o que lhes dizem os professores? A complexidade do feedback. [How students understand what teachers say to them? The complexity of feedback.] ProfMat 2006 (CD-ROM). Lisboa. APM.

  • Sfard, A. (2009). Commentary on the chapters by Baker and Asterhan and Schwarz through the lens of commognition. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 173–183). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shield, M., & Galbraith, P. (1998). The analysis of student expository writing in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stonewater, J. (2002). The mathematics writer’s checklist: The development of a preliminary assessment tool for writing in mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 324–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tardif, J. (2007). La régulation par l'intermédiaire des situations d'apprentissage contextualisantes: une aventure essentiellement “rescriptive”. In L. Allal & L. Lopez (Org.), Régulation des apprentissages en situation scolaire et en formation [Regulation by means of the contextualizing learning situations: an adventure essentially "prescriptive”. In L. Allal & L. Lopez (Org.), Regulation of learning in school situation and training] (pp. 25–43). Bruxelles: De Boeck

  • Veslin, J., & Veslin, O. (1992). Corriger des copies. [Correct students productions.] Paris: Hachette.

  • Vial, M. (2012). Se repérer dans les modèles de l’évaluation. [To identify models in assessment.] Bruxelles: De Boeck.

  • Vygostky, L. (1987). Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track. In F. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053–1098). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated engagement in learning. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Education, University of Lisbon, 1649-013, Lisbon, Portugal

    Leonor Santos & Sílvia Semana

Authors
  1. Leonor Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sílvia Semana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonor Santos.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Expository writing script

Expository writing describes how to perform certain mathematical procedures and explains why a given mathematical outcome occurred. We are going to use specific mathematics tack as prompts for expository writing.

Expository writing, why?

To develop your mathematical written communication.

To develop your critical thinking.

To contribute to deepen your understanding of the various topics studied.

Possible strategies:

–Take notes while you are exploring the mathematical task used as a prompt for expository writing

–Describe your work in a clean, clear and organized manner;

conclusions, you should not think “the teacher already knows this, so I don’t need to explain it”.

Appendix 2

2.1 Assessment criteria grid for expository writing (example for description and justification)

The group [of students]

Description and justification

0

1

2

3

…does not describe the steps to perform the mathematical task

…describes partially the steps to perform the mathematical task

…describes all the steps to perform the mathematical task

…described all the steps to perform the mathematical task

…does not explain why those steps are valid

…present very incomplete or incorrect explanations for why those steps are valid

…presents complete and partial correct explanation for why those steps are valid

…presents complete and correct explanations for why those steps are valid

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santos, L., Semana, S. Developing mathematics written communication through expository writing supported by assessment strategies. Educ Stud Math 88, 65–87 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9557-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9557-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation