Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 48, Issue 7, pp 941–946 | Cite as

Helping early childhood educators to understand and assess young children’s mathematical minds

  • Herbert P. Ginsburg
Original Article

Abstract

This issue of ZDM Mathematics Education focuses on the formative assessment of young children’s mathematical thinking, with an emphasis on computer-based approaches drawing upon on cognitive and educational research. The authors discuss several different assessment methods, including clinical interviewing, observation, and testing, that are appropriate for children from about 3–8 years of age, and that can provide information useful for the improvement of teaching. This paper begins with a discussion of principles underlying this work and then introduces the paper topics and authors. The paper concludes by projecting a future in which professional development provides a sound basis for formative assessment; in which formative assessment is central to education; and in which the need for standard achievement tests is largely eliminated.

Keywords

Mathematics Mathematical thinking Formative assessment Early childhood education Professional development 

References

  1. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1998). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cross, C. T., Woods, T. A., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ertle, B., Rosenfeld, D., Presser, A. L., & Goldstein, M. (2016). Preparing preschool teachers to use and benefit from formative assessment: the Birthday Party Assessment professional development system. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0785-9.Google Scholar
  4. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: the clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). The challenge of formative assessment in mathematics education: children’s minds, teachers’ minds. Human Development, 52, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ginsburg, H. P. (2014). My entirely plausible fantasy: early mathematics education in the age of the touch screen computer. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 5(1), 9–17.Google Scholar
  7. Ginsburg, H. P., Jamalian, A., & Creighan, S. (2013). Cognitive guidelines for the design and evaluation of early mathematics software: the example of MathemAntics. In L. D. English & J. T. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 83–120). Dordrecht: Springer Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: what it is and how to promote it. Society for Research in Child Development Social Policy Report: Giving Child and Youth Development Knowledge Away, 22(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  9. Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, Y.-S., & Pappas, S. (2016). Using the clinical interview and curriculum based measurement to examine risk levels. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0802-z.Google Scholar
  10. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  11. Hollebrands, K. F. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.Google Scholar
  12. James, W. (1958). Talks to teachers on psychology: and to students on some of life’s ideals. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, Y.-S. (2016). Psychometric analyses of the birthday party. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(7) (this issue).Google Scholar
  14. Lee, Y.-S., & Lembke, E. (2016). Developing and evaluating a kindergarten to third grade CBM mathematics assessment. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0788-6.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, Y.-S., Park, Y. S., & Ginsburg, H. (2016). Socio-economic status differences in mathematics accuracy, strategy use, and profiles in the early years of schooling. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0783-y.Google Scholar
  16. Lembke, E., Lee, Y. S., Park, Y. S., & Hampton, D. (2016). Longitudinal growth on curriculum-based measurements mathematics measures for early elementary students. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0804-x.Google Scholar
  17. Mast, J. V., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). Child study/lesson study: developing minds to understand and teach children. In N. Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 257–271). New York: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  18. Noyce, P. E., & Hickey, D. T. (Eds.). (2011). New frontiers in formative assessment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ginsburg, H. P., & Pappas, S. (2016). Invitation to the birthday party: rationale and description. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(7) (this issue).Google Scholar
  20. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Seo, K.-H., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2004). What is developmentally appropriate in early childhood mathematics education? Lessons from new research. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 91–104). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Wager, A. A., & Parks, A. N. (2016). Assessing early number learning in play. ZDM Mathematics Education, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0806-8

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations