Advertisement

Linguistically Responsive Teaching to Foster ELL Engagement, Reasoning, and Participation in a Mathematics Discourse Community

  • Mary A. AvalosEmail author
  • Walter G. Secada
Chapter
Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 17)

Abstract

We draw upon a co-teaching experience in a 6th grade mathematics classroom to discuss how mathematics teachers can carry out research-based suggestions to foster ELLs’ engagement and participation in mathematics discussions to apprentice use of the mathematics register and ultimately, to develop content understanding. We illustrate our approach based on actual experiences to establish an environment conducive to discussions in an urban classroom, with the objective of utilizing semiotics, such as language, symbols, and visual representations during instruction as relevant mathematical meaning-making systems. An instructional focus on meaning-making can prepare ELLs for problem-solving discussions in a discourse community.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was made possible by a grant from The Institute of Educational Sciences, Award Number R305A100862. This chapter does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. We acknowledge the teachers, students, district administrators, and project team members who contributed to this project. Finally, special thanks to editors Alan Oliveira and Rachel Kenney for their valuable comments and suggestions to refine this chapter.

References

  1. Avalos, M. A., Medina, E., & Secada, W. G. (2015). Planning for instruction: Increasing multilingual learners’ access to algebraic word problems and visual graphics. In A. Bright, H. Hansen-Thomas, & L. C. de Oliveira (Eds.), The common core state standards in mathematics for English language learners: High school (pp. 5–28). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
  2. Boaler, J., & Humphreys, C. (2005). Connecting mathematical ideas: Middle school video cases to support teaching and learning. New York, NY: Heineman.Google Scholar
  3. de Jong, E. (2013). Policy discourses and U.S. language in education policies. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eacott, S. (2011). Preparing “educational” leaders in managerialist times: An Australian story. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 43, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London, UK: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  8. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Johnson, K. R., Otten, S., Cirillo, M., & Steele, M. D. (2015). Mapping talk about the mathematics register in a secondary mathematics teacher study group. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horn, I. S. (2007). Fast kids, slow kids, lazy kids: Framing the mismatch problem in mathematics teachers’ conversations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 37–79.Google Scholar
  10. Jackson, K., Garrison, A., Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., & Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding whole-class discussions in middle-grades mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 646–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kazak, S., Wegerif, R., & Fujita, T. (2014). Supporting students’ probabilistic reasoning through the use of technology and dialogic talk. In S. Pope (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th British congress of mathematics education (BCME). British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics: University of Leicester. Retrieved from http://bsrlm.org.uk/BCME8/BCME8-28.pdf
  12. Kitcher, P. (1986). Mathematical change and scientific change. In T. Tymoczko (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 215–242). Boston, MA: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  13. Kuhn, D., & Zillmer, N. (2015). Developing norms of discourse). In L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 77–86). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  14. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Ressearch Journal, 27(1), 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lucas, T. (Ed.). (2011). Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  18. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically divesr classrooms: A resource for teacher educators. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  19. Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Williams Hall, M., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Accountable talk® sourcebook for classroom conversation that works (Version 3.1). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Institute for Learning.Google Scholar
  20. Moschkovich, J. N. (2010). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Moschkovich, J. N. (2012). Mathematics, the common core, and language. Paper from the understanding language: Language, literacy, and learning in the content areas meeting. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/02-JMoschkovich%20Math%20FINAL_bound%20with%20appendix.pdf
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  23. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematical practice. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice
  24. Rittenhouse, P. S. (1998). The teacher’s role in mathematical conversation: Stepping in and stepping out. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 163–189). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling : A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560601158461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sherin, M. G. (2002). A balancing act: Developing a discourse community in a mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(3), 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. S. (1996). Building discourse communities in mathematics classrooms: A worthwhile but challenging journey. In P. C. Elliot, & M. J. Kenny (Eds.), Communication in mathematics: K-12 and beyond (pp. 20–28) [1996 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics]. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  29. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  31. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.Google Scholar
  33. van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1994). Cultural stereotypes and positioning theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 24(4), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wegerif, R. (2006). Dialogic education: What is it and why do we need it? Education Review, 19(2), 58–67.Google Scholar
  35. Willey, C., Gatza, A., & Flessner, C. (2017). Mathematics discourse communities: Language ideologies and urban mathematics teaching with Latinas/os. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(1), 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, S., & Baxter, J. (1996). Dilemmas of discourse-oriented teaching in one middle school mathematics classroom. Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and Learning, School of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  2. 2.School of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations