Advertisement

Intentional Teaching: Integrating the Processes of Instruction and Construction to Promote Quality Early Mathematics Education

  • Jie-Qi ChenEmail author
  • Jennifer McCray
Chapter

Abstract

Contextualized in the historical debate of the roles of instruction and construction, the chapter first discusses the current state of teaching in early mathematics, focusing on reasons why the debate tilts heavily in favor of construction and how that has affected early childhood classroom practice. Next, the essay presents our argument for intentional teaching in early mathematics as a framework that effectively integrates instruction and construction in teaching and learning processes. We share evidence suggesting the effectiveness of this approach based on our work at the Early Math Collaborative at Erikson Institute in Chicago and conclude with a discussion of the renewed importance of articulating the relationship of instruction and construction in light of the accountability movement driving much of contemporary education.

Keywords

Intentional teaching Pedagogical content knowledge Early mathematics intervention Learning trajectories Big Ideas in early mathematics 

References

  1. Ausubel, D. P. (1964). Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by discovery. T00he Arithmetic Teacher, 11, 290–302.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, E., Barton, P. E. Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., Ravitch, D. Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J., & Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers (pp. 1–27). Washington, D.C. The Economic Policy Institute, http://epi.3cdn.net/724cd9a1eb91c40ff0_hwm6iij90.pdf.
  3. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr, R. (2001). Research on the teaching of reading. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 390–415). Washington, D.C., American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  5. Bodrova, E. (2008). Make-believe play versus academic skills: A Vygotskian approach to today’s dilemma of early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(3), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (Exp. ed.). Washington, DC: NAEYC.Google Scholar
  8. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: NAEYC.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, J. Q., & McCray, J. (2012). A conceptual framework for teacher professional development: The whole teacher approach. NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field, 15(1), 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, J. Q., & McNamee, G. (2006). Strengthening early childhood teacher preparation: Integrating assessment, curriculum development, and instructional practice in student teaching. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & DiBiase, A. M. (Eds.). (2004). Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early mathematics education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Nicholls, J., Trigatti, B., & Periwitz, M. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coburn, C. E., Pearson, C. P., & Woulfin, S. (2011). Reading policy in the era of accountability. In M. L. Kamil, P.D., Pearson, E. B., Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 561–593). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Copley, J. V. (2004). The early childhood collaborative: A professional development model to communicate and implement the standards. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A. M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (pp. 401–414).Google Scholar
  15. Copley, J. V. (2010). The young child and mathematics (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: NAEYC.Google Scholar
  16. Copple, C. E. (2004). Mathematics curriculum in the early childhood context. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A. M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education. (pp. 83–90) Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (pp. 83–90).Google Scholar
  17. Craig, R. (1956). Directed versus independent discovery of established relations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: CollierGoogle Scholar
  20. Ehrlich, S. B. (2007). The preschool achievement gap: Are variations in teacher input associated with differences in number knowledge? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, A. S. (2007). The intentional teacher: Choosing the best strategies for young children’s learning. Washington, DC: NAEYC.Google Scholar
  23. Feiler, R. (2004). Early childhood mathematics instruction: Seeing the opportunities among the challenges. In D. Clements, J. Sarama, & A-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics (pp. 393–400). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Freedman, S. W. (1994). Exchanging writing, exchanging cultures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ginsburg, H. P., Kaplan, R.G., Cannon J., Cordero, M.I., Eisenband, J.G., Galanter, J., and Morgenlander, M. (2006). Helping early childhood educators to teach mathematics. In M. Zaslow and I. Martinez-Beck(Eds.), Critical Issues in Early Childhood Professional Development (pp.171–202). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  26. Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report, 22(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  27. Hanline, M. F., Milton, S., & Phelps, P. C. (2008). A longitudinal study exploring the relationship of representational levels of three aspects of preschool sociodramatic play and early academic skills. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill, H.C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kamii, C. (2006). Measurement of length: How can we teach it better? Teaching Children Mathematics, 13(3), 154–158.Google Scholar
  30. Kamii, C., & Housman, L. (2000). Young children reinvent arithmetic (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instructional does not…. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klibanoff, R., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. (2006). Preschool children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher “math talk.” Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42(4), 449–496.Google Scholar
  34. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Maloney, A. P., & Confrey, J. (2010, June-July). The construction, refinement, and early validation of the equipartitioning learning trajectory. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCray, J. S. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge for preschool mathematics: Relationships between teaching practice and child outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chicago: Erikson Institute/Loyola University Chicago.Google Scholar
  38. McCray, J. S., & Chen, J. Q. (2011). Foundational mathematics: A neglected opportunity. In B. Atweh, M. Graven, W. Secada, & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 253–268). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, E., & Allmon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten. Executive summary. Alliance for childhood e-report. http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/sites/allianceforchildhood.org/files/file/kindergarten_report.pdf.
  40. National Association for the Education of Young Children/National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions.asp.
  41. National Institute for Direct Instruction. (2012). About Direct Instruction. http://www.nifdi.org.
  42. National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  43. Phillips, D. (2000). Constructivism in education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  46. Richardson, V. (2013). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sarama, J., & DiBiase, A.-M. (2004). The professional development challenge in preschool mathematics. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood education. (pp 415–447) Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  50. Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Research, 41(5), 147–156.Google Scholar
  51. Taylor, B. M., Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2011). Reading and school reform. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B., Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 594–628). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Tobin, K. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Todd, J. T., & Morris. E. K. (1995). Modern perspectives on B. F. Skinner and contemporary behaviorism. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wesley, C. B., Engelmann, S., & Thomas, D. R. (1975). Teaching (Vol. 1). Palo Alto: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  56. White, R. (2001). The revolution in research on science teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 457–471). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, S. T. (2001). Research on history teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 527–544). Washington, D.C., American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1993). Wrinkles in time and place: Using performance assessments to understand the knowledge of history teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 729–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Rolling Meadows: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erikson InstituteChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations