Search

Work in teacher noticing has captured to what extent teachers notice students' thinking on paper and pencil tasks and technology tasks, yet no one study has considered how the same group of teachers notices across task types. This study used Jacobs et al.'s (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2010, 41(2), pp: 169–202.) professional noticing of students' thinking framework to guide the design and analysis of prospective secondary mathematics teachers' (PSMTs) noticing of high school students' thinking on two geometry tasks: a paper and pencil task and a technology task. High school students' written work and a video clip were shared as the artifacts from which to notice for each task. PSMTs responded to a set of noticing prompts to capture how they were attending, interpreting, and deciding to respond to students' thinking for each task. Their written responses to these questions were then open coded for each noticing component and codes from each task were compared to reveal any differences in the content of PSMTs' noticing across task types. Results revealed differences between tasks for each component skill of noticing. Implications of these findings for mathematics teacher educators and future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research addresses the issue of how to support students' representational fluency—the ability to create, move within, translate across, and derive meaning from external representations of mathematical ideas. The context of solving linear equations in a combined computer algebra system (CAS) and paper‐and‐pencil classroom environment is targeted as a rich and pressing context to study this issue. We report results of a collaborative teaching experiment in which we designed for and tested a functions approach to solving equations with ninth‐grade algebra students, and link to results of semi‐structured interviews with students before and after the experiment. Results of analyzing the five‐week experiment include instructional supports for students' representational fluency in solving linear equations: (a) sequencing the use of graphs, tables, and CAS feedback prior to formal symbolic transpositions, (b) connecting solutions to equations across representations, and (c) encouraging understanding of equations as equivalence relations that are sometimes, always, or never true. While some students' change in sophistication of representational fluency helps substantiate the productive nature of these supports, other students' persistent struggles raise questions of how to address the diverse needs of learners in complex learning environments involving multiple tool‐based representations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the author's attempt to design assignments that engage preservice elementary teachers in original mathematical thinking. In particular, the choice of integer operations as the focus of a structured writing assignment that takes students two weeks to complete is explained and justified. Exemplary student work is quoted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

College instructors often teach scientific thinking by asking students to review and analyze a primary research article. The main purpose of this study was to explore how classroom response systems (CRS) could help impact the quality of written analysis papers submitted for this assignment by students taking 100-level biology courses at a medium-sized suburban, two-year college in the northeastern United States. Students in all participating course sections received written instructions on five key elements of critical analysis (CA) to include in scientific study analysis papers. Classroom instruction on recognizing these key elements in primary research papers was provided either via CRS or via an instructor-facilitated classroom discussion enhanced by the same PowerPoint presentation. A rubric, designed specifically for this assignment, was validated prior to its use in this study. Fifty students participated in the study, and those who received the CRS intervention achieved significantly higher CA scores for identifying implications of study findings, while the group that received only written instructions achieved significantly higher CA scores for discussing the credibility of the references used by the authors in planning the critiqued study. The implications of this study are discussed along with ideas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]