Salience and feasibility of enacting rough draft math: Teachers’ voices about productive and powerful variations

IF 2.1 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Amanda Jansen, Elena M. Silla, Crystal L. Collier
{"title":"Salience and feasibility of enacting rough draft math: Teachers’ voices about productive and powerful variations","authors":"Amanda Jansen, Elena M. Silla, Crystal L. Collier","doi":"10.1007/s10857-024-09650-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Rough draft math [RDM] (Jansen, 2020a) occurs when a teacher invites students to share their in-progress thinking and provides opportunities for students to revise their thinking. RDM could be viewed as an approach to ambitious teaching because it is a practice when teachers elicit and respond to students’ thinking to support their learning, which is productive, and their positive identity development, which is powerful. The purpose of this study was to identify salient and feasible enactments of rough draft math, as described by teachers after they have learned about RDM through a book study and/or professional development. We interviewed 32 teachers in eight states in the USA, and we identified variations among the two most feasible and salient enactments of RDM: (1) inviting students to revise and (2) purposeful task selection and implementation. Variations in revising enactments included providing students with structured or unstructured revision opportunities and different ways teachers incorporated revising into their assessment practices (either test corrections or student self-assessment). Variations in task selection included modifying curricular tasks or using instructional routines intentionally. Variations in task implementation included implementing tasks to reinforce content or develop new understandings. We developed conjectures about the ways in which these variations could provide powerful or productive opportunities for students.</p>","PeriodicalId":47442,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-024-09650-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rough draft math [RDM] (Jansen, 2020a) occurs when a teacher invites students to share their in-progress thinking and provides opportunities for students to revise their thinking. RDM could be viewed as an approach to ambitious teaching because it is a practice when teachers elicit and respond to students’ thinking to support their learning, which is productive, and their positive identity development, which is powerful. The purpose of this study was to identify salient and feasible enactments of rough draft math, as described by teachers after they have learned about RDM through a book study and/or professional development. We interviewed 32 teachers in eight states in the USA, and we identified variations among the two most feasible and salient enactments of RDM: (1) inviting students to revise and (2) purposeful task selection and implementation. Variations in revising enactments included providing students with structured or unstructured revision opportunities and different ways teachers incorporated revising into their assessment practices (either test corrections or student self-assessment). Variations in task selection included modifying curricular tasks or using instructional routines intentionally. Variations in task implementation included implementing tasks to reinforce content or develop new understandings. We developed conjectures about the ways in which these variations could provide powerful or productive opportunities for students.

Abstract Image

实施数学粗草稿的显著性和可行性:教师对富有成效和强有力的变化的看法
当教师邀请学生分享他们正在进行的思考,并为学生提供修改思考的机会时,就会出现 "草稿数学"(Rough draft math,RDM)(Jansen,2020a)。RDM 可被视为一种雄心勃勃的教学方法,因为它是教师诱发和回应学生思维的一种做法,以支持学生的学习(这是富有成效的)和积极的身份发展(这是强有力的)。本研究的目的是确定教师在通过书籍学习和/或专业发展了解 RDM 之后所描述的数学初稿的显著性和可行性。我们对美国八个州的 32 位教师进行了访谈,发现了两种最可行、最突出的 RDM 实施方式之间的差异:(1)邀请学生修改;(2)有目的的任务选择和实施。修订方式的变化包括为学生提供有组织或无组织的修订机会,以及教师将修订纳入评价实践(考试更正或学生自评)的不同方式。任务选择的变化包括修改课程任务或有意使用教学常规。任务实施的变化包括实施任务以巩固内容或发展新的理解。我们就这些变化如何为学生提供有力或富有成效的机会进行了猜想。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
9.50%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (JMTE) is devoted to research into the education of mathematics teachers and development of teaching that promotes students'' successful learning of mathematics. JMTE focuses on all stages of professional development of mathematics teachers and teacher-educators and serves as a forum for considering institutional, societal and cultural influences that impact on teachers'' learning, and ultimately that of their students. Critical analyses of particular programmes, development initiatives, technology, assessment, teaching diverse populations and policy matters, as these topics relate to the main focuses of the journal, are welcome. All papers are rigorously refereed. Papers may be submitted to one of three sections of JMTE as follows: Research papers: these papers should reflect the main focuses of the journal identified above and should be of more than local or national interest. Mathematics Teacher Education Around the World: these papers focus on programmes and issues of national significance that could be of wider interest or influence. Reader Commentary: these are short contributions; for example, offering a response to a paper published in JMTE or developing a theoretical idea. Authors should state clearly the section to which they are submitting a paper. As general guidance, papers should not normally exceed the following word lengths: (1) 10,000 words; (2) 5,000 words; (3) 3,000 words. Maximum word lengths exclude references, figures, appendices, etc. Critiques of reports or books that relate to the main focuses of JMTE appear as appropriate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信