Eliciting student thinking during mathematics instruction allows teachers to choose tasks with high cognitive demand while also engaging students to use productive struggle to solve mathematical problems, thus increasing their conceptual understanding. Often, students who require intensive intervention in mathematics, in particular, students who are English learners, are not able to participate in discourse opportunities within core instruction in mathematics because they lack the confidence or the necessary skills. This includes students with mathematics difficulties as well as students with identified mathematics disabilities. Discourse provides multiple opportunities to practice using and listening to content–specific language, which is critical to developing academic language and accessing higher–level mathematics. This article summarizes the research supporting discourse in mathematics interventions as well as appropriate scaffolds to support discourse within intensive intervention for English learners, ultimately improving student understanding and performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherA. L., & HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Press.
2.
BakerS., GevaE., KiefferM. J., LesauxN., Linan–ThompsonS., MorrisJ., ProctorC. P., RussellR., GerstenR., DiminoJ., JayanthiM., HaymondK., & Newman–GoncharR. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014–4012). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf
3.
BanseH., PalaciosN., MerrittE., & Rimm–KaufmanS. (2016). 5 strategies for scaffolding math discourse with ELLs: Eliminate obstacles to effective classroom communication with these research–tested suggestions. Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.23.2.0100
4.
BartellT., WagerA., EdwardsA., BatteyD., FooteM., & SpencerJ. (2017). Toward a framework for research linking equitable teaching with the standards for mathematical practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.48.1.0007
BunchG. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341. https://doi.org/10.3102/009173212461772
7.
Celedón–PattichisS., & TurnerE. E. (2012). “Explícame tu respuesta”: Supporting the development of mathematical discourse in emergent bilingual kindergarten students. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2012.703635
8.
ChoppinJ., & Herbel–EisenmannB. (2012). Situating revoicing within broader task and social structures. North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
9.
FuchsL. S., MaloneA. S., SchumacherR. F., NamkungJ., & WangA. (2017). Fraction intervention for students with mathematics difficulties: Lessons learned from five randomized controlled trials. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(6), 631–639.
10.
FuchsL. S., BuckaN., ClarkeB., DoughertyB., JordanN. C., KarpK. S., WoodwardJ., JayanthiM., GerstenR., Newman–GoncharR., SchumacherR., LyskawaJ., KeatingB., & MorganS. (2021). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Intervention in the elementary grades (WWC 2021006). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC2021006–Math–PG.pdf
11.
GeeJ. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis. Theory and method. In GeeJ. P. (Ed.), Tools of inquiry and discourses (2nd ed., p. 21). Routledge.
12.
GerstenschlagerN. E., & StrayerJ. F. (2019). Number talks for statistics and probability: Short, mathematical discussions can elicit students’ reasoning and focus on foundational ideas. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 24(6), 362–367.
HaagerD., & OsipovaA.V. (2017). Enhancing academic instruction for adolescent English language learners with or at risk for learning disabilities. Insights Into Learning Disabilities, 14(1), 7–26.
15.
Hansen–ThomasH. (2009). Reform–oriented mathematics in three 6th grade classes: How teachers draw in ELLs to academic discourse. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 8(2–3), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348450902848411
16.
Hufferd–AcklesK., FusonK. C., & SherinM. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math–talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034933
17.
JacksonH. G., & NeelR. S. (2006). Observing mathematics: Do students with EBD have access to standards–based mathematics instruction?Education and Treatment of Children, 29(4), 593–614. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/42900555
18.
JungK. G., & BrownJ. C. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of an academic language planning organizer as a tool for planning science academic language instruction supports. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 847–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972–016–9491–2
19.
KarpK. S., BushS. B., & DoughertyB. J. (2020). The math pact: A commitment to instructional coherence. The Mathematics Teacher, 113(11), 60–62. https://doi.org/10.5951/mtlt.2020.0168
20.
LambertR., & TanP. (2017). Conceptualizations of students with and without disabilities as mathematical problem solvers in educational research: A critical review. Education Sciences, 7(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7020051
21.
LevineJ. (2021). Why we need to teach metacognition in our math classes. Gazette, Ontario Association for Mathematics, 59(4), 45–48.
22.
LiuJ., & XinY. P. (2017). The effect of eliciting repair of mathematics explanation of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(3), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716657496
23.
McTigheJ., & WigginsG. (1998). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
MoschkovichJ. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24–30.
26.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Nation's report card. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions. Ensuring mathematical success for all. https://www.nctm.org/PtA/
29.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics: Grade 2 introduction. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/2/introduction/
30.
NelsonG., PfannenstielK. H., & EdmondsR. Z. (2019). Examining the alignment of mathematics instructional practices and mathematics vocabulary between core and intervention materials. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12210
31.
New Classrooms Innovation Partners for Learning. (2019). The iceberg problem: How assessment and accountability policies cause learning gaps in math to persist below the surface … and what to do about it. https://www.newclassrooms.org/icebergproblem/
32.
ParrishS. (2011). Number talks building numerical reasoning. Strength accuracy, efficiency, and flexibility with these mental math and computation strategies. Teaching Children Mathematics, 18, 198–206.
SpiesT. G., & XuY. (2018). Scaffolded academic conversations: Access to 21st century collaboration and communication skills. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(1), 22–30.
36.
StephanM., & DiekerL. (2022). Equitable co–teaching practices in mathematics. In XinY. P., TzurR., & ThoulessH. (Eds.), Enabling mathematics learning of struggling students. Springer.
37.
SwainM., & LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
38.
TakeuchiM. (2015). The situated multiliteracies approach to classroom participation: English language learners’ participation in classroom mathematics practices. Journal of Language, Identify, and Education, 14(3), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1041341
39.
TurnerE., DominguezH., MaldonadoL., & EmpsonS. (2013). English learners’ participation in mathematical discussion: Shifting positionings and dynamic identities [Special equity issue]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 199–234. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0199
40.
WarrenE., YoungJ., & deVriesE. (2008). The impact of early numeracy engagement on four–year–old indigenous students. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(4), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693910803300402
