Goldilocks Discourse — math scaffolding that’s just right

Abstract

The Common Core has brought a sharp shift in what it means to be mathematically literate. Becoming mathematically literate is now as much a matter of acquiring mathematical practices as of acquiring any defined set of content standards. This more ambitious definition of literacy presents a challenge not only for students, but also for teachers who are supposed to provide students with opportunities to persevere in challenging tasks. To achieve this, teachers need to relinquish just the right amount of control to the students; relinquishing too little constrains students’ opportunities to persevere; relinquishing too much runs the risk of students engaging in unsystematic exploration. The secret ingredient to making it just right is what we call Goldilocks Discourse.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kapur

(2014). Comparing learning from productive failure and vicarious failure. Journal of Teacher Education, 23 (4), 651–677.

Reiser

Tabak

(2014). Scaffolding. In Sawyer

, The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (2nd ed.) (pp. 44–62). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Scherrer

(2015). Learning, teaching, and assessing the Standards for Mathematical Practice. In Suurtamm

(Ed.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Assessment to enhance teaching and learning (pp. 199–208). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Smith

Stein

M.K.

(2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Stein

M.K.

Remillard

Smith

(2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In Lester

(Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–369). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Stigler

J.W.

Hiebert

(1998). Teaching is a cultural activity. American Educator, 22 (4), 4–11.