Page 129 - Children’s mathematical development and learning needs in perspective of teachers’ use of dynamic math interviews

Effect of dynamic math interviews on mathematics teaching
more focused on supporting these needs. When teachers gave support, it was most often verbal.
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Scores on Pretest and Posttest Dynamic Math Interview Teacher Professional Development Program (N = 23)
1. Questions focused on child’s math experiences, beliefs, emotions
2. Questions focused on child’s thinking and solving processes
3a. Questions to identify child’s needs in mathematics in general with actively involving student’s voice
3b. Questions to identify child’s instructional needs
3c. Questions to identify child’s needs regarding content and methods
4. Questions to check child knows the right answer
5. Questions to determine
the level and adequacy of child’s prior knowledge and understanding
6a. Giving support by structuring
6b. Giving support by reducing complexity
6c. Giving verbal support
6d. Giving support by using representations of real situations
6e. Giving support by using models or schemes
6f. Giving support by material support
6g. Giving support by modelling
7. Safe and stimulating climate during dynamic math interview
8. Teacher summarizes the math learning needs
9. Dynamic math interview is focused on a wide scope
M (SD) pre-test
M (SD) post-test
t
p
1.91 (3.72) 24.09 (12.84) .04 (.21)
.04 (.21) .00 (.00)
3.61 (2.33) .26 (.86)
.48 (.59) .04 (.21)
.87 (.34) .13 (.34)
.13 (.34)
.04 (.21)
.00 (.00) 2.48 (.95)
.70 (1.89) 2.74 (.69)
20.83 (12.84) 37.83 (16.97) .52 (.85)
.39 (1.08) .09 (.29)
3.43 (2.63) .48 (.51)
.70 (.47) .13 (.34)
1.00 (.00) .17 (.39)
.30 (.47)
.18 (.39)
.09 (.29) 3.48 (.51)
2.43 (1.24) 1.35 (.78)
-7.00 .001** -3.41 .003* -2.71 .013
-1.79 .088 -1.45 .162
.25 .807 -1.00 .328
-1.31 .203 -1.00 .328
-247 .022 - .04 .665
-1.45 .162
-1.82 .083
-1.45 .162 -5.30 .001**
-3.83 .001** 7.09 .001**
4
Note. p* < .01 (after Bonferroni correction 0,05/17 = 0.0029), p** < .001
127