Page 152 - Children’s mathematical development and learning needs in perspective of teachers’ use of dynamic math interviews

150
Chapter 5
control group (N = 591) was 217.61 (SD = 26.08) (range of 131-321) with 97 showing low mathematics achievement (scores < 193). The mean for the year 2 experimental group (N = 449) was 216.43 (SD = 28.19) (range of 110-312) with 92 children showing low mathematics achievement.
All of the 23 teachers participated in the teacher professional development program. Only 19 of the 23 teachers had children with low mathematics achievement in their classes, however, and therefore participated in the present study: 3 men and 16 women with an average of 11.6 years of teaching experience (SD = 9.63, range 3-40). Thirteen had a Bachelor’s degree in education (68%), five had additional graduate training (26%), and one had a Master’s degree.
Each of the 19 participating teachers conducted a dynamic math interview with a child with a mathematics score below the 20th percentile criterion on the Cito test. The dynamic math interview was conducted during the practice period in year 2 and video-recorded for data collection purposes. These children along with their teachers who performed the dynamic math interviews, constituted the experimental group (n =19). The mean age of the children was 9.26 years (SD = 0.41): 12 boys, 7 girls. To form a control group, peers in year 1 (i.e., prior to the dynamic math interview intervention) but taught by the same teachers as for year 2 and showing low mathematics achievement were sought. Only 15 children could be identified in such a manner; their mean age was 9.39 (SD = 0.47) (4 boys, 11 girls).
The sample was treated in accordance with institutional guidelines as well as APA ethical standards. Schools, parents, and children were informed about the purpose of the research, duration of the study, and procedures. Both teachers and parents provided active informed participation consent.
Measurement instruments
Mathematics teaching behavior
The International Comparative Analysis of Learning and Teaching (ICALT; Van de Grift, 2007; Van der Lans et al,. 2018) was used to observe 32 aspects of actual teaching behavior during mathematics