Page 163 - Children’s mathematical development and learning needs in perspective of teachers’ use of dynamic math interviews

Dynamic math interviews to identify children’s math learning needs
9.
10.
C
Math. problem- solving
Arithmetic fluency (total)
Math self- efficacy
Math self- concept
Math anxiety
0-4 a-e T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 2 a 1 140 202 76 86 13 11 12 9 4 a 2 187 216 69 134 7 17 13 16 1 b 3 190 208 64 68 12 14 18 14 3 d 4 186 198 91 147 20 20 24 23 4 a 5 191 225 65 97 17 18 13 18 4a6186230678818172122 2b719022313014217182320 4 a 8 154 238 65 82 18 16 8 13 2 a 9 189 237 112 146 - 19 - 18 4 a 10 188 250 68 108 9 9 10 9 4 a 11 187 206 41 66 17 16 18 17 4 a 12 189 242 90 120 19 18 20 19 1 a 13 170 214 80 86 17 19 19 19 2 b 14 179 197 17 30 12 12 11 10 2 a 15 191 258 82 95 15 13 13 9 0e16193181795317201920 1 a 17 188 207 69 96 12 15 13 15 1 b 18 188 226 112 80 18 18 19 20 0b191832296810417191216
T1 T2 15 22 27 12 10 7 10 13 12 12
7 7
9 6 17 19 - 10 22 20 15 9 10 11 11 10 13 14 19 15
9 8 13 13 10 16 18 9
5
instruction, writing down each small step during the solution process, writing down interim results, and checking of answers. This child requested a copy of the exercise sheets so that he could write directly on it during daily mathematics lessons.
Dynamic math interview 16 stands out in a negative way. This teacher demonstrated a low level of actual mathematics teaching behavior (< 3). While the teacher asked more open than closed questions, they asked relatively few questions about the child’s math experiences, beliefs and emotions (6.3%) and did not involve the child to any extent. The teacher asked questions about the child’s mathematical thinking and problem-solving solving processes (45.8%) but was also quite product-oriented (33.3%). Mostly verbal support was provided. Responsiveness, Climate, and Summarizing the needs of the child were rated as low, and the dynamic math interview was judged to have a restricted scope (e). In fact, the child’s mathematical development showed a decrease from 193 (T1) to 181 (T2) for mathematical problem-solving ability and a decrease from 79 (T1) to 53 (T2) for arithmetic fluency. The child’s math self-efficacy nevertheless increased three points. The math learning needs identified for this child were: read the mathematical problem thoroughly and repeatedly and pay attention to the word ‘approximately’.
Dynamic math interview 19 shows a mixed picture. This teacher demonstrated a high level of actual mathematics teaching behavior (T1: 3.22, T2: 3.54). More open than closed questions were asked. A variety of questions was asked about the child’s math experiences, beliefs, and emotions (25.9%) with a predominance
161