Page 167 - 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
more open questions (among other things), and thereby better explore and understand child’s mathematical knowledge, thinking, problem- solving procedures, experiences, emotions, and beliefs (Elliot et al., 2010; Empson & Jacobs, 2008; Ginsburg, 2009; Wright et al., 2006). The training of teachers to ask questions aimed at actively involving children in identification of their needs by asking solution-focused questions also enhanced the conduct of the dynamic math interviews (Bannink, 2010). At the start of the study, teachers were not familiar with such questions and their subsequent use appears to have contributed to the identification of a greater number of math learning needs (as seen in six dynamic math interviews).
It is striking that many of the teachers in our study spontaneously noticed children being able to solve a mathematical problem during the dynamic math interview which they previously could not solve. A calm but stimulating learning climate with a focus on the thorough reading of instructions and word mathematical problems, thinking out loud, and writing down interim steps in problem solution are examples of math learning needs determined during dynamic math interviews. These identified math learning needs supplement standardized test results.
Whether or not the dynamic math interviews had added value for the mathematical development of children with initially low mathematics achievement (our second research question) could not be answered positively: No significant differences between the experimental and control groups were found. As might be expected, the control and experimental groups both showed significant progress on mathematical problem-solving and arithmetic fluency. Regarding arithmetic fluency, the control group increased significantly over time on addition and division skills; the experimental group also on subtraction and multiplication. It is conceivable that a longer-term intervention is needed to show an impact on mathematical development. The second measure of mathematics achievement was administered shortly after the completion of the dynamic math interviews, so teacher might not have had sufficient time to master putting what they have learned into daily practice. A hint in this direction is the finding that mathematical problem-solving ability in the experimental group appeared to
5
165