Page 187 - Children’s mathematical development and learning needs in perspective of teachers’ use of dynamic math interviews

processes) than prior to the start of the professional development program.
Despite these positive outcomes indicating the effectiveness of the professional development program, no effects were found for the following: questions aimed at active involvement of the child in identification of individual math learning needs; provision of support other than verbal; and posing of questions to determine the child’s level of prior knowledge/understanding and thereby the adequacy of their knowledge and understanding. It is possible that the duration of the development program was too short to yield more widespread, positive effects (Garet et al., 2001). Illustrative in this light are the results reported in Chapter 5. When the quality of the dynamic math interviews conducted with children showing low mathematics achievement in particular (during the professional development practice period) was examined, the majority of the teachers asked more process- than product-oriented questions and they also actively involved the children in the identification of their individual math learning needs. Verbal support was still the most frequently utilized support. The research in Chapter 4 supports the notion that a professional development program based on the training characteristics known to be effective together with the offering of a scripted tool for the conduct of dynamic math interviews can clearly promote the quality of dynamic math interviews on several fronts. A more extended practice period may be called for as we all know that “practice makes perfect.”
In 18 out of 19 dynamic math interviews was demonstrated that the math learning needs of children showing low mathematics achievement were identified (Chapter 5), dynamic math interviewing was shown to be effective. Such formative assessment clearly facilitated insight into the individual child’s math learning needs and the adaptation of ongoing teaching and input to meet these needs. The use of dynamic math interviews has also been shown be a productive and welcome addition to standardized tests (Ginsburg, 2009; Veldhuis et al., 2013). For example, teachers obtained information about a child’s zone of proximal development. The added value was also clearly the case in the present research (Chapters 4 and 5).
6
Summary and general discussion
185