Page 22 - Children’s mathematical development and learning needs in perspective of teachers’ use of dynamic math interviews

20
Chapter 1
based testing (Allsopp et al., 2008; Franke et al., 2001; Wright et al., 2006).
The information obtained by the teacher in a dynamic math interview can also be deployed in daily mathematics instruction to — for example — design or adapt interventions within the child’s so-called zone of proximal development (i.e., what a child can perform with support, but cannot yet perform on its own) to support the child’s mathematics learning and problem-solving processes, and to promote child’s self- confidence for mathematics learning (Bakker et al., 2015; Deunk et al., 2018; Lee & Johnston-Wilder, 2013). Examples of relevant interventions are: providing additional instruction, offering challenging tasks, using more concrete materials, and linking a new math concept to prior math concepts or experiences. The use of dynamic math interviewing can thus bridge the gap between children’s math learning needs and a teacher’s mathematics teaching. Although scripted protocols for dynamic math interviewing could be of assistance to the teacher to conduct such interviews, these are rarely developed (Caffrey et al., 2008).
Professional development of teachers
Dynamic math interviewing requires specific teacher competencies concerned with mathematics but also communication. Teacher must ask a variety of questions with a specific purpose in mind; create a safe and stimulating interview climate; explore and expand the limits of the child’s mathematical knowledge; gain insight into the child’s mathematical thinking; and stimulate the child to respond in a much detail as possible and thereby gain insight into the child’s capacities and perspective (Campbell et al., 2014; Empson & Jacobs, 2008; Ginsburg, 1997, 2009; Lee & Johnston-Wilder, 2013; Mercer, 2008).
A professional development program for the introduction and use of dynamic math interviewing should be designed in keeping with what is known about effective teacher development (Heck et al., 2019; National Research Council, 2001). Such a program should entail collective participation and collaboration, active learning, a focus on content, coherence, and a sufficient investment of time and effort (Desimone, 2009; Van Driel et al., 2012).