Book, Product, and Software Reviews

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 445-447
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Mathematical Education ◽  
Core State ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
The Common

This book was originally written for the Thirteenth International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME–13), which was held in July 2016, in Hamburg, Germany. The book contains valuable information for anyone wanting to gain knowledge about mathematics education in the United States, past and present. Readers can find historical information on the organization and policies of education, ranging from kindergarten through college. Data on student achievement (in the United States and internationally) and information about mathematics curricula are also included. Readers will also find discussion about teacher preparation with regard to mathematics education, the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM), and the types of programs and resources available for mathematics teachers and students.

Mario, Monkey Man, Fish, and Bam-Bam: Creative Terminology in Today's Classrooms

2013 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 408-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherry L. Bair ◽  
Edward S. Mooney
Keyword(s):  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Core State ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
The Common ◽  
Creative Language

Mathematical precision means more than accuracy in computation or procedures; it also means precision in language. The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics states, “Mathematically proficient students try to communicate precisely to others. They try to use clear definitions in discussion with others and in their own reasoning” (CCSSI 2010, p. 7). In our recent experience in working with teachers and students, we have noticed a trend toward teachers using informal, and often creative, language and terminology in an effort to connect with students and make mathematical procedures easier to remember.

Students' Experiences Composing and Decomposing Two-Dimensional Shapes in First and Second Grade Mathematics Classrooms

2015 ◽  
pp. 1076-1091
Author(s):  
Drew Polly ◽  
Trisha Hill ◽  
Tabitha Vuljanic
Keyword(s):  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
Spatial Reasoning ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Second Grade ◽  
Core State ◽  
Classroom Implementation ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
The Common ◽  
Work Samples

The composing and decomposing of geometric shapes is a building block in children's development of geometry and spatial reasoning. The Common Core State Standards in Mathematics focus and emphasize the need for students to build composite shapes from smaller shapes and break a geometric shape into smaller shapes. This chapter presents findings from an exploratory study that examined both teachers' and students' experiences working with shape puzzles. Inductive qualitative analysis of field notes and student work samples indicated that shape puzzles provided opportunities for students to develop a deeper understanding of spatial reasoning. In certain subgroups of students, the vocabulary terms related to students' work revealed a disconnection between students' work and their oral explanations of their processes. Implications for professional development and classroom implementation in light of the Common Core State Standards are shared.

Research Commentary: Educational Technology: An Equity Challenge to the Common Core

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Kitchen ◽  
Sarabeth Berk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Common Core ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Standards ◽  
National Council ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
The Common ◽  
Education Of Students

The implementation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) has the potential to move forward key features of standards-based reforms in mathematics that have been promoted in the United States for more than 2 decades (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 2000; National Science Foundation, 1996). We believe that this is an especially opportune time to purposely focus on improving the mathematics education of students who have historically been denied access to a high-quality and rigorous mathematics education in the United States, specifically low-income students and students of color (e.g., Kitchen, DePree, Celedón-Pattichis, & Brinkerhoff, 2007; Leonard & Martin, 2013). We discuss a challenge to realizing standards-based reforms in mathematics in the United States: computer-based interventions in mathematics classrooms.

Research Commentary: Unpacking the Links Between Equitable Teaching Practices and Standards for Mathematical Practice: Equity for Whom and Under What Conditions?

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filiberto Barajas-López ◽  
Gregory V. Larnell
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
Teaching Practices ◽  
Mathematical Practice ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Core State ◽  
The Common ◽  
Equitable Teaching Practices

In their commentary, “Toward a Framework for Research Linking Equitable Teaching with the Standards for Mathematical Practice,” Bartell et al. (2017) provide a stepping-stone into the challenge of clarifying the interface between equity and standards setting in mathematics education by devising a framework that relates the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics to an explicit articulation of equitable teaching practices. In this commentary, we respond to this proposed framework and aim to clarify some key elements. Furthermore, we draw on our own positionings and scholarly interests to critique and bolster the framework by focusing on the tensions related to co-opting the Common Core for equity-oriented purposes, the framework's relationship to neoliberalism, and the role of racialized rhetoric and nondominant family and community knowledge.

Students' Experiences Composing and Decomposing Two-Dimensional Shapes in First and Second Grade Mathematics Classrooms

2015 ◽  
pp. 121-142
Author(s):  
Drew Polly ◽  
Trisha Hill ◽  
Tabitha Vuljanic
Keyword(s):  
Common Core ◽  
Common Core State Standards ◽  
Spatial Reasoning ◽  
State Standards ◽  
Second Grade ◽  
Core State ◽  
Classroom Implementation ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
The Common ◽  
Work Samples

The composing and decomposing of geometric shapes is a building block in children's development of geometry and spatial reasoning. The Common Core State Standards in Mathematics focus and emphasize the need for students to build composite shapes from smaller shapes and break a geometric shape into smaller shapes. This chapter presents findings from an exploratory study that examined both teachers' and students' experiences working with shape puzzles. Inductive qualitative analysis of field notes and student work samples indicated that shape puzzles provided opportunities for students to develop a deeper understanding of spatial reasoning. In certain subgroups of students, the vocabulary terms related to students' work revealed a disconnection between students' work and their oral explanations of their processes. Implications for professional development and classroom implementation in light of the Common Core State Standards are shared.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document