2013 Conference Proceedings - University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Table 4Classification Categories for Prompt 2Classification Category0. No response or response did notaddress Prompt 21. SOA – Student Oriented,Allowances2. SON – Student Oriented, Need,Self-Action, StudentResponsibility3. TOA – Teacher Oriented,Assessment4. TOP – Teacher Oriented,Pedagogical/InstructionalSample Teacher Comment per ClassificationQuantitatively is the easy part, thinking abstractly is theharder part.Allow students to develop reasoning and conceptsthrough problem solving and exploring a variety ofcontexts.Making sure that students understand symbols andequations in order to be able to read problems andtranslate into mathematical equations.I will award and/or acknowledge students for partialsuccess rather than all or nothing.….I will do all steps to the problems out loud andexplain why I did the steps and what I was thinking.Counts for each classification category for the first four SMP are shown in Table 5. Themesin each teacher response were coded into one or more of the categories. In some cases, multiplethemes emerged in more lengthy responses that allowed the response to be classified into two ormore categories, or alternatively the response did not address the standard or was left blank.Hence the total per standard in Table 5 is not always 23.Table 5Counts Per Classification Category for Prompt 2Standard for Mathematical PracticeCounts Per Classification Category0. No 1. SOA 2. SON 3. TOA 4. TOP1 0 8 6 2 152 1 2 6 3 153 1 1 10 1 124 0 0 4 1 18Findings and ImplicationsNoteworthy aspects of the standardsThese data provide answers and insights into Research Question 1, specifically identifyingwhat caught the eyes of teachers as they read the SMP. Although the description of each standardProceedings of the 40 th Annual Meeting of the Research Council on Mathematics Learning 2013 98