found multiple correct solutions. This is a tribute to the depth <strong>of</strong> thinking the teachers did indeciding on the task to investigate, and in knowing the significance <strong>of</strong> the mathematics involved.2. The effort teachers made to fine tune the task paid <strong>of</strong>f. The task was challenging butaccessible. While the CCSSM only focuses on knowing numbers 1 – 5, each child was able towork successfully on this task. Even those students who basically could only approach theproblem by putting tickets one at a time were able to engage meaningfully with the task.3. The teachers were able to use discourse and communication in a meaningful way. Because<strong>of</strong> the specific structure incorporated into the lesson, with anticipated responses and suggestionsfor handling the responses, communication options occurred they never considered before.Students who struggled to find a solution still were comfortable sharing what they made and whythey thought they made 10. Similarly, when a student had an incorrect solution, he or she couldcount and determine that it was not 10. When either <strong>of</strong> these things happened, teachers askedother students, “How can we help _____ make 10?” Interestingly, students were able to providemultiple answers to this question. This shows the benefits <strong>of</strong> effective planning for studentresponses and actions the teacher should be prepared to take.4. The task proved well suited for the English Language Learners students in the class. Theycould do the mathematics expected <strong>of</strong> them while being coached through the words needed toexplain their work. The decision the teachers made to have students record the value <strong>of</strong> eachlength <strong>of</strong> scrip used when making their collections provided a representation that helped preparethe students for the explanations they were to give. As a result <strong>of</strong> their research, teachers becamemore aware that a focus on communication in mathematics supports other parts <strong>of</strong> thecurriculum.5. Interesting discussions were forthcoming when the teachers asked, “How are these thesame, and how are they different?” While children realized they were all showing 10, thediscussion <strong>of</strong> same and different led to excellent comparisons. Some children said a 2, 3, 3, 2 anda 2, 2, 3, 3 were the same because they each used two 2s and two 3s, while others said they weredifferent because the order was different. Some saw that 1, 2, 3, 2, 2 and 2, 2, 3, 2, 1 were‘reversed’. The language used in the discussions exceeded teachers’ expectations, suggesting thatthe preliminary discussions the teachers had about these same questions filtered into their lessonsand instruction.<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> the 40 th Annual Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Research Council on Mathematics Learning <strong>2013</strong> 107
6. While preparing the lesson, teachers became focused on how to use a context to whichtheir children could relate. This led them to focus on the development <strong>of</strong> the scrip and the “icepop” story. We all observed that throughout the lesson the students were so engaged in thethinking and reasoning involved that the story had become irrelevant.When reflecting on how focused the student were on this lesson and they forgot the story theteachers used to get started, one teacher summed up the positive aspects <strong>of</strong> their effort to createthis lesson when she said, “It was not about the ice pops, it was about the learning.” Thisstatement captured the essence <strong>of</strong> the evolutionary journey to involve kindergarten students inthe exploration <strong>of</strong> big mathematical ideas.ReferencesBall, D. L. (2003). What mathematical knowledge is needed for teaching mathematics?Prepared for the Secretary’s Summit on Mathematics, US Department <strong>of</strong> Education, February 6,2003; Washington, DC Available at http://www. ed. gov/inits/mathscience.Carpenter, T. P., Blanton, M. L., Cobb, P., Franke, M. L., Kaput, J., & McCain, K. (2004).Scaling up innovative practices in mathematics and science. Madison: <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Wisconsin-Madison, NCISLA. Retrieved July 15, 2004, fromhttp://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ncisla/publications/reports/NCISLAReport1.pdfDavis, E. A. and Krajcik, J. (2005) Designing educative curriculum materials to promoteteacher learning, Educational Researcher 34 (2005) (3), pp. 3–14.Higa-Funada, H. (2011). Personal communication, November 10, 2011.Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructionalimprovement: The case <strong>of</strong> lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.National Council <strong>of</strong> Teachers <strong>of</strong> Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for schoolmathematics. Reston, VA: Author.National Council <strong>of</strong> Teachers <strong>of</strong> Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points forprekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council <strong>of</strong> Chief State SchoolOfficers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.Sakumoto, A. (2011). Personal communication, November, 2011.AcknowledgementWith their permission, we identify and give special thanks to the following whose work,dedication, and collaboration made this paper possible: kindergarten teachers Mia Grant, HeatherHiga-Funada, Kannette Onaga, Stefanie Won, and Donna Wong; curriculum coordinators,Atsuko Sakumoto and Cheryl Taitague; and Principal, Patricia Dang <strong>of</strong> Kapālama ElementarySchool, Honolulu, Hawai‘i.<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> the 40 th Annual Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Research Council on Mathematics Learning <strong>2013</strong> 108
- Page 1 and 2:
….where the Mathematicscomes swee
- Page 3 and 4:
THANK YOU TO OUR REVIEWERSKeith Ado
- Page 5 and 6:
Table of ContentsPreservice Teacher
- Page 7 and 8:
Support for Students Learning Mathe
- Page 9 and 10:
own problem solving, which is criti
- Page 11 and 12:
to get started and persistence. Tea
- Page 13 and 14:
Posamentier, A. S., Smith, B. S., &
- Page 15 and 16:
conceptual understanding, applicati
- Page 17 and 18:
Table 1Identified Mathematical Prac
- Page 19 and 20:
justify their statements, included
- Page 21 and 22:
Finally, engagement in MP.6 was ass
- Page 23 and 24:
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ EMOTIONAL EN
- Page 25 and 26:
“experiences that are charged wit
- Page 27 and 28:
Number of journals containingEmotio
- Page 29 and 30:
ConclusionsStruggle and frustration
- Page 31 and 32:
Mathematics Teacher Candidates’ U
- Page 33 and 34:
function and applied the vertical l
- Page 35 and 36:
semester, about half of the course
- Page 37 and 38:
They further state that “the impo
- Page 39 and 40:
C. Laborde (Eds.) International Han
- Page 41 and 42:
(SCK), or knowledge of mathematics
- Page 43 and 44:
level of difficulty for each partic
- Page 45 and 46:
MKT Measures ScoresMathematics in G
- Page 47 and 48:
deep rooted belief in a single way
- Page 49 and 50:
THE INTERVIEW PROJECTAngel Rowe Abn
- Page 51 and 52:
involving addition and subtraction:
- Page 53 and 54:
6+7 4+9=6+(6+1) Substitution =4+(10
- Page 55 and 56:
We strongly believe that this inter
- Page 57 and 58:
AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH FOR SUPPORTI
- Page 59 and 60:
Practice throughout the investigati
- Page 61 and 62:
are expected to pursue. Teacher not
- Page 63 and 64: students to organize their reports
- Page 65 and 66: Slovin, H., Venenciano, L., Ishihar
- Page 67 and 68: The research presented in this pape
- Page 69 and 70: students’ confidence. Because bel
- Page 71 and 72: triangulation necessitated examinat
- Page 73 and 74: their ability to teach the mathemat
- Page 75 and 76: SPATIAL REASONING IN UNDERGRADUATE
- Page 77 and 78: journal prompt would be given as a
- Page 79 and 80: given to the 33 students on the MPI
- Page 81 and 82: to advance our way of life, then sp
- Page 83 and 84: STUDENT CONCEPTIONS OF “BEST” S
- Page 85 and 86: students are likely to interact wit
- Page 87 and 88: opinion of the student body. This q
- Page 89 and 90: At the highest level of reasoning a
- Page 91 and 92: APPENDIXTo use two decks of cards t
- Page 93 and 94: isolated and often occur in tandem
- Page 95 and 96: with the CCSSM. Teachers read and d
- Page 97 and 98: teachers’ role-play of SFMP #4. A
- Page 99 and 100: Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classr
- Page 101 and 102: as well as the alignment between th
- Page 103 and 104: Table 2Number of teachers per grade
- Page 105 and 106: Table 4Classification Categories fo
- Page 107 and 108: field so that research on the initi
- Page 109 and 110: dynamic approach to learning conten
- Page 111 and 112: Kindergarten Lesson FormatHow May W
- Page 113: team’s goals? As much as possible
- Page 117 and 118: active learning and collective part
- Page 119 and 120: classroom. “I would like to know
- Page 121 and 122: I had never been brave enough to tr
- Page 123 and 124: THE PATH OF REFORM IN SECONDARY MAT
- Page 125 and 126: Our collaboration model was formed
- Page 127 and 128: internal evaluator) were analyzed.
- Page 129 and 130: DiscussionOn part I of the survey t
- Page 131 and 132: whole department of secondary mathe
- Page 133 and 134: discussion. Many texts include wild
- Page 135 and 136: Data collection consisted of tests,
- Page 137 and 138: I've not used children's literature
- Page 139 and 140: could extend this inquiry to high s
- Page 141 and 142: course titled Calculus with Busines
- Page 143 and 144: no mathematical sense and should no
- Page 145 and 146: Adopts the “111” (a term coined
- Page 147 and 148: Specifically, clicking the “Click
- Page 149 and 150: algebraic expression is carried out
- Page 151 and 152: Retrieved from http://secc.sedl.org
- Page 153 and 154: furthermore, each model may result
- Page 155 and 156: After instruction in the course, th
- Page 157 and 158: Table 4The group’s categories and
- Page 159 and 160: you choose three place values, æ 4
- Page 161 and 162: APPENDIXTable 5Description of Combi
- Page 163 and 164: of the presented number. Later, the
- Page 165 and 166:
Figure 1: Mean trajectories and MD
- Page 167 and 168:
Figure 2: Mean trajectories and MD
- Page 169 and 170:
Performance, 33, 1410-1419.Cohen Ka
- Page 171 and 172:
Moyer, 2007). At his or her own pac
- Page 173 and 174:
logged by the system and then retri
- Page 175 and 176:
curriculum. The nature of the onlin
- Page 177 and 178:
Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004
- Page 179 and 180:
curriculum locally, within individu
- Page 181 and 182:
Popularity tallied whether or not a
- Page 183 and 184:
Amazingly, despite there being a fe
- Page 185 and 186:
ReferencesBlack, M. (1962). Models
- Page 187 and 188:
connections are connections or rela
- Page 189 and 190:
Table 1Instructional TasksSquareTab
- Page 191 and 192:
t-charts made it easier for student
- Page 193 and 194:
Figure 2. A Display of Student Stra
- Page 195 and 196:
ReferencesAnderson, J. R., Greeno,
- Page 197 and 198:
their parents in phenotype (observa
- Page 199 and 200:
student learning calls for differen
- Page 201 and 202:
Figure 2. (A) P3. (B). Extension of
- Page 203 and 204:
the usual phenotypic assessments an
- Page 205 and 206:
teachers is the discrepancy between
- Page 207 and 208:
expected to learn and the inquiry a
- Page 209 and 210:
his partner about his observations,
- Page 211 and 212:
hard for some children? The nature
- Page 213 and 214:
Lakoff and Nunez: specifically, tha
- Page 215 and 216:
Figure 5: Average hand trajectories
- Page 217 and 218:
Figure 6: Distributions of maximum
- Page 219 and 220:
ReferencesAnderson, J. R. (2005). H
- Page 221 and 222:
Social system perspectives view the
- Page 223 and 224:
urged students to think of some way
- Page 225 and 226:
Figure 1: The Discourse Patterns Du
- Page 227 and 228:
Figure 3 blow illustrates the devel