7
Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

In this chapter, we address the topic of effective mathematics curriculum and teaching—what is known about how teachers can effectively support children’s learning of important foundational mathematics content. We begin the chapter with a description and analysis of current state standards for early learning. Standards are intended to influence the development of curriculum and assessment tools, and therefore they have the potential to serve as a bridge between what research says about children’s learning and the kinds of teaching and learning that actually occur.

Next, the chapter provides an overview about the state of mathematics teaching and learning experiences in early childhood settings and reviews the literature on effective practices for teaching young children mathematics. Following this is a discussion of formative assessment, an essential and often overlooked element of effective instruction. The chapter concludes with a discussion of research on effective curricula.

DEFINITIONS

To enhance understanding of the content of this chapter, we first define some of the most frequently used early childhood education terminology.

Teacher-Initiated and Child-Initiated Experiences

Early childhood practices are often described as either teacher-initiated or child-initiated. Teacher-initiated or teacher-guided means that teachers plan and implement experiences in which they provide explicit information,



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 225
7 Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment In this chapter, we address the topic of effective mathematics curricu- lum and teaching—what is known about how teachers can effectively sup- port children’s learning of important foundational mathematics content. We begin the chapter with a description and analysis of current state standards for early learning. Standards are intended to influence the development of curriculum and assessment tools, and therefore they have the potential to serve as a bridge between what research says about children’s learning and the kinds of teaching and learning that actually occur. Next, the chapter provides an overview about the state of mathematics teaching and learning experiences in early childhood settings and reviews the literature on effective practices for teaching young children mathemat- ics. Following this is a discussion of formative assessment, an essential and often overlooked element of effective instruction. The chapter concludes with a discussion of research on effective curricula. DEFINITIONS To enhance understanding of the content of this chapter, we first define some of the most frequently used early childhood education terminology. Teacher-Initiated and Child-Initiated Experiences Early childhood practices are often described as either teacher-initiated or child-initiated. Teacher-initiated or teacher-guided means that teachers plan and implement experiences in which they provide explicit information, 225

OCR for page 225
226 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD model or demonstrate skills, and use other teaching strategies in which they take the lead. Teacher-initiated learning experiences are determined by the teacher’s goals and direction, but they should also reflect children’s active engagement (Epstein, 2007). Ideally, teacher-initiated instruction actively involves children. Indeed, when appropriately supportive and focused, teacher-initiated instruction can lead to significant learning gains (French and Song, 1998; Howes et al., 2008). In practice, however, most teacher- initiated instruction is associated with the passive engagement of children (Pianta et al., 2005). By contrast, child-initiated or child-guided means that children acquire knowledge and skills through their own exploration and through interac- tions with objects and with peers (Epstein, 2007, p. 2). Child-initiated expe- rience emanates primarily from children’s interests and actions with support from teachers. For child-initiated learning to occur, teachers organize the environment and materials and provide the learning opportunities from which children make choices (Epstein, 2007). Teachers thoughtfully observe children during child-initiated activity, gauging their interactions and the provision of new materials, as well as reorganization of the environment, to support their continued learning and development. During optimal child-initiated experience, teachers are not passive, nor are children entirely in control—although this ideal is not always realized in practice. For example, classroom observational research reveals that teachers tend to spend little time with children during free play (Seo and Ginsburg, 2004), or they focus their interactions on behavior management rather than on helping children learn (Dickinson and Tabors, 2001; Kontos, 1999). Instruction and Intentional Teaching In early childhood education, the term instruction is most often used to mean “direct instruction,” implying that teachers are entirely in control and children are passive recipients of information. The term is also used pejo- ratively to refer to drill and practice on isolated skills. Direct instruction is more accurately defined as situations in which teachers give information or present mathematics content directly to children. The National Mathemat- ics Advisory Panel (2008) uses the term explicit instruction to refer to the many ways that teachers can intentionally structure children’s experiences so that they support learning in mathematics. Throughout the day and across various contexts—whole group, small group, centers, play, and routines—teachers need to be active and draw on a repertoire of effective teaching strategies. This skill in adapting teaching to the content, type of learning experience, and individual child with a clear learning target as a goal is called intentional teaching (Epstein, 2007;

OCR for page 225
22 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1997). To be effective, intentional teaching requires that teachers use formative assess- ment to determine where children are in relation to the learning goal and to provide the right kind and amount of support for them to continue to make progress. Intentional teaching is useful to get beyond the dichoto- mies that arise when teaching is characterized as either teacher-directed or child-initiated. Integrated and Focused Curriculum Early childhood curriculum is often integrated across content domains or subject matter disciplines. Integration is the blending together of two or more content areas in one activity or learning experience (Schickedanz, 2008). The purpose of an integrated curriculum is to make content mean- ingful and accessible to young children. Integration also enables more content to be covered during the limited school day. Integration typically occurs in two ways. One approach is to add a mathematics content goal to a storybook reading. In this situation, lan- guage and literacy goals related to storybook reading are primary, and mathematics learning is secondary. Another way of integrating curriculum is to use a broad topic of study, a theme (such as animals or plants), or a project of interest to children through which mathematics content goals are addressed. Projects are extended investigations into a topic that intel- lectually engages and interests children, such as how to create a garden or build a house (Katz and Chard, 1989). In both of these approaches to integration, mathematics learning is a secondary objective, rather than the primary focus of attention. In this report, we use both integrated learning experience and secondary focus on mathematics (which some studies have referred to as embedded mathematics) to reflect the teaching/exposure to mathematics content as an ancillary activity. By contrast, focused curriculum or primary focus on mathematics refers to experiences in which mathematics is the major learning goal. A focused mathematics curriculum should also be meaningful and connect to children’s interests and prior knowledge. In this report, we use the terms, “primary focus on mathematics” and “focused mathematics time” to refer to dedicated time for a learning experience with mathematics as the primary goal. STANDARDS FOR CHILDREN’S MATHEMATICS LEARNING State standards for students’ learning have had an increasingly impor- tant role in education over at least the past decade, particularly in K-12 education. More recently, standards have begun to play a role in early

OCR for page 225
22 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD childhood education as well. Standards have great potential for shaping instruction, curricula, and assessment; however, the impact of standards on learning depends heavily on the content and specific learning goals laid out in them. The number of states with published early learning standards has grown over the past eight years from 27 in 2002 to 49 as of 2008. To inform their early learning standards in mathematics, states have used a va- riety of National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) resources, including Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000) (14 states) and Early Childhood Mathematics: Promoting Good Beginnings, issued by NCTM and National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Engaging Young Children in Mathematics (2004) is also a widely recognized guide for state early learning standards. Curriculum Focal Points (National Council of Teachers of Mathemat- ics, 2006), the most recent set of guidelines provided by NCTM, was developed after most states had already established their standards. The Curriculum Focal Points provides guidance about the most significant math- ematical concepts and skills (i.e., number and operations, geometry and measurement) that should be addressed during children’s early education. Curriculum Focal Points also has a clear emphasis on the PSSM process standards, which are essential for meaningful and substantive mathematics learning. The process strands of communication, reasoning, representation, connections, and particularly problem solving allow children to understand their mathematics learning as a coherent and connected body of knowledge (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2006). Curriculum Focal Points does not, however, provide the kind of in-depth coverage of what children should know and can do that this report does. In order to gain a more systematic understanding of the content of states’ mathematics standards, the committee commissioned two content analyses of current standards for young children: one at the prekindergarten level (here termed “early learning standards”) and one at the kindergarten level (Reys, Chval, and Switzer, 2008; Scott-Little, 2008). Early Learning Standards Many states developed early learning standards to improve classroom instruction and professional development; they also serve as a component of accountability systems. The age levels addressed in the standards docu- ments vary across states. In 17 states the standards targeted children ages 3 to 5, 12 states targeted 3- and 4-year-olds, and 11 states targeted children finishing prekindergarten or starting kindergarten. State-funded prekindergarten programs are the most common target audience for the early learning standards (42 states), which are usually required to implement the standards (39 states) (Scott-Little et al., 2007).

OCR for page 225
22 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT Currently, 17 states have developed monitoring systems to ensure that stan- dards are being implemented, and 4 others are in the process of developing such a system. States also report that they intend for the early learning standards to be used in child care (39 states), Head Start (38 states), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (26 states), and Even Start (27 states) programs, although the use of the standards in these programs is typically voluntary. For the early learning standards it was possible to evaluate how much emphasis each state has given to mathematics across all of the standards as a whole. On average, states devoted 15 percent of the total number of early learning standards to mathematics, although there was wide variation across states (from a low in New Mexico of only 4 percent to a high in Colorado of 54 percent). In the content analysis of the mathematics early learning standards (Scott-Little, 2008), each standard was first coded into 1 of the 10 math- ematics content and process areas in the PSSM. These categories include the three content areas emphasized in this report and in the Curriculum Focal Points—number and operations and geometry and measurement. After the mathematics standards items from a state’s document were coded, the total number of items in each area was summed. Because the total number of items varied from state to state, the total for each area was divided by the total number of mathematics items to produce a percentage that was comparable across documents. In effect, the percentage represents the rela- tive emphasis given to each area of mathematics. Table 7-1 presents these results. TABLE 7-1 Percentages of States Early Learning Mathematics Standards That Fall in Each of the PSSM Areas PSSM Area Mean SD Min. Max. Content Numbers and operations 32.3 9.8 9 50 Algebra 19.0 8.8 0 50 Geometry 17.8 7.9 0 44 Measurement 15.8 8.7 0 50 Data analysis 5.3 5.8 0 17 Process Problem solving 3.7 6.2 0 25 Communication 1.4 3.6 0 4 Reasoning 1.3 3.1 0 13 Representation 0.6 1.8 0 11 Connections 0.4 1.3 0 7 Other 2.5 3.4 0 15 NOTE: PSSM = Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, n = 49 states. SOURCE: Scott-Little (2008).

OCR for page 225
20 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD These data show a focus on the area of number and operations; on av- erage, states devoted 32 percent of their mathematics standards to this area, and all states had at least some standards in this area. Geometry received less emphasis than number in the early learning standards (18 percent), and measurement accounted for 16 percent of standards in mathematics. In ad- dition, there was much greater overall emphasis on the content standards areas than on the process standards areas (see Table 7-1). A more detailed analysis was conducted of all standards in each of the three content areas that are the focus of this report (as well as the NCTM Curriculum Focal Points): (1) number and operations, (2) geometry, and (3) measurement. Table 7-2 provides the details of the results for each area. In the area of number and operations, states have most often addressed number sense (an average of 24 percent of the number/operations stan- dards); however, there is considerable variation among states—from 11 states with no standards in this area, to 4 states for which number sense accounted for 100 percent of their number and operations standards. Three other core areas of number were relatively frequent—the number word list, 1-to-1 counting correspondences, and written number symbols—and each is addressed by 11 to 14 percent of the standards. Cardinality and the three basic kinds of addition/subtraction situations received minimal attention. In the geometry early learning standards, there was an emphasis on children’s knowledge of properties of shapes (40 percent) and spatial rea- soning (25 percent) (e.g., knowledge related to spatial location and direc- tion), although, again, there was considerable variability among states. Some important aspects of geometry for young children receive little atten- tion, including transformation and visualization of shapes. In the measurement standards, areas most often emphasized are mea- surement of objects (34 percent of the standards), comparing objects (27 percent), and understanding of concepts related to time (27 percent). Again there was variability—for example, 2 states had no measurement standards at all, and 15 states had no standard related to comparisons of objects and the concept of time (see Table 7-2). Kindergarten Standards The committee also commissioned an analysis of the 10 states with the largest student populations that publish kindergarten-specific mathematics standards: California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia (Reys, Chval, and Switzer, 2008). These states were selected for analysis because they represent ap- proximately 50 percent of the U.S. school population and therefore influ- ence the intended curriculum for a substantial population of students. Given their size, these 10 states are also likely to influence textbook development and materials that are produced by commercial curriculum publishers.

OCR for page 225
21 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT TABLE 7-2 Classification of State Mathematics Early Learning Standards by Content Area and Focal Area Content/Focal Area Mean% SD Minimum% Maximum% Number and Operations Number sense 24.1 26.6 0 100 1-to-1 correspondence 13.8 10.3 0 43 Number word list 13.1 10.2 0 50 Written number symbols 11.4 11.6 0 40 Perceptional comparisons 9.6 10.3 0 50 Combining/taking apart 7.3 9.6 0 33 Cardinality 5.4 7.2 0 25 Estimation 4.7 8.4 0 33 Change 3.9 7.9 0 33 Ordinal numbers 3.8 6.6 0 25 Counting comparisons 2.2 9.0 0 60 Additive comparisons 0.6 2.1 0 11 Place value 0.2 1.6 0 11 Geometry Properties of shapes 39.6 17.9 0 100 Spatial reasoning 25.3 23.2 0 100 Analyzing and comparing shapes 13.3 15.8 0 67 Location and directionality 12.2 15.5 0 50 Composing/decomposing shapes 6.6 10.7 0 40 Symmetry 1.6 5.3 0 25 Transformation of shapes 1.5 6.0 0 33 Visualization of shapes 0.0 0.0 0 0 Measurement Measurement of objects 33.9 25.3 0 100 Comparing objects 27.1 26.0 0 100 Time 26.9 23.3 0 100 Measurable attributes 12.7 16.0 0 50 Composing objects 0.0 0.0 0 0 NOTE: For number and operations n = 49 states; for geometry n = 48 as one state had no geometry standards; for measurement n = 47 as two states had no measurement standards. Percentages represent the number of a state’s standards in a focal area divided by the total number of standards in the content area (content areas are number and operation, geometry, and measurement). SOURCE: Scott-Little (2008). The kindergarten learning standards for each state were coded into the five PSSM mathematical content areas or strands: (1) number and opera- tion, (2) geometry, (3) measurement, (4) algebra, and (5) data analysis/ probability (Clements, 2004; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Results allow an examination of which of these mathematical strands are emphasized across and within states. Relative emphasis devoted to each strand was calculated as a percentage of standards in that strand within the total number of mathematics standards.

OCR for page 225
22 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD There was considerable variability across the 10 states studied. The total number of mathematics standards varied widely, from 11 in Florida to 74 in Virginia (average number of standards was 29). Of the “total set” of 103 specific standards identified in the analysis, only 1 standard was common to all 10 states (extending a pattern) and another 3 standards were common to 9 states. Only 20 percent of the 103 standards were common to 6 or more states. In kindergarten (as with the early learning standards), the greatest emphasis across all the mathematics standards is placed on number and operations—40 percent of a state’s mathematics standards on average (with a range from a low of 27 percent to a high of 56 percent among states). Geometry and measurement each receive less emphasis than number (19 and 21 percent, respectively), although, again, variability is high (from 9 to 45 percent across states for geometry and from 11 to 28 percent for measurement). In the number strand, the heaviest emphasis is placed on counting. Areas of emphasis (meaning at least 6 of the 10 states had standards in this focal area) include counting objects, reading and writing numerals, identify- ing ordinal numbers, comparing the relative size of groups of objects, and modeling and solving problems using addition and subtraction. Consistent with the theme of state variability, however, no single number/operations standard appeared in all 10 state documents. In both geometry and measurement, few learning standards were com- mon across the states; only 6 topics (of 43 total across geometry and measurement) appeared in the documents of 6 or more states. In geometry, these topics were identifying and naming two-dimensional (2-D) shapes and knowing the relative position of objects. In measurement, the most common topics were comparing the weight of objects; sort, compare, and/or order objects; compare length of objects; and know days of the week. Taken together, the three focal areas emphasized by the committee (number, geometry, and measurement) account for 80 percent of the content of the kindergarten standards across the 10 states. However, many states also include some specific standards that would not be considered core or primary mathematics by the committee—such as knowing the names of the months, parts of the day, seasons, ordering events by time, comparing time, understanding the concept of time, identifying the time of everyday events to the nearest hour, and measurement of weight, capacity, and temperature. Process strands were addressed quite differently by different states, so no systematic analyses could be done. Specifically, three states make no mention of process standards at the kindergarten level (Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia), and three other states include identification of

OCR for page 225
2 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT specific standards by process strand (Georgia, New York, and Texas). No- tably, although these strands are specified for kindergarten, these process standards are very similar, if not identical, at each grade, K-8. Two states (Arizona and Massachusetts) provide a general description of process stan- dards in the introductory material of their K-6 or K-8 document. These descriptions emphasize the importance of the process strands outlined in the PSSM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). The California and Ohio documents include process standards organized within one strand (“Mathematical Reasoning” in the California document and “Mathematical Process Standard” in the Ohio document) for each grade. The California document lists process standards that are common across kindergarten and Grade 1. Likewise, the Ohio document includes a list of process standards that are common to Grades K-2. Summary A total of 49 states have early learning standards in mathematics; on average, states devote the greatest emphasis to the area of number (32 percent of the standards on average). Specific emphasis within the areas of number, geometry, and measurement showed considerable state-to-state variation. According to our analysis for the 10 largest states, the greatest emphasis in kindergarten is also placed on number (40 percent of the stan- dards on average). However, there is also considerable variation in content of the specific standards across all of the areas. In fact, of the 103 total stan- dards across the 10 states, 47 are unique to just 1 or 2 state documents. A pattern of wide variation across states in emphasis given to math- ematics as a whole and relative emphasis given to various topics in math- ematics emerges from these analyses of standards. Thus, while some common topics could be identified, when taken as a whole, the state stan- dards do not communicate a clear consensus about the most important mathematical ideas for young children to learn. THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT We begin with a description of the classroom context in which math- ematics instruction takes place. We then focus specifically on what is known about mathematics teaching and learning practices in preschool and kinder- garten classrooms—when it occurs, how often, and in what contexts. Results from several large studies of prekindergarten (pre-K) and kin- dergarten classrooms paint a detailed picture of how young children spend their time in these settings and the quality of their learning experiences. We draw particularly on two studies conducted by the National Center for

OCR for page 225
2 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) and on the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten1 (ECLS-K). The NCEDL conducted two major studies of state-funded pre-K and kindergarten classrooms: the six-state Multi-State Study of Preschool (MS) and the five-state State-wide Early Education Programs (SWEEP) Study (Early et al., 2005). While neither of these studies included a nationally representative sample, as of 2001-2002, almost 80 percent of all children in the United States who were participating in state-funded prekindergarten were in one of these 11 states (Early et al., 2005). When combined, these two studies provide observational data on over 700 preschool and 800 kin- dergarten classrooms across the United States and offer a unique window on children’s classroom experiences. It is important to note that classrooms were included in these studies only if they received state pre-K funding, so the results are not representa- tive of the larger segment of schooling opportunities for 4-year-olds. State- funded pre-K classrooms are a small subset of early childhood classrooms, generally with greater funding and tighter regulation and monitoring, than the larger set of early childhood classrooms. The studies must be interpreted in this context. In both studies, classrooms were observed using a variety of measures to capture the content and quality of learning opportunities and materials afforded to children, including the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R; Harms, Clifford, and Cryer, 1998), Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre, 2008), and Emerging Academics’ Snapshot (Ritchie et al., 2001).2 How Children Spend Their Time in Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Results from both of the NCEDL studies (the MS and the SWEEP) in- dicate that children in state pre-K programs spend a great deal of time not engaged in any type of instructional activity. Using the Emerging Academics Snapshot, both NCEDL studies recorded the proportion of time spent in all major areas of curriculum, assessing the amount of time students spent in 1 Material in this section is based on a paper prepared for the committee by Hamre et al. (2008), which included a review of the published literature related to these studies as well as some reanalysis of the data conducted for this report. 2 During pre-K, observation days lasted from the beginning of class until the end of class in part-day rooms and until nap in full-day rooms. In pre-K, observers stayed with the children all day, including lunch, outside time, and special activities. In kindergarten, the observations were slightly different because the days were generally longer. Snapshot and CLASS observa- tions lasted the entire day, but no observations were made during lunch, recess, or nap. For this reason, pre-K and kindergarten Snapshot percentages of time spent are discussed separately. More information about these studies can be found on the NCEDL website (http://www.fpg. unc.edu/~ncedl/) and in several published articles (Clifford et al., 2005; Howes et al., 2008; Pianta et al., 2005).

OCR for page 225
25 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT reading, oral language and phonemic awareness activities, writing, math- ematics, science, social studies, aesthetics, and fine and gross motor activi- ties. Each area was broadly defined so that time spent in dramatic play, block areas, coloring with markers, talking with teachers about things out- side school, and singing songs were included in one of these areas. During the preschool day, the average student spent 44 percent of the time engaged in none of these curriculum activities. Data from kindergarten classrooms revealed that the average student was not engaged in any instructional ac- tivity in 39 percent of the observed intervals. What were children doing during this noninstructional time? In pre- school classrooms, much of the time (22 percent) was spent engaged in routine activities, such as transitioning, waiting in line, or washing hands. Some time (11 percent) was also spent in meals and snacks (Early et al., 2005). Importantly, routine, meal, and snack times could be included as instructional time if, for example, teachers and children engaged in a con- versation, sang a song, or played a number game during a transition. But few preschool or kindergarten teachers appeared to take advantage of the learning opportunities that arose during transitional periods or employed strategies for getting the most out of this time in the classroom. Which types of instructional opportunities are young children exposed to most often? Of all content areas, young children spent more time in lan- guage and literacy activities than any other—14 percent of the observed day in preschool and 28 percent of the observed day in kindergarten (La Paro et al., 2008). None of the other major areas occurred much more than 10 percent, on average, in any given day. Pre-K children in the NCEDL studies were exposed to mathematics content in only 6 percent of the observations, and kindergarten children were exposed to mathematics an average of 11 percent of the day. Another relevant question concerns the use of various instructional contexts, such as free choice/center time or whole-group instruction. Data from the NCEDL studies suggest there is a major shift in the preferred in- structional context from preschool to kindergarten. Children in preschool classrooms spent an average of 33 percent of the school day in free choice or center time, compared with only 6 percent of the day in kindergarten classrooms. Once in kindergarten, both whole-group instruction and indi- vidual time, in which children work independently at desks, becomes much more frequent. Across kindergarten and preschool, teachers rarely made use of small-group instruction. Quality of Teacher-Child Interactions in Preschool and Kindergarten The NCEDL data also provide a window into the quality of teacher- child interactions and instruction to which young children are exposed, using the CLASS Framework for Children’s Learning Opportunities in

OCR for page 225
2 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD Clements, D.H., and Battista, M.T. (1994). Computer environments for learning geometry. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(2), 173-197. Clements, P., and Lewis, A.E. (2009). The Effectieness of the Big Math for Little Kids Curriculum: Does It Make a Difference? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, April, San Diego, CA. Clements, D.H., and McMillen, S. (1996). Rethinking “concrete” manipulatives. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(5), 270-279. Clements, D.H., and Sarama, J. (2003). Young children and technology: What does the re- search say? Young Children, 5(6), 34-40. Clements, D.H., and Sarama, J. (2004). Building blocks for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 181-189. Available: http://www.gse.buffalo. edu/RP/PDFs/BB_ECRQ.pdf [accessed July 2008]. Clements, D.H., and Sarama, J. (2005). Young children and technology: What’s appropriate? In W. Masalski and P.C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported Mathematics Learning Enironments: 6th Yearbook (pp. 51-73). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Clements, D.H., and Sarama, J. (2007a). Early childhood mathematics learning. In F.K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 461-555). New York: Information Age. Clements, D.H., and Sarama, J. (2007b). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, (2), 136-163. Clements, D.H., and Sarama, J. (2008a). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research- based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 443-494. Clements, D.H., and Sarama, J. (2008b). Mathematics and technology: Supporting learning for students and teachers. In O.N. Saracho and B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary Perspec- ties on Science and Technology in Early Childhood Education (pp. 127-147). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Clifford, R.M., Barbarin, O., Chang, F., Early, D., Bryant, D., Howes, C., Burchinal, M. and Pianta, R. (2005). What is prekindergarten? Characteristics of public prekindergarten programs. Applied Deelopmental Science, (3), 126-143. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., and Perlwitz, M. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics, 22, 3-29. Cohen, D.H., Stern, V., and Balaban, N. (1997). Obsering and Recording the Behaior of Young Children (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Connor, C.M., Son, S., and Hindman, A.H. (2005). Teacher qualifications, classroom prac- tices, family characteristics, and preschool experience: Complex effects on first graders’ vocabulary and early reading outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, (4), 343-375. Copley, J.V., Jones, C., and Dighe, J. (2007). Math: The Creatie Curriculum® Approach. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies. Copple, C., and Bredekamp, S. (2006). Basics of Deelopmentally Appropriate Practice: An Introduction for Teachers of Children  to 6. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Copple, C., and Bredekamp, S. (2009). Deelopmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Child- hood Programs Sering Children from Birth Through Age . Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Davis, E.A., and Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom sys- tems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(3), 265-272.

OCR for page 225
2 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT Denham, S.A., and Weissberg, R.P. (2004). Social-emotional learning in early childhood: What we know and where to go from here. In E. Chesebrough, P. King, T.P. Gullotta, and M. Bloom (Eds.), A Blueprint for the Promotion of Prosocial Behaior in Early Childhood (pp. 13-50). New York: Kluwer Academic. Diamond, A., Barnett, S., Thomas, J., and Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 1, 1387-1388. Dickinson, D., and Smith, M.W. (1993). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book read- ings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 2(2), 104-122. Dickinson, D., and Tabors, P. (2001). Beginning Literacy with Language: Young Children Learning at Home and School. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. diSessa, A.A. (2007). An interactional analysis of clinical interviewing. Cognition and Instruc- tion, 25(4), 523-565. Dodge, D.T., Colker, L., and Heroman, C. (2002). The Creatie Curriculum® for Preschool (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies. Early, D.M., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Chang, F., Clifford, R., et al. (2005). Pre- kindergarten in Eleen States: NCEDL’s Multi-state Study of Pre-Kindergarten and Study of State-wide Early Education Programs (SWEEP). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Available: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/NCEDL/pdfs/SWEEP_MS_summary_final. pdf [accessed August 2008]. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., and Forman, G. (Eds.) (1998). The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach—Adanced Reflections (2nd ed.) Greenwich, CT: Ablex. Emmer, E.T., and Stough, L. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 6(2), 103-112. Epstein, A.S. (2007). The Intentional Teacher: Choosing the Best Strategies for Young Chil- dren’s Learning. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Epstein, A.S., Schweinhart, L.J., and McAdoo, L. (1996). Models of Early Childhood Educa- tion. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Farran, D.C., Lipsey, M., Watson, B., and Hurley, S. (2007). Balance of Content Emphasis and Child Content Engagement in an Early Reading First Program. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., and Empson, S. (1996). A longi- tudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Learning, 2(4), 403-434. Fisch, S.M. (2008). The Role of Educational Media in Preschool Mathematics Education. Paper commissioned by the Committee for Early Childhood Mathematics, Mathematics Science Education Board, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Sciences and Education, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Flavell, J.H., Green, F.L., and Flavell, E.R. (1995). Young children’s knowledge about think- ing. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Deelopment, 60(Serial No. 243, No. 1). Foegen, A., Jiban, C., and Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 1(2), 121-139. Forman, G.E. (1982). A search for the origins of equivalence concepts through a microanaly- sis of block play. In G.E. Forman (Ed.), Action and Thought (pp. 97-135). New York: Academic Press. Frede, E., Jung, K., Barnett, W.S., Lamy, C.E., and Figueras, A. (2007). The Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study (APPLES). Rutgers, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. French, L., and Song, M. (1998). Developmentally appropriate teacher-directed approaches: Images from Korean kindergartens. Journal of Curriculum Studies, , 409-430.

OCR for page 225
20 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C.L., and Katzaroff, M. (1999). Mathematics per- formance assessment in the classroom: Effects on teacher planning and student problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 609-646. Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., and Clarke, D. (2002). Emotion regulation in children with specific lan- guage impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Serices in Schools, , 102-111. Fuson, K.C. (1988). Children’s Counting and Concept of Number. New York: Springer- Verlag. Fuson, K.C., and Murata. A. (2007). Integrating NRC principles and the NCTM process stan - dards to form a class learning path model that individualizes within whole-class activities. National Journal of Math Education Leadership, 1(1), 72-91. Fuson, K.C., Smith, S.T., and Lo Cicero, A. (1997). Supporting Latino first graders’ ten- structured thinking in urban classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2, 738-760. Fuson, K., Carroll, W.M., and Drueck, J.V. (2000). Achievement results for second and third graders using the standards-based curriculum, everyday mathematics. Journal for Re- search in Mathematics Education, 1(3), 277-295. Gamel-McCormick, M., and Amsden, D. (2002). Inesting in Better Outcomes: The Delaware Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Dover: Delaware Interagency Resource Manage- ment Committee and the Department of Education. Gerhardt, C. (1973). Hypersurfaces of Prescribed Mean Curature oer Obstacles, Math. Available: http://www.math.uni-heidelberg.de/studinfo/gerhardt/dissertation-MZ133.pdf [accessed August 2008]. Gersten, R., Chard, D., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S., Morpy, S.K., and Flojo, J.R. (in press). Teach- ing Mathematics to Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-analysis of the Interen- tion Research. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Ginsburg, H.P. (1997). Entering the Child’s Mind: The Clinical Interiew in Psychological Research and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ginsburg, H.P. (2006). Mathematical play and playful mathematics: A guide for early educa- tion. In D. Singer, R.M. Golinkoff, and K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = Learning: How Play Motiates and Enhances Children’s Cognitie and Social-Emotional Growth (pp. 145-165). New York: Oxford University Press. Ginsburg, H.P., and Amit, M. (2008). What is teaching mathematics to young children? A theoretical perspective and case study. Journal of Applied Deelopmental Psychology, 2(4), 274-285. Ginsburg, H.P., and Baroody, A.J. (2003). The Test of Early Mathematics Ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro Ed. Ginsburg, H.P., and Russell, R.L. (1981). Social class and racial influences on early math- ematical thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Deelopment, 6(6, Serial No. 193). Ginsburg, H.P., Greenes, C., and Balfanz, R. (2003). Big Math for Little Kids. Parsippany, NJ: Dale Seymour. Ginsburg, H.P., Lee, J., and Boyd, J.S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report Giing Child and Youth Deel- opment Knowledge Away, 22(1). Available: http://www.srcd.org/index.php?option=com_ contentandtask=viewandid=232andItemid=1 [accessed August 2008]. Greabell, L.C. (1978). The effect of stimuli input on the acquisition of introductory geom- etry concepts by elementary school children. School Science and Mathematics, (4), 320-326. Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., and O’Brien, M.U. (2003). Enhancing school-based pre- vention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 5(6-7), 466-474.

OCR for page 225
21 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT Gregory, K.M., Kim, A.S., and Whiren, A. (2003). The effect of verbal scaffolding on the complexity of preschool children’s block constructions. In D.E. Lytle (Ed.), Play and Educational Theory and Practice: Play and Culture Studies (pp. 117-134). Westport, CT: Praeger. Griffin, S. (2004). Number worlds: A research-based mathematics program for young chil- dren. In D.H. Clements, J. Sarama, and A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging Young Children in Mathematics: Standards for Early Childhood Mathematics Education (pp. 325-342). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Griffin, S. (2007). SRA Number Worlds: A Preention/Interention Math Program. Assess- ment Leel A. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill. Griffin, S., Case, R. and Siegler, R.S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitie Theory and Classroom Practice (pp. 25-40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Griffin, S., Case, R., and Capodilupo, A. (1995). Teaching for understanding: The importance of the central conceptual structures in the elementary mathematics curriculum. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, and A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generaliza- tion in Learning (pp. 121-151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Grupe, L.A., and Bray, N.W. (1999). What Role Do Manipulaties Play in Kindergartners’ Accuracy and Strategy Use When Soling Simple Addition Problems? Albuquerque, NM: Society for Research in Child Development. Guarino, C.M., Hamilton, L.S., Lockwood, J.R., and Rathbun, A.H. (2006). Teacher Qualifi- cations, Instructional Practices, and Reading and Mathematics Gains of Kindergartners. NCES# 2006-031. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Hamre, B.K., and Pianta, R.C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Deelopment, 2(2), 625-638. Hamre, B.K., and Pianta, R.C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Deelop- ment, 6(5), 949-967. Hamre, B.K., and Pianta, R.C. (2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elemen- tary classrooms. In R.C. Pianta, M.J. Cox, and K. Snow (Eds.), School Readiness and the Transition to School (pp. 49-84). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Hamre, B.K., Downer, J.T., Kilday, C.R., and McGuire, P. (2008a). Effectie Teaching Prac- tices for Early Childhood Mathematics. Paper commissioned by the Committee for Early Childhood Mathematics, Mathematics Science Education Board, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Sciences and Education, National Research Council, Wash- ington, DC. Hamre, B.K., Mashburn, A.J., Pianta, R.C., and Downer, J. (2008b). Validation of a -Factor Model for Classroom Quality Across Preschool to Fifth Grade. Manuscript submitted for publication. Hannula, M.M. (2005). Spontaneous Focusing on Numerosity in the Deelopment of Early Mathematical Skills. Turku, Finland: University of Turku. Harms, T., Clifford, R.M., and Cryer, C. (1998) Early Childhood Enironment Rating Scale- Reised. New York: Teachers College Press. Hart, B., and Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Eeryday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Hart, B., and Risley, T.R. (1999). The Social World of Children: Learning to Talk. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Head Start Bureau. (1998). Head Start Program Performance Standards. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families.

OCR for page 225
22 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD Helm, J.H., and Katz, L. (2000). Young Inestigators: The Project Approach in the Early Years. New York: Teachers College Press. Heritage, M., Kim, J., and Vendlinski, T. (2008). From Eidence to Action: A Seamless Process in Formatie Assessment? Presentation at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, March 24-28, New York. Available: http://www.cse.ucla. edu/products/overheads/AERA2008/heritage_assessment.ppt [accessed July 2008]. Hirsch, E.S. (1996). The Block Book (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Hohmann, M., and Weikart, D. (2002). Educating Young Children: Actie Learning Practices for Preschool and Child Care Programs. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Holton, D., Ahmed, A., Williams, H., and Hill, C. (2001). On the importance of mathemati- cal play. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 2, 401-415. Hong, H. (1996). Effects of mathematics learning through children’s literature on math achievement and dispositional outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 477-494. Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., and Barbarin, O. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten pro- grams. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2(1), 27-50. Hughes, M. (1981). Can preschool children add and subtract? Educational Psychology, 1, 207-219. Hyson, M. (2008). Preparing Teachers to Promote Young Children’s Mathematical Com- petence. Paper commissioned by the Committee for Early Childhood Mathematics, Mathematics Science Education Board, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Sciences and Education, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Johnson-Gentile, K., Clements, D.H., and Battista, M.T. (1994). The effects of computer and noncomputer environments on students’ conceptualizations of geometric motions. Jour- nal of Educational Computing Research, 11(2), 121-140. Jones, E., and Nimmo, J. (1994). Emergent Curriculum. Washington, DC: National Associa- tion for the Education of Young Children. Jordan, N.C., Huttenlocher, J., and Levine, S.C. (1992). Differential calculation abilities in young children from middle- and low-income families. Deelopmental Psychology, 2, 644-653. Jordan, N.C., Hanich, L.B., and Uberti, H.Z. (2003). Mathematical thinking and learning difficulties. In A.J. Baroody and A. Dowker (Eds.), The Deelopment of Arithmetic Concepts and Skills: Constructing Adaptie Expertise (pp. 359-383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kamii, C., Miyakawa, Y., and Kato, Y. (2004). The development of logico-mathematical knowledge in a block-building activity at ages 1-4. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1, 13-26. Karweit, N. and Wasik, B. (1996). The effects of story reading programs on literacy and language development of disadvantaged preschoolers. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, , 319-348. Katz, L.G., and Chard, S.C. (1989). Engaging Children’s Minds: The Project Approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kersh, J., Casey, B., and Young, J.M. (2008). Research on spatial skills and block building in girls and boys: The relationship to later mathematics learning. In B. Spodek and O.N. Saracho (Eds.), Mathematics, Science, and Technology in Early Childhood Education (pp. 233-252). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Klein, A., and Starkey, P. (2004). Fostering preschool children’s mathematical knowledge: Findings from the Berkeley math readiness project. In D.H. Clements, J. Sarama, and A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging Young Children in Mathematics: Standards for Early Childhood Mathematics Education (pp. 343-360). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

OCR for page 225
2 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT Klein, A., Starkey, P., and Wakeley, A. (1999). Enhancing Pre-Kindergarten Children’s Readi- ness for School Mathematics. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada. Klein, A., Starkey, P., and Ramirez, A.B. (2002). Pre-K Mathematics Curriculum. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Klibanoff, R.S., Levine, S.C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., and Hedges, L.V. (2006). Pre- school children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher ‘math talk’. Deelop- mental Psychology, 2(1), 59-69. Kontos, S. (1999). Preschool teachers’ talk, roles, and activity settings during free play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(3), 363-382. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, (5), 178-181. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kühne, C., van den Heuvel-Panhulzen, M., and Ensor, P. (2005). Learning and teaching early number: Teachers’ perceptions. In H.L. Chick and J.L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Educa- tion (vol. 3, pp. 217-224). Melbourne: PME. Available: http://www.emis.de/proceedings/ PME29/PME29RRPapers/PME29Vol3KuhneEtAl.pdf [accessed July 2008]. La Paro, K.M., Hamre, B.K., LoCasale, J., Pianta, R.C., et al. (2008). Pre-K and Kindergar- ten Classrooms: Obserational Eidence for the Need to Increase Quality of Children’s Learning Opportunities in Early Education Classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication. Lee, J.S., and Ginsburg, H.P. (2007). Preschool teachers’ beliefs about appropriate early literacy and mathematics education for low- and middle-socioeconomic status children. Early Education and Deelopment, 1(1), 111-143. Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 357-380. Lonigan, C.J., and Whitehurst, G.J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involve- ment in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income back- grounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(2), 263-290. MacDonald, M. (2007). Toward formative assessment: The use of pedagogical documentation in early elementary classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 232-242. Magnuson, K.A., Meyers, M.K., Rathbun, A., and West, J. (2004). Inequality in preschool education and school readiness. American Educational Research Journal, 1, 115-157. Martin, T., Lukong, A., and Reaves, R. (2007). The role of manipulatives in arithmetic and geometry tasks. Journal of Education and Human Deelopment, 1, 1. Available: http:// www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1073.htm [accessed August 2008]. Mashburn, A.J., Pianta, R., Hamre, B.K., Downer, J.T., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Clifford, R., Early, D., and Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in pre- kindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Deelopment, (3), 732-749. Mayer, R.E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 1, 226-233. Morrow, L.M. (1988). Young children’s responses to one-to-one reading in school settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 89-107. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1997). Deelopmentally Appro- priate Practice in Early Childhood Programs. S. Bredekamp and C. Copple (Eds.). Wash- ington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/PSDAP98.pdf [accessed August 2008]. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2007). Deelopmentally Ap- propriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Sering Children from Birth Through Age . Draft position statement. Available: http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/ draftdap0208.pdf [accessed August 2008].

OCR for page 225
2 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD National Association for the Education of Young Children and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Early Childhood Mathematics: Promoting Good Beginnings. A joint position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Available: http://www.naeyc. org/about/positions/pdf/psmath.pdf [accessed August 2008]. National Center for Early Development and Learning Pre-Kindergarten Study. (2005). Early Deelopments, (1), spring issue. Available: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/ED9_ 1.pdf [accessed August 2008]. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum Focal Points. Reston, VA: Author. National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force. (2007). Taking Stock: Assessing and Improing Early Childhood Learning and Program Quality. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Available: http://www.policyforchildren.org/pdf/Task_Force_Report. pdf [accessed August 2008]. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Adisory Panel. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Educa- tion. Available: http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf [accessed August 2008]. National Research Council. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2001a). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Mathematics Learning Study Committee. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Wash- ington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2001b). Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers. Com- mittee on Early Childhood Pedagogy. B.T. Bowman, M.S. Donovan, and M.S. Burns (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2008). Assessing Accomplished Teaching: Adanced-Leel Cer- tification Programs. Committee on Evaluation of Teacher Certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. M.D. Hakel, J.A. Koenig, and S.W. Elliott (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Palincsar, A.S., and Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition Instruct., 1, 117-175. Peterson, P.L., Carpenter, T.P., and Fennema, E. (1989). Teachers’ knowledge of students’ knowledge in mathematics problem solving: Correlational and case analyses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1(4), 558-569. Piaget, J. (1955). The Language and Thought of the Child. Cleveland, OH: World. Piaget, J. (1976a). The Child’s Conception of the World. (J. Tomlinson and A. Tomlinson, Trans.). Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Piaget, J. (1976b). The Grasp of Consciousness: Action and Concept in the Young Child. (S. Wedgwood, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Piaget, J. (1985). The Equilibration of Cognitie Structures. (T. Brown and K J. Thampy, Trans.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child’s Conception of Space. (F.J. Langdon and J.L. Lunzer, Trans.). New York: W.W. Norton. Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child. (H. Weaver, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.

OCR for page 225
25 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT Pianta, R.C., Steinberg, M.S., and Rollins, K.B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher- child relationships and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment. Deelopment and Psychopathology, , 295-312. Pianta, R.C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, C., and Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they pre- dict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Deelopmental Science, (3), 144-159. Pianta, R.C., La Paro, K., and Hamre, B.K. (2007). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™ (CLASS™). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Pianta, R.C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., Morrison, F., and NICHD ECCRN. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 15, 1795-1796. Available: http:// www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5820/1795?ijkey=09d80c0aad2b21db10 0d5ad6115fa1d36666bcdfandkeytype2=tf_ipsecsha [accessed August 2008]. Pianta, R.C., La Paro, K., and Hamre, B.K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Poag, C.K., Cohen, R., and Weatherford, D.L. (1983). Spatial representations of young chil- dren: The role of self-versus adult-directed movement and viewing. Journal of Experi- mental Child Psychology, 5, 172-179. Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008). Effects of Preschool Cur- riculum Programs on School Readiness. NCER 2008-2009. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Prigge, G.R. (1978). The differential effects of the use of manipulative aids on the learn- ing of geometric concepts by school children. School Science and Mathematics, (4), 320-326. Ramey, C.T., and Ramey, S.L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 5, 109-120. Raver, C.C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. Child Deelopment, 5(2), 346-353. Reggio Children. (1997). Shoe and Meter: Children and Measurement, First Approaches to the Discoery, Function, and Use of Measurement. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Author. Resnick, L.B. (1989). Developing mathematical knowledge. American Psychologist, , 162-169. Resnick, L.B. (1992). From protoquantities to operators: Building mathematical competence on a foundation of everyday knowledge. In G. Leinhardt, R. Putnam, and R.A. Hattrup (Eds.), Analysis of Arithmetic for Mathematics Teaching (pp. 373-429). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reys, B.J., Chval, K.B., and Switzer, J. (2008). Mathematics Standards for Kindergarten: Summary of State-Leel Attention and Focus. Paper commissioned by the Committee for Early Childhood Mathematics, Mathematics Science Education Board, Center for Edu- cation, Division of Behavioral and Sciences and Education, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Rieser, J.J., Garing, A.E., and Young, M.F. (1994). Imagery, action, and young children’s spatial orientation: It’s not being there that counts, It’s what one has in mind. Child Deelopment, 65, 1262-1278. Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Early, D.M., and Cox, M.J. (2002). Early behavioral attributes and teachers’ sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior in the kindergarten classroom. Journal of Applied Deelopmental Psychology, 2(4), 451-470. Ritchie, S., Howes, C., Kraft-Sayre, M., and Weiser, B. (2001). Emerging Academics Snapshot. Unpublished, University of California at Los Angeles. Romberg, T.A., Carpenter, T.P., and Dremock, F. (2005). Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

OCR for page 225
26 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD Sarama, J. (2002). Listening to teachers: Planning for professional development. Teaching Children Mathematics, , 36-39. Sarama, J., and Clements, D.H. (2002a). Design of microworlds in mathematics and science education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1 & 2), 1-6. Sarama, J., and Clements, D.H. (2002b). Learning and teaching with computers in early child - hood education. In O.N. Saracho and B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary Perspecties on Science and Technology in Early Childhood Education (pp. 171-219). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Sarama, J., and Clements, D.H. (2006). Mathematics, young students, and computers: Soft- ware, teaching strategies and professional development. The Mathematics Educator, (2), 112-134. Sarama, J., and Clements, D.H. (2009). Early Childhood Mathematics Education Research: Learning Trajectories for Young Children. New York: Routledge. Sarama, J., and DiBiase, A.-M. (2004). The professional developmental development challenge in preschool mathematics. In D.H. Clements, J. Sarama, and A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.) Engag- ing Children in Mathematics: Standards for Early Childhood Mathematics Education (pp. 415-446). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sarama, J., Clements, D.H., and Vukelic, E.B. (1996). The role of a computer manipulative in fostering specific psychological/mathematical processes. In E. Jakubowski, D. Watkins, and H. Biske (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1th Annual Meeting of the North America Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Sarama, J., Clements, D.H., Starkey, P., Klein, A., and Wakeley, A. (2008). Scaling up the implementation of a pre-kindergarten mathematics curriculum: Teaching for understand- ing with trajectories and technologies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectieness, 1, 89-119. Schickedanz, J.A. (2008). Increasing the Power of Instruction: Integration of Language, Lit- eracy, and Math Across the Preschool Day. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Schweinhart, L. (2007, November). The High/Scope Model and Mathematics. PowerPoint presentation at the 2nd Meeting of the Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics, National Academies, Washington, DC. Available: http://www.nationalacademies.org/cfe/ Schweinhart%20Presentation.pdf [accessed August 2008]. Scott, L.F., and Neufeld, H. (1976). Concrete instruction in elementary school mathematics: Pictorial vs. manipulative. School Science and Mathematics, 6, 68-72. Scott-Little, C. (2008). Mathematics Content Addressed in State-Leel Early Learning Stan- dards. Paper commissioned by the Committee for Early Childhood Mathematics, Math- ematics Science Education Board, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Sciences and Education, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Scott-Little, C., Lesko, J., Martella, J. and Milburn, P. (2007). Early learning standards: Results from a national survey to document trends in state-level policies and practices. Early Childhood Research in Practice, (1). Available: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v9n1/little. html [accessed July 2008]. Seo, K.-H. (2003). What children’s play tells us about TEACHING mathematics. Young Children, 5(1), 28-34. Seo, K.-H., and Ginsburg, H.P. (2003). “You’ve got to carefully read the math sentence…”: Classroom context and children’s interpretations of the equals sign. In A.J. Baroody and A. Dowker (Eds.), The Deelopment of Arithmetic Concepts and Skills: Recent Research and Theory (pp. 161-187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

OCR for page 225
2 STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT Seo, K.-H., and Ginsburg, H.P. (2004). What is developmentally appropriate in early child- hood mathematics education? In D.H. Clements, J. Sarama, and A.M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging Children in Mathematics: Standards for Early Childhood Mathematics Educa- tion (pp. 91-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Serbin, L.A., and Connor, J.M. (1979). Sex-typing of children’s play preferences and patterns of cognitive performance. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1, 315-316. Siegler, R.S., and Ramani, G.B. (in press). Playing board games promotes low-income chil- dren’s numerical development. Deelopmental Science. Silver, R.B., Measelle, J., Essex, M., and Armstrong, J.M. (2005). Trajectories of external- izing behavior problems in the classroom: Contributions of child characteristics, family characteristics, and the teacher-child relationship during the school transition. Journal of School Psychology, , 39-60. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-145. Skibbe, L., Behnke, M., and Justice, L.M. (2004). Parental scaffolding of children’s phonologi- cal awareness skills: Interactions between mothers and their preschoolers with language difficulties. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25(4), 189-203. Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., and Krajcik, J., (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspecties, (1 & 2), 1-98. Sophian, C. (2002). Learning about what fits: Preschool children’s reasoning about effects of object size. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, , 290-302. Sophian, C. (2004). Mathematics for the future: Developing a Head Start curriculum to sup- port mathematics learning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(1), 59-81. Sowell, E. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 498-505. Sprafkin, C., Serbin, L.A., Denier, C., and Connor, J.M. (1983). Gender-differentiated play: Cognitive consequences and early interventions. In M.B. Liss (Ed.), Social and Cognitie Skills: Gender Roles and Children’s Play. New York: Academic Press. Starkey, P., Klein, A., and Wakeley, P. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical knowledge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Re- search Quarterly, 1, 99-120. Starkey, P., Klein, A., Sarama, J., and Clements, D.H. (2006). Preschool Curriculum Ealua- tion Research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Steffe, L.P., and Wiegel, H.G. (1994). Cognitive play and mathematical learning in computer microworlds. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, (2), 117-131. Stevenson, H.W., and McBee, G. (1958). The learning of object and pattern discriminations by children. Journal of Comparatie and Physiological Psychology, 51(6), 752-754. Stiles, J., and Stern, C. (2001). Developmental change in spatial cognitive processing: Com- plexity effects and block construction performance in preschool children. Journal of Cognition and Deelopment, 2, 157-187. Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S., and Rodriguez, M.C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 10, 3-28. Teaching Strategies, Inc. (2001). Creatie Curriculum®. Available: http://www.creativecurriculum. net/index.cfm [accessed February 2008]. Thomas, B. (1982). An Abstract of Kindergarten Teachers’ Elicitation and Utilization of Children’s Prior Knowledge in the Teaching of Shape Concepts. Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, Health, Nursing, and Arts Professions, New York University. Thomas, G., and Ward, J. (2001). An Ealuation of the Count Me in Too Pilot Project. Wel- lington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

OCR for page 225
2 MATHEMATICS LEARNING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD Thomson, S., Rowe, K., Underwood, C., and Peck, R. (2005). Numeracy in the Early Years: Project Good Start. Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. (2005). Head Start Impact Study: First- year Findings. Available: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/index.html [ac- cessed August 2008]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. (2006). Head Start Family and Child Experiences Surey (FACES 2000) Technical Report. Available: http://www.acf.hhs. gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/index.html [accessed August 2008]. Veenman, M.V.J., Kok, R., and Blöte, A.W. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science, (3), 193-211. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Deelopment of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language. (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1991). Genesis of the higher mental functions. In P. Light, S. Sheldon, and M. Woodhead (Eds.), Learning to Think (pp. 32-41). Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis/Routledge. Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., and Hampston, J.M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, (2), 101-128. Wiltz, N.W., and Klein, E.L. (2001). What do you do in child care? Children’s percep- tions of high and low quality classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(2), 209-236. Wolfgang, C.H., Stannard, L.L., and Jones, I. (2001). Block play performance among pre- schoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15, 173-180. Wood, K., and Frid, S. (2005). Early childhood numeracy in a multiage setting. Math- ematics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 80-99. Available: http://www.merga.net. au/documents/MERJ_16_3_Wood.pdf [accessed August 2008]. Wright, R.J. (1994). A study of the numerical development of 5-year-olds and 6-year-olds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 25-44. Wright, R.J. (2003). A mathematics recovery: Program of intervention in early number learn- ing. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, (4), 6-11. Wright, R.J., Martland, J., Stafford, A.K., and Stanger, G. (2002). Teaching Number: Adanc- ing Children’s Skills and Strategies. London: Paul Chapman/Sage. Young-Loveridge, J.M. (2004). Effects on early numeracy of a program using number books and games. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 82-98. Zins, J.E., Bloodworth, M.R., Weissberg, R.P., and Walberg, H. (2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J.E. Zins, R.P. Weissberg, M.C. Wang, and H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Building Academic Success on Social and Emotional Learning: What Does the Research Say? New York: Teachers College Press.