ArticlePublisher preview available

Mathematics-writing synthesis: Kindergarten through Grade 12 mathematics-writing outcomes and instructional methods

Authors:
Tessa L. Arsenault
Tessa L. Arsenault
Tessa L. Arsenault
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Sarah R Powell at University of Texas at Austin
Sarah R Powell
Sarah G. King
Sarah G. King
Sarah G. King
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Read publisher preview
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract and Figures

In the last decade, researchers have focused more on how to provide instructional supports for mathematics writing (Powell et al., 2017). In this synthesis, we examined 22 studies about mathematics writing to determine the overall mathematics-writing and mathematics outcomes of mathematics-writing instruction, the mathematics-writing and mathematics outcomes based on study and instructional features, the methods used within mathematics-writing instruction, and the methods used within studies involving students with mathematics difficulty (MD). We conducted a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed studies, published since 2000, focused on instruction in mathematics writing in Kindergarten through Grade 12. We included studies with and without students with MD. Results demonstrated positive student outcomes for mathematics-writing instruction. Furthermore, instructional methods for mathematics writing frequently aligned with practices used for mathematics instruction and writing instruction. Although we identified positive outcomes related to mathematics-writing instruction, and we would recommend for practitioners to provide instruction in mathematics writing, results should be interpreted with caution. Additional high-quality research on mathematics-writing instruction is needed to verify and extend on the results from this synthesis.
Figures - available from: Reading and Writing
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Learn more
Content available from Reading and Writing
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Reading and Writing
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10530-x
1 3
Mathematics‑writing synthesis: Kindergarten
throughGrade12 mathematics‑writing outcomes
andinstructional methods
TessaL.Arsenault2 · SarahR.Powell1 · SarahG.King1
Accepted: 6 March 2024
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2024
Abstract
In the last decade, researchers have focused more on how to provide instructional
supports for mathematics writing (Powell etal., 2017). In this synthesis, we exam-
ined 22 studies about mathematics writing to determine the overall mathematics-
writing and mathematics outcomes of mathematics-writing instruction, the mathe-
matics-writing and mathematics outcomes based on study and instructional features,
the methods used within mathematics-writing instruction, and the methods used
within studies involving students with mathematics difficulty (MD). We conducted
a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed studies, published since 2000, focused on
instruction in mathematics writing in Kindergarten through Grade 12. We included
studies with and without students with MD. Results demonstrated positive student
outcomes for mathematics-writing instruction. Furthermore, instructional methods
for mathematics writing frequently aligned with practices used for mathematics
instruction and writing instruction. Although we identified positive outcomes related
to mathematics-writing instruction, and we would recommend for practitioners to
provide instruction in mathematics writing, results should be interpreted with cau-
tion. Additional high-quality research on mathematics-writing instruction is needed
to verify and extend on the results from this synthesis.
Keywords Mathematics· Mathematics writing· Mathematics difficulty· Review·
Synthesis
* Tessa L. Arsenault
[email protected]
1 The University ofTexas atAustin, Austin, USA
2 The University ofTexas atEl Paso, ElPaso, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Mathematics-writing profiles for students with mathematics difficulty
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2022
  • READ WRIT
Increasingly, students must demonstrate knowledge in mathematics through mathematics writing, yet research lags in understanding how students engage in mathematics-writing tasks. Most available research on mathematics writing focuses on typically achieving students without considering students with mathematics difficulty (MD). In this study, we explored how students with MD who participated in a word-problem intervention randomized-control trial performed on a mathematics-writing task. We sampled 144 third-grade students with MD and evaluated student performance on an explanatory mathematics-writing measure. Overall, students with MD, on a mathematics-writing rubric with five categories, scored between 1 and 2 points out of a possible 5 points for each category. For one of the five rubric categories, Mathematics Content, the students in the word-problem interventions marginally outperformed the students in the business-as-usual condition. On average, students wrote 33.3 words, numbers, and symbols in response to the mathematics-writing prompt with an average of 8.7 mathematics vocabulary words. Of the mathematics vocabulary words used, students most frequently used formal mathematics vocabulary and names for symbolic numbers, with symbolic symbols and general vocabulary used to a lesser extent. The trends in this study will support future research to enhance mathematics-writing instruction.
View
Writing Instruction Improves Students’ Writing Skills Differentially Depending on Focal Instruction and Children: A Meta-Analysis for Primary Grade Students
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2021
  • Educ Res Rev
We investigated the effect of writing interventions on written composition for students in primary grades (K-G3) with a focus on whether effects vary as a function of different dimensions of composition outcomes (i.e., quality, productivity, fluency, and other), instructional focus (e.g., transcription, self-regulation strategies such as Self-Regulated Strategy Development [SRSD]), and student characteristics (i.e., initially weak writing skills). A total of 24 studies (number of effect sizes, k = 166; N = 5589 participants) met inclusion criteria. The overall mean effect size was moderate and positive (ES = 0.31) with some variation across the dimensions of composition: 0.32 in writing quality, 0.31 in writing productivity, 0.15 in writing fluency, and 0.34 in writing: other. SRSD had large and consistent effect sizes across the outcomes (0.59–1.04) whereas transcription instruction did not yield statistically significant effects on any dimensions of composition due to large variation of effects across studies. Variation in instructional dosage (total length of instruction) did not explain variation in the effect sizes. Lastly, the average effect on writing quality was larger for writers with weaker writing skills compared to those with typical skills.
View
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2021
  • Br Med J
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
View
How educators use mathematics writing in the classroom: a national survey of mathematics educators
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2021
  • READ WRIT
Students in the elementary and secondary grades may use mathematics writing to express ideas and reasoning about mathematics. To understand current classroom practices related to the assessment and instruction of mathematics writing, we conducted a survey of kindergarten through Grade 12 educators across the United States who taught mathematics, with 324 respondents from 44 states. Educators expressed the primary purposes of mathematics writing included helping students learn mathematics and informing mathematics instruction. The majority of educators believed mathematics writing was important yet fewer than half regularly engaged students in instructional activities about mathematics writing. Similarly, only half of educators assessed the mathematics-writing performance of their students. A regression model used to predict the frequency of mathematics-writing activities in classrooms indicated that educators included mathematics-writing activities more frequently in their classrooms if they had higher self-efficacy for teaching mathematics writing, as well as whether they actually provided instruction in mathematics writing or assessed their students in mathematics writing.
View
The Effectiveness of Learning Models on Written Mathematical Communication Skills Viewed from Students' Cognitive Styles
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2020
This research aims to test (1) the effectiveness between problem posing learning model with Indonesian realistic mathematical education approach and problem posing learning model on written mathematical communication skills, (2) the effectiveness between field-independent and field-dependent cognitive styles on written mathematical communication skills, (3) the effectiveness between problem posing learning model with Indonesian realistic mathematical education approach and problem posing learning model on the written mathematical communication skills from each cognitive style, and (4) the effectiveness between field-independent and field-dependent cognitive styles on written mathematical communication skills from each learning model. This quantitative research employed a quasi-experimental method. The research sample consisted of 240 fifth-grade elementary school students in Jebres District, Surakarta, Indonesia. Data collection techniques included tests of written mathematical communication skills and cognitive styles. The data were analyzed using prerequisite (normality, homogeneity, and balance), hypothesis, and multiple-comparison tests. The findings prove that (1) PP model with Indonesian realistic mathematical education approach is more effective than the PP and direct instruction models, (2) field-independent cognitive style is better than field dependent, (3) PP with Indonesian realistic mathematical education is as effective as the PP model, but more effective than the direct instruction model, and the PP model is more effective than the direct instruction model in each cognitive style, and (4) in the PP learning model with Indonesian realistic mathematical education approach, field-independent cognitive style is same skill as with field-dependent, but field-independent is better than field-dependent cognitive style in the PP and direct instruction learning models.
View
Closing the Word-Problem Achievement Gap in First Grade: Schema-Based Word-Problem Intervention With Embedded Language Comprehension Instruction
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2020
The main purpose of this study was to test the effects of word-problem intervention, with versus without embedded language comprehension instruction, on at-risk 1st graders' word-problem performance. We also isolated the need for a structured approach to word-problem intervention and tested the efficacy of schema-based instruction at 1st grade. Children (n=391; mean age = 6.53, SD = 0.32) were randomly assigned to 4 conditions: schema-based word-problem intervention with embedded language instruction, the same word-problem intervention but without language comprehension instruction, structured number knowledge intervention without a structured word-problem component, and a control group. Each intervention included 45 30-min sessions. Multilevel models, accounting for classroom and school effects, revealed the efficacy of schema-based word-problem intervention at 1st grade, with both word-problem conditions outperforming the number knowledge condition and the control group. Yet, word-problem performance was significantly stronger for the schema-based condition with embedded language comprehension instruction compared to the schema-based condition without language comprehension instruction. Number knowledge intervention conveyed no word-problem advantage over the control group, even though all 3 intervention conditions outperformed the control group on arithmetic. Results demonstrate the importance of a structured approach to word-problem intervention; the efficacy of schema-based instruction at 1st grade; and the added value of language comprehension instruction within word-problem intervention. Results also provide causal evidence on the role of language comprehension in word-problem solving.
View
Word‐Problem Performance Differences by Schema: A Comparison of Students with and without Mathematics Difficulty
Article
  • Jan 2022
Word‐problem features such as text complexity, charts and graphs, position of the unknown, calculation complexity, irrelevant information, and schemas impact word‐problem performance. We compared the word‐problem performance of typically achieving (TA) students and students with mathematics difficulty (MD). First, we measured the word‐problem performance of all students for schemas and position of the unknown, followed by the performance of students with MD for schemas, position of the unknown, irrelevant information, and charts or graphs. Across schemas, while TA students outperformed students with MD, all students typically scored higher on Change and Difference problems than on Total problems. For position of the unknown, students often scored highest on problems with the final position unknown. Students with MD also demonstrated higher scores on problems with irrelevant information than charts and graphs. Although patterns emerged, not all problems followed the same trends, suggesting the need for further research to investigate the impact of word‐problem features on word‐problem accuracy.
View
View
Analyzing the word-problem performance and strategies of students experiencing mathematics difficulty
Article
  • Jun 2020
  • J Math Behav
The purpose of this study was to examine the word-problem performance and strategies utilized by 3rd-grade students experiencing mathematics difficulty (MD). We assessed the efficacy of a word-problem intervention and compared the word-problem performance of students with MD who received intervention (n = 51) to students with MD who received general education classroom word-problem instruction (n = 60). Intervention occurred for 16 weeks, 3 times per week, 30 min per session and focused on helping students understand the schemas of word problems. Results demonstrated that students with MD who received the word-problem intervention outperformed students with MD who received general education classroom word-problem instruction. We also analyzed the word-problem strategies of 30 randomly-selected students from the study to understand how students set up and solve word problems. Students who received intervention demonstrated more sophisticated word-problem strategies than students who only received general education classroom word-problem instruction. Findings suggest students with MD benefit from use of meta-cognitive strategies and explicit schema instruction to solve word problems.
View
Investigating written expressions of mathematical reasoning for students with learning disabilities
Article
  • Jun 2020
  • J Math Behav
Assessment results from two open-construction response mathematical tasks involving fractions and decimals were used to investigate written expression of mathematical reasoning for students with learning disabilities. The solutions and written responses of 51 students with learning disabilities in fourth and fifth grade were analyzed on four primary dimensions: (a) accuracy, (b) five elements of mathematical reasoning, (c) five elements of mathematical writing, and (d) vocabulary use. Results indicate most students were not accurate in their problem solution and communicated minimal mathematical reasoning in their written expression. In addition, students tended to use general vocabulary rather than academic precise math vocabulary and students who provided a visual representation were more likely to answer accurately. To further clarify the students struggles with mathematical reasoning, error analysis indicated a variety of error patterns existed and tended to vary widely by problem type. Our findings call for more instruction and intervention focused on supporting students mathematical reasoning through written expression. Implications for research and practice are presented.
View