STEM words and their multiple meanings: the intricacies of asking a clarifying question

References

• Adams, T. (2003). Reading mathematics: More than words can say. The Reading Teacher, 58, 219–234.
   Google Scholar
• Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 30(3), 14–17, 20–22, 43–46.
   Google Scholar
• Barroso, L. R., Bicer, A., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., Foran, A., Grant, M. L., … Rice, D. (2017). Run! Spot. Run!: Vocabulary development and the evolution of STEM disciplinary language for secondary teachers. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 49, 187–201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0826-4
   Google Scholar
• Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1985). Teaching vocabulary: Making the instruction fit the goal. Educational Perspectives, 23(1), 11–15.
   Google Scholar
• Bicer, A., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2013). Integrating writing into mathematics classroom to increase students’ problem solving skills. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 361–369.
   Google Scholar
• Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature and impact of teacher questions. In D. E. McDougall & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 774–782).Toronto, Canada: PME-NA.
   Google Scholar
• Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A. K., & Kelsey, D. M. (2016). Instructor clarity and student motivation: Academic performance as a product of students’ ability and motivation to process instructional material. Communication Education, 65, 129–148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1079329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2017). Conditional processes of effective instructor communication and increases in students’ cognitive learning. Communication Education, 66, 129–147. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1241889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S. (2006). New learning environments for the 21st century: Exploring the edge. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(5), 18–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.38.5.18-24
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
   Google Scholar
• Capraro, M. M., Bicer, A., Grant, M. R., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). Using precision in STEM language: A qualitative look. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5, 29–39. doi: https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.15709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Nite, S., Rice, D., Lincoln, Y., Young, J., & Young, J. (2016). Developing a useful and integrative STEM disciplinary language. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6, 1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.357646 doi: https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.26478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The relationship between students’ reports of learning and their actual recall of lecture material: A validity test. Communication Education, 49, 297–301. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesebro, J. L., & Wanzer, M. B. (2006). Instructional message variables. In T. Mottet, V. Richmond, & J. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 89–116). Boston, MA: Pearson/ Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, T., & Morgan, C. (2015). Language and communication in mathematics education. In S. Cho (Ed.), The proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 529–533). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers’ interpretation of students’ mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 155–181. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009999016764
   Google Scholar
• Dannels, D. (2002). Communication across the curriculum and in the disciplines: Speaking in engineering. Communication Education, 51, 254–268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520216513
   Google Scholar
• Dannels, D. P. (2000). Learning to be professional: Technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 5–37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/105065190001400101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dannels, D. P. (2001). Time to speak up: A theoretical framework of situated pedagogy and practice for communication across the curriculum. Communication Education, 50, 144–158. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379240
   Google Scholar
• Dannels, D. P., & Housley Gaffney, A. L. (2009). Communication across the curriculum and in the disciplines: A call for scholarly cross-curricular advocacy. Communication Education, 58, 124–153. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520802527288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling, A. L., & Civikly, J. M. (1986). The effect of teacher humor on student perceptions of classroom communicative climate. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 22(1), 24–30.
   Google Scholar
• Darling, A. L., & Dannels, D. P. (2003). Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A report on the role of oral communication in the workplace. Communication Education, 52, 1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520302457
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53, 1–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000135742
   Google Scholar
• Foss, J. M. (1991). Nonverbal learning disabilities and remedial interventions. Annals of Dyslexia, 41(1), 128–140. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648082
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 380–392. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109339906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Good, R. G., Shymansky, J. A., & Yore, L. D. (1999). Censorship in science and science education. In E. H. Brinkley (Ed.), Caught off guard: Teachers rethinking censorship and controversy (pp. 101–121). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The effect of teacher confirmation on student communication and learning outcomes. Communication Education, 57, 153–179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701787777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough, J. (2007). Conceptual complexity and apparent contradictions in mathematics language. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 63(2), 8–16.
   Google Scholar
• Greenleaf, C., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 79–130. doi: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.71.1.q811712577334038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieve, J. (2016). Regional variation in written American English. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430–511. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hines, C. V., Cruickshank, D. R., & Kennedy, J. J. (1985). Teacher clarity and its relationship to student achievement and satisfaction. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 87–99. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022001087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt, S., Simonds, C., & Cooper, P. (2002). Communication and teacher education: Exploring a communication course for all teachers. Communication Education, 51, 81–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520216497
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janesick, V. (2003). The choreography of qualitative research: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 46–79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Karp, K. S., Bush, S. B., & Dougherty, B. J. (2014). 13 rules that expire. Teaching Children Mathematics, 21, 18–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.21.1.0018
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J. (1993). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 17–36). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Matte, R. R., & Bolaski, J. A. (1998). Nonverbal learning disabilities: An overview. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(1), 39–42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129803400105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meiers, M. (2005). Language in the mathematics classroom. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
   Google Scholar
• Nathan, M. J., & Knuth, E. J. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 175–207. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2102_03
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pegg, J., & Redden, E. (1990). Procedures for, and experiences in, introducing algebra in New South Wales. The Mathematics Teacher, 83, 386–391.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Charmichael’s manual of child psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 703–732). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classroom. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, R. G., & Harville, B. (1990). The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39, 369–379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 679–744). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Rogoff, B. E., & Lave, J. E. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenshine, B. V., & Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria. In B. O. Smith (Ed.), Research in teacher education (pp. 33–72). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Rugh, M. S., Calabrese, J. E., Madson, M. A., Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Capraro, M. M., & Bicer, A. (2018). STEM language can be the stem of the problem. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560601158461
   Google Scholar
• Steinfatt, T. M. (1986). Communication across the curriculum. Communication Quarterly, 34, 460–470. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378609369663
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfram, W., & Fasold, R. W. (1974). The study of social dialects in American English. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfram, W., & Schilling, N. (2015). American English: Dialects and variation (Vol. 25). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar