17,102
Views
77
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Theme

The Language of Mathematics: The Importance of Teaching and Learning Mathematical Vocabulary

, , &

REFERENCES

  • Adams, T. L. (2003). Reading mathematics: More than words can say. The Reading Teacher, 56, 786–795.
  • Anderson-Inman, L. & Horney, M. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reinking L. D. Labbo M. C. McKenna & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Archer, A. L. & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30, 821–828.
  • Bay-Williams, J. M. & Livers, S. (2009). Supporting math vocabulary acquisition. Teaching Children Mathematics, 16, 238–245.
  • Berne, J. I. & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2008). What reading teachers say about vocabulary instruction: Voices from the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 62, 452–477.
  • Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Mehta, Z. D. & Hung, Y. H. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. Journal of Special Education, 35, 186–200.
  • Bouck, E. C. (2010). The impact of calculator type and instructional exposure for students with a disability: A pilot study. Learning Disabilities, 16, 141–148.
  • Cawthon, S. W., Beretvas, S., Kaye, A. D. & Lockhart, L. (2012). Factor structure of opportunity to learn for students with and without disabilities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(41), 1–30.
  • Charlton, B., Williams, R. L. & McLaughlin, T. F. (2005). Educational games: A technique to accelerate the acquisition of reading skills of children with learning disabilities. The International Journal of Special Education, 20, 66–72.
  • Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Epstein, M. L., Lazarus, A. D., Calvano, T. B., Matthews, K. A., Hendel, R. A., Epstein, B. B. & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. Psychological Record, 52, 187–201.
  • Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, I. M. & Lloyd, J. W. (1997). Mega-analysis of meta analysis: What works in special education and related services. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(6), 4–9.
  • Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 8, 15–23.
  • Geisler, J. H., Hessler, T., Gardner, I. & Lovelace, T. S. (2009). Differentiating writing interventions for high-achieving urban African American elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 214–247.
  • Harmon, J. M., Hedrick, W. B. & Wood, K. D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 261–280.
  • Hebert, B. M. & Murdock, J. Y. (1994). Comparing three computer-aided instruction output modes to teach vocabulary words to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 136–141.
  • Hofmeister, A. M. (1989). Mainstreaming students with learning disabilities for videodisc math instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21(3), 52–60.
  • Hong, S. Y. & Diamond, K. E. (2012). Two approaches to teaching young children science concepts, vocabulary, and scientific problem-solving skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 295–305.
  • Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Sacks, G. & Jacobson, L. A. (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–321.
  • Johnson, D. D., von Hoff Johnson, B. & Schlichting, K. (2004). Logology: Word and language play. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame'enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice gap (pp. 179–200). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Jones, R. E., Yssel, N. & Grant, C. (2012). Reading instruction in Tier 1: Bridging the gaps by nesting evidenced-based interventions within differentiated instruction. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 210–218.
  • Joseph, L., Eveleigh, E., Konrad, M., Neef, N. & Volpe, R. (2012). Comparison of the efficiency of two flashcard drill methods on children's reading performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 317–337.
  • Kaufman, L., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M. & Waco, T. (2011). Employing reading racetracks and DI flashcards with and without cover, copy, and compare and rewards to teach site words to three students with learning disabilities in reading. Educational Research Quarterly, 43(4), 27–50.
  • Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (1999). Efficacy of special education and related service. Washington, DC: American Association of Mental Retardation.
  • Kenney, J. M. (2005). Mathematics as language. In Literacy strategies for improving mathematics instruction (pp. 1–6). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Kluge, A., Ritzman, S., Burkolter, D. & Sauer, J. (2011). The interaction of drill and practice and error training with individual differences. Cognition, Technology & Work, 13, 103–120.
  • Koury, K. A. (1996). The impact of preteaching science content vocabulary using integrated media for knowledge acquisition in a collaborative classroom. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 179–197.
  • Language. (2013). In Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language?show=0&t=1370883898
  • Lee, H. & Jung, W. S. (2004). Limited English-proficient (LEP) students and mathematical understanding. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9, 269–272.
  • Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C. & Thomas, M. M. (2006). Rationale for systematic vocabulary development: Antidote for state mandates. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 610–619.
  • Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1989). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special populations. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.
  • Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (2007). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E. & Fulk, B. J. M. (1990). Teaching abstract vocabulary with the keyword method: Effects on recall and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 69–74.
  • McKeown, M. G. & Beck, I. L. (2002). Direct and rich vocabulary instruction. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Kame'enui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 13–27). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Monroe, E. E. (1998). Using graphic organizers to teach vocabulary: Does available research inform mathematics instruction. Education, 118, 538–542.
  • Monroe, E. E. & Orme, M. P. (2002). Developing mathematical vocabulary. Preventing School Failure, 46, 139–142.
  • Monroe, E. & Panchyshyn, R. (2005). Helping children with words in word problems. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 10(4), 27–29.
  • Morin, J. E. & Franks, D. J. (2010). Why do some children have difficulty learning mathematics? Looking at language for answers. Preventing School Failure, 54, 111–118.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm
  • National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Mathematics Learning Study Committee; J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.); Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • Riccomini, P. J., Sanders, S. & Jones, J. (2008). The key to enhancing students’ mathematical vocabulary knowledge. Journal on School Educational Technology, 4(1), 1–7.
  • Riccomini, P. J. & Witzel, B. S. (2010). Response to intervention in mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Rubenstein, R. & Thompson, D. (2002). Understanding and supporting children's mathematical vocabulary development. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9, 107–112.
  • Ryve, A., Nilsson, P. & Patterson, K. (2013). Analyzing effective communication in mathematics group work: The role of visual mediators and technical terms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82, 497–514.
  • Sanders, P. S. (2007). Embedded strategies in mathematics vocabulary instruction: A quasi-experimental study. Retrieved from http://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=all_dissertations
  • Schwartz, J. L. & Kenney, J. M. (1995). Assessing mathematical understanding and skills effectively (Interim report of the Balanced Assessment Program). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
  • Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (2000). The effectiveness of mnemonic instruction for students with learning and behavior problems: An update and research synthesis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 163–173.
  • Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Star, J. R. & Bryant, J. (2011). The cognitive predictors of computational skill with whole versus rational numbers: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 536–542.
  • Sloyer, C. W. (2003). Mathematical insight: Changing perspective. Mathematics Teacher, 96, 238–242.
  • Sonbul, S. & Schmitt, N. (2010). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: Is it worth the effort? English Language Teachers Journal, 64, 253–260.
  • Stahl, S. A. & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110.
  • Stroud, M. J. & Schwartz, N. H. (2010). Summoning prior knowledge through metaphorical graphics: An example chemistry instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 103, 351–366.
  • Stump, C. S., Lovitt, T. C., Fister, S., Kemp, K., Moore, R. & Schroeder, B. (1992). Vocabulary intervention for secondary level youth. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 15, 207–222.
  • Taylor, D. B., Mraz, M., Nichols, W. D., Rickelman, R. J. & Wood, K. (2009). Using explicit instruction to promote vocabulary learning for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 205–220.
  • Test, D. W. & Ellis, M. F. (2005). The effects of LAP fractions on addition and subtraction of fractions with students with mild disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 28(1), 11–24.
  • Van de Walle, J. A. (2001). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (4th ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
  • van der Walt, M. (2009). Study orientation and basic vocabulary in mathematics in primary school. South African Journal of Science and Technology, 28, 378–392.
  • van der Walt, M., Maree, K. & Ellis, S. (2008). A mathematics vocabulary questionnaire for immediate use in the intermediate phase. South African Journal of Education, 28, 489–504.
  • Wang, M. (2012). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement motivation of female university students. Asian Social Science, 8(15), 108–114.
  • Wells, J. C. & Narkon, D. E. (2011). Motivate students to engage in word study using vocabulary games. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47, 45–49.
  • White, T. G., Graves, M. F. & Slater, W. H. (1990). Growth of reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 281–290.
  • Yeh, T., Tseng, K., Cho, C., Barufaldi, J., Lin, M. & Chang, C. (2012). Exploring the impact of prior knowledge and appropriate feedback on students’ perceived cognitive load and learning outcomes: Animation-based earthquakes instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1555–1570.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.