Advertisement

ZDM

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Efficacy of a learning trajectory approach compared to a teach-to-target approach for addition and subtraction

  • Douglas H. ClementsEmail author
  • Julie Sarama
  • Arthur J. Baroody
  • Candace Joswick
Original Article
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

Although basing instruction on a learning trajectory (LT) is often recommended, there is little direct evidence to support the premise of a “LT approach”—that to be maximally meaningful, engaging, and effective, instruction is best presented one LT level beyond a child’s present level of thinking. The present report serves to address the question: Is it necessary to teach each contiguous level of a LT or can instruction be similarly or more effective when skipping levels, provided the necessary exemplars are made? In a multimethod research study that included individual teaching experiments embedded inside of a quasi-experimental research design, one group of 13 kindergartners received instruction based on an empirically-validated LT for addition and subtraction (the “LT” treatment). The counterfactual, “skip” treatment (n = 12), received instruction focused mainly on levels at least two levels above their present level for the same amount of time as the LT treatment. More children in the LT treatment exhibited greater addition and subtraction learning during sessions and from pretest to posttest than children in the skip treatment. Implications for future study are discussed.

Keywords

Achievement Curriculum Early childhood Instructional design/development Learning trajectories Learning environments Mathematics education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education through Grant R305A150243. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education. Although the research is concerned with theoretical issues, not particular curricula, a small component of the intervention used in this research have been published by some of the authors, who could have a vested interest in the results. Researchers from an independent institution oversaw the research design, data collection, and analysis and confirmed findings and procedures. The authors wish to express appreciation to the teachers and students at the Ricks Center, Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver who participated in this research.

Supplementary material

11858_2019_1122_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (838 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 838 kb)

References

  1. Baroody, A. J. (1995). The role of the number-after rule in the invention of computational short cuts. Cognition and Instruction,13, 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baroody, A. J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2019). Teaching and learning mathematics in early childhood programs. In C. Brown, M. B. McMullen, & N. File (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of early childhood care and education (1st ed., pp. 329–353). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnine, D. W., Jitendra, A. K., & Silbert, J. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricular materials from a pedagogical perspective: A case study of fractions. Remedial and Special Education,18(2), 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. H. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction: Building on the knowledge of students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research,17(5), 457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(05)80005-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator,36(1), 6–11.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, D. M., Cheeseman, J., Clarke, B., Gervasoni, A., Gronn, D., Horne, M., et al. (2001). Understanding, assessing and developing young children’s mathematical thinking: Research as a powerful tool for professional growth. In J. Bobis, B. Perry, & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond (Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (Vol. 1, pp. 9–26). Reston: MERGA.Google Scholar
  7. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Baroody, A. J., Joswick, C., & Wolfe, C. B. (2019). Evaluating the efficacy of a learning trajectory for early shape composition. American Educational Research Journal,56(6), 2509–2530.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219842788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., & Day-Hess, C. A. (2008/2019). REMAResearch-based early mathematics assessment. Denver, CO: Kennedy Institute, University of Denver.Google Scholar
  10. El’konin, D. B., & Davydov, V. V. (1975). Children’s capacity for learning mathematics. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Soviet studies in the pyschology of learning and teaching mathematics (Vol. 7, pp. 1–11). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fantuzzo, J. W., Gadsden, V. L., & McDermott, P. A. (2011). An integrated curriculum to improve mathematics, language, and literacy for Head Start Children. American Educational Research Journal,48, 763–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frye, D., Baroody, A. J., Burchinal, M. R., Carver, S., Jordan, N. C., & McDowell, J. (2013). Teaching math to young children: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  13. Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on learning and teaching addition and subtraction of whole numbers. In G. Leinhardt, R. Putman, & R. A. Hattrup (Eds.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 53–187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Fuson, K. C. (2004). Pre-K to grade 2 goals and standards: Achieving 21st century mastery for all. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 105–148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology,47(6), 1539–1552.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities,38, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ginsburg, H. P., & Baroody, A. J. (2003). Test of early mathematics ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro Ed.Google Scholar
  19. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,1, 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., Dyson, N., Hassinger-Das, B., & Irwin, C. (2012). Building kindergartners’ number sense: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Educational Psychology,104(3), 647–660.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maloney, A. P., Confrey, J., & Nguyen, K. H. (Eds.). (2014). Learning over time: Learning trajectories in mathematics education. New York, NY: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Murata, A., & Fuson, K. C. (2006). Teaching as assisting individual constructive paths within an interdependent class learning zone: Japanese first graders learning to add using 10. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,37(5), 421–456.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30034861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. NGA/CCSSO. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  26. Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shepard, L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2018). Classroom assessment principles to support learning and avoid the harms of testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,37(1), 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steffe, L. P., Thompson, P. W., & Glasersfeld, E. V. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Wu, H.-H. (2011). Understanding numbers in elementary school mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature,358, 749–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  3. 3.University of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations