Language and Literacy Challenges in Developmental Mathematics Curricular Materials: Lessons From Community College Instructors

• In Event: Creating Contexts of Pedagogical and Curricular Support for Non-English-Background Students in Mathematics and Science

Abstract

Description & Objectives
This paper presents findings from interviews with community college instructors who teach curricula developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (the Foundation). The Foundation developed and implemented statistics and quantitative reasoning courses to replace traditional developmental mathematics curricula. Among other projects, the Foundation’s Language and Literacy Team (the team) has designed instructional routines to address the language and literacy demands of these mathematics curricula. The team conducted interviews with a sample of community college faculty in order to improve the design of these routines. The team’s objectives for the interviews were to understand: instructors’ perceptions of students’ language and literacy skills; instructors’ beliefs about the language and literacy demands of the curricula; and, instructors’ interpretations of the instructional routines.

Theoretical Framework
The team’s design work has been guided by research on the linguistic demands of mathematics (e.g., Schleppegrell, 2007), challenges related to engaging in the discourse of mathematics (e.g., Moschkovich, 2002), and pedagogies for supporting mathematics learning (e.g., Schleppegrell, 2007).

The team is interested in the potential for curriculum to serve as a support and learning opportunity for instructors (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Davis & Krajcik, 2005), especially as they plan instruction based on students’ needs in relation to language and literacy demands of mathematics tasks. Ball and Cohen (1996) posit that curriculum could serve this supportive function “if they were created with closer attention to processes of curriculum enactment” (p. 7). According to Ball and Cohen (1996), teachers enact curriculum using multiple types of information, such as knowledge of students, understanding of content, and beliefs about instructional planning.

Methods

The team conducted one-hour interviews with 12 instructors who use the Foundation’s mathematics curricula. The interviews focused on the instructor’s experience using the curriculum and observations of lesson revisions and instructional routines. During the interview, the team member and instructor reviewed the first unit of the curriculum, which had been revised to incorporate language and literacy routines. While some participants had taught this unit previously, none had used the instructional routines. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.

Analysis & Preliminary Findings

Team members employed a mix of grounded theory and key analytical categories to analyze interviews (Weiss, 1994). Some of the key analytical categories were: materials as resource, understanding of student skills, and instructor revisions. Several preliminary findings emerged from this analysis:
● Instructors are engaged in day-to-day curriculum design (e.g. adapting problems to student interest). They make changes based on experience, lesson goals, and student needs.
● While instructor notes may seem redundant to experienced instructors, they may help guide instructors new to the curriculum.
● Most instructors found routines dealing with vocabulary, writing, and reading tools helpful.

Scholarly Significance

The current analysis provides insights into the types of knowledge that community college instructors draw upon when enacting this mathematics curriculum, and how they might interpret language and literacy routines and supports. This work furthers our understanding of the potential for curriculum materials to support instructor learning (e.g., Ball & Cohen, 1996).

Authors

• Nicole Anne Mancevice, University of California - Los Angeles

• Katherine Rodela, Washington State University