1. 1 Teacher Talk and American Indian Student Achievement: Comparing Different Mathematics Approaches SIG-Indigenous Peoples of the Americas 2006 AERA Conference San Francisco, April 9 Helen S. Apthorp & RunningHorse Livingston

2. 2 Overview Purpose of Study Method Lesson Cases and Findings Implications for Practice

3. 3 Study Purpose: to address practical concerns “Which is better, Success for All Math Wings or Cognitively Guided Instruction?” In mathematics, “Are students developing self-confidence, ability to reason, and the foundations that open doors in later grades and adulthood?”

4. 4 Teaching-learning relationships “determine whether students will persist [in their academic work] or not … a mutually respectful and caring relationship is essential to educational success” (Swisher & Tippeconnic, 1997, p. 302)

5. 5 Method Comparative lesson case study of existing curricula and approaches Success for All (SFA) Saxon Math Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI)

6. 6 Sample Schools with 25% or more American Indian students One mathematics lesson per grade 3 or 4 classroom implementing  SFA  Saxon  CGI

7. 7 Data Collection Videotaped a typical lesson Teacher survey and interview Assessment of student mathematics achievement and nonverbal reasoning  During second half of the 2004-2005 school year

8. 8 Data coding NCTM (1991) based ratings  Worthwhile tasks  Productive discourse  Cooperativeness (aspect of Learning Environment) Teacher talk  Number of utterance  Percentages of statements and questions  Questions by level of cognitive demand using Bloom’s taxonomy

9. 9 Data Analysis Descriptive within each case  Qualitatively  Quantitatively Comparisons across approaches within grade  NCTM-based standards  Teacher talk  Student achievement in relation to grade level expectations according to a national norm

10. 10 Lesson Cases Saxon-3 classroom - 18 AI children; AI teacher; desks in rows; children completed daily problems at own desks and at workspace on classroom wall Saxon-4 classroom - 24 AI children; AI teacher; desks in rows; children recited in preparation for and took a timed fact test administered by teacher front of room CGI-3 classroom - 14 children including 7 AI children; Caucasian teacher with 3 yrs using CGI; desks in rows with one table for up to 7 children; children solved postcard distribution problem using individual dry erase whiteboards and explained how they solved the problem to teacher or class I/CGI-4/5 classroom - 22 children including 21 AI children; Caucasian teacher who “has always used CGI” in his 15 yr career but formally trained only 4 yrs ago; children’s art work hanging from ceiling, tables for up to 4 children, lawn chairs, containers from home; children predicted, checked and explained volume SFA-3 classroom - 19 children including 8 AI children; Caucasian teacher; desks in clusters facing screen used for overhead projector; lots of guidance posted on classroom walls; children did a lot of think-pair-share SFA-4 classroom - 18 children, including 5 AI children; Caucasian teacher; desks in clusters, points awarded to cluster team for good behavior; children followed teacher explanation and modeling at overhead projector and were reminded to check their work.

11. 11 Videotape Findings - Tasks NCTM (1991) Standards of Professional Practice Ratings 1 Saxon- 3 Saxon- 4 CGI-3I/CGI- 4/5 SFA-3SFA-4 Worthwhile tasks 0.800.953.803.851.401.75 Productive discourse 0.940.883.384.002.132.56 1. NCTM-based rating items asked, “To what degree does the lesson reflect …. [e.g., emphasis on mathematical reasoning]?” Rating options ranged from 1 = not at all to 4 = extensively.

12. 12 Videotape Findings - Cooperativeness

13. 13 Gr3 Teacher Talk Legend Telling Statements – Gold Knowledge Questions – Grey Comprehension or Higher-order Questions – Green

14. 14 Gr4 Teacher Talk Legend Telling Statements – Gold Knowledge Questions – Grey Comprehension or Higher-order Questions – Green

15. 15 Achievement Findings (ITBS Mean developmental standard scores and standard deviations AI only) Concepts & Estimation Problem Solving Computation Grade Level = 185 CGI-3 (n=7) 178.55 (17.61) 175.57 (17.64) 177.86 (12.25) SFA-3 (n=8) 193.63 (19.91) 187.13 (24.42) 187.13 (21.16) Grade Level = 200 Saxon-4 (n=19) 193.06 (15.17) 195.17 (17.29) 196.94 (19.17) I/CGI-4/5 (n=8) 206.75 (23.81) 211.75 (34.34) 196.63 (10.97) SFA-4 (n=5) 197.20 (2.28) 198.80 (3.35) 191.00 (18.14)

16. 16 Conclusions Variation across and within approaches With less teacher talk, children have more opportunity to think for themselves regardless of teacher race American Indian students performed at or above grade level when encouraged to work together to make sense of mathematics

17. 17 Limitations and Relevance Limitations  One lesson per approach  Non-experimental design Relevance  CGI lessons offered high levels of cognitive challenge, but what teachers know about math and how they interact with students also counts.

18. 18 Contact Information RunningHorse Livingston mishtadim@hotmail.com mishtadim@hotmail.com Helen Apthorp hapthorp@mcrel.orghapthorp@mcrel.org Paper is available at http://www.mcrel.org/topics/productDet ail.asp?productID=228 http://www.mcrel.org/topics/productDet ail.asp?productID=228