|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
Integrating language arts into mathematics instruction has been a highly recommended instructional strategy. This study investigated elementary school teachers' (n=438) confidence in, frequency of use, and perceived usefulness of strategies for integrating language arts with mathematics. Results indicated that teachers in grades 5-6 were less likely to integrate language arts into mathematics instruction than teachers in grades K-2 and 3-4. They cited the lack of sufficient classroom time for the integration of language arts into an already overloaded mathematics curriculum.
Introduction
As students move beyond mathematics computation and procedures, communication and reasoning become important avenues to the higher-order mathematical processes (Matthews & Rainer, 2001). Multiple relationships between language arts and mathematics are apparent in the process standards identified by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989, 2000) and include problem solving, reasoning, communication, connections, and representations. Problem solving and reasoning are enhanced by student-to-student and student-to-teacher discourse. Mathematics and language arts are both means of communicating and making connections to real-world contexts. Mathematics and language arts both utilize representations to organize and convey information.
Within the professional literature of mathematics education and language arts education, teachers are encouraged to use a variety of language-based techniques to enhance mathematics learning. Reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visually representing can all be incorporated into mathematics lessons (Kolstad, Briggs, & Whalen, 1996). Quality books in which mathematics concepts are embedded can be used to contextualize mathematical ideas, clarify vocabulary, and increase interest (Helton & Micklo, 1997; Manning, Manning, & Long, 1994; Mountain, 1993). Exploratory talk helps children articulate their reasoning processes as they utilize mathematics manipulatives (Schram & Rosaen, 1989). When children write out descriptions of their mathematical thinking processes, misperceptions become apparent (McIntosh, 1991), vocabulary grows (Nevin, 1992), and students' progress in mathematical thinking is documented (Helton & Micklo, 1997). How often do teachers use these language techniques to enhance mathematics instruction?
Both mathematics and language are problem-solving processes employing symbol systems to represent ideas (Burton, 1992; Braunger & Hart-Landsberg, 1994). When a teacher specifically links conversational and mathematical languages, she is fostering personal and collective construction of meaning (Beane, 1993). Metaphors and analogies can be used to show parallels between disciplines, thereby clarifying mathematical terminology (Mountain, 1993; Whitin & Whitin, 1997). Story writing helps students articulate their understanding of concepts (Wolf & Gearhart, 1994). How confident are teachers in their ability to help students recognize these parallels in linguistic and mathematical thinking processes?
The literature is replete with suggestions for using specific organizers for particular tasks (Tarquin, P. & Walker, S., 1996). When teachers make a conscious effort to show how a common tool can be used in both a language arts and a mathematics context, learning opportunities are maximized (Perkins, 1988; Caine cited by Poole, 1997). Venn diagrams, webs, feature analysis charts, tables, graphs, even poetry frames transcend subject areas (Braselton & Decker, 1994). Do teachers perceive these teaching tools, which are common across mathematics and language arts instruction, as useful?
A major criticism of the movement toward integration is that "thematic units do not provide enough instruction for students to become proficient in math, reading and writing skills'" (Brodzik, MacPhee, & Shanahan, 1996). When instruction is compartmentalized, critics claim that time devoted to integration limits coverage in each discipline and that the thinking processes for each domain become less rigorous (Pena, Brown-Adams, & Decker, 1999). The schedule can, however, be organized in an integrative manner without compromising the coverage of discipline-specific skills (Manning, Manning, & Long, 1994)....
|
