Student Vital Action #1
All students participate (e.g., boys and girls, ELL and special needs students), not just the hand-raisers.
Student Vital Action #2
Students say a second sentence (spontaneously or prompted by the teacher or another student) to extend and explain their thinking.
Student Vital Action #3
Students talk about each other’s thinking (not just their own).
Student Vital Action #4
Students revise their thinking, and their written work includes revised explanations and justifications.
Student Vital Action #5
Students use general and discipline-specific academic language.
Student Vital Action #6
English learners produce language that communicates ideas and reasoning, even when that language is imperfect.
Student Vital Action #7
Students engage and persevere at points of difficulty, challenge, or error.
Related Research
Boaler, J. (1999). Participation, knowledge and beliefs: A community perspective on mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(3), 259-281.
Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In. J. Boaler & J. G. Greeno (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 171-200). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students' experiences of ability grouping-disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 631-648.
Boaler, J. (2002). The development of disciplinary relationships: Knowledge, practice and identity in mathematics classrooms. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(1), 42-47.
Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed‐ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 167-194.
Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. The Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608-645.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2012). How equity concerns lead to attention to mathematical discourse. Equity in Discourse for Mathematics Education (pp. 89-105). Netherlands: Springer.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science, 7(4), 329-363.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations of students' mathematical beliefs and behavior. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 338-355.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Ideas in the air: Speculations on small group learning, environmental and cultural influences on cognition, and epistemology. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 71-88.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). A highly interactive discourse structure. Advances in Research on Teaching, 9, 131-170.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Mathematics teaching and learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd edition) (pp. 479-510). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schoenfeld, A. H., & Kilpatrick, J. (2008). Toward a theory of proficiency in teaching mathematics. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education, Volume 2: Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 321-354). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2012). Problematizing the didactic triangle. ZDM, the International Journal of Mathematics Education, 44(5), 587-599.
Related Research
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. New York: Granada Learning.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283-297.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Preiss (Eds.) Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163-194). New York: Springer Publishing.
Swan, M. (2006). Learning GCSE mathematics through discussion: What are the effects on students? Journal of Further and Higher education, 30(3), 229-241.
Related Research
Chapin, S. H., O'Connor, C., O'Connor, M. C., & Anderson, N. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, Grades K-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283-297.
Moschkovich, J. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24-30.
O'Connor, M. C. (1998). Language socialization in the mathematics classroom: Discourse practices and mathematical thinking. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning in school (pp. 17-55). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163-194). New York: Springer Publishing.
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Related Research
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House LLC.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93(1), 133-170.
Hillocks Jr, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
Klein, P. D., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). A framework for content area writing: Mediators and moderators. Journal of Writing Research, 2(1), 1-46.
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. NCTE Research Report No. 22. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Related Research
Chapin, S. H., O'Connor, C., O'Connor, M. C., & Anderson, N. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, Grades K-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Moschkovich, J. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, (27)1, 24-30.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139-159.
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp 112-133). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Related Research
Barwell, R. (2005). Ambiguity in the mathematics classroom. Language and Education, 19(2), 117-125.
Moschkovich, J. (1999). Supporting the participation of English language learners in mathematical discussions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(1), 11-19.
Moschkovich, J.N. (2000) Learning mathematics in two languages: Moving from obstacles to resources. In W. Secada (Ed.), Changing faces of mathematics (Vol. 1): Perspectives on multiculturalism and gender equity. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Moschkovich, J. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical thinking and learning, 4(2-3), 189-212.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2007). Beyond words to mathematical content: Assessing English learners in the mathematics classroom. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Assessing Mathematical Proficiency, (53), 345-352. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2007) Bilingual Mathematics Learners: How views of language, bilingual learners, and mathematical communication impact instruction. In N. Nassir and P. Cobb (Eds.), Diversity, equity, and access to mathematical ideas. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Moschkovich, J. (2007). Using two languages when learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(2), 121-144.
Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common Core. Understanding language: Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 17-31.
Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-278.
Related Research
Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping education. FORUM (55)1, 143-152.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House
SERP Institute
1100 Connecticut Ave NW
Suite 1310
Washington, DC 20036
SERP Studio
2744 East 11th Street
Oakland, CA 94601
(202) 223-8555
Registered 501(c)(3). EIN: 30-0231116