In this research commentary, I argue that the field of mathematics education as a whole can and should improve its citation practices. I begin by discussing 4 forms of citation practice and considering how they vary with respect to transparency of voice. I then discuss several ways our citation practices may misrepresent cited authors' ideas, providing examples to illustrate the errors. I conclude by suggesting ways that we as writers (but also as reviewers and as graduate faculty) might jointly work toward improving our citation practices.
Keith R. Leatham and Diane S. Hill
Three reflective tasks for students at all levels help them and their teachers become more aware of their beliefs about mathematics.
Steven R. Williams and Keith R. Leatham
We present the results of 2 studies, a citation-based study and an opinion-based study, that ranked the relative quality of 20 English-language journals that exclusively or extensively publish mathematics education research. We further disaggregate the opinion-based data to provide insights into variations in judgment of journal quality based on geographic location, journal affiliations and publishing records, and experience in the field. We also report factors that survey respondents indicated were important indicators of journal quality. Finally, we compare our results to previous related rankings and conclude by discussing how our results might inform authors, editors, and evaluators in their efforts to publish and recognize quality research in mathematics education.
Keith R. Leatham, Kate R. Johnson, and Steven R. Jones
In MasterClass in Mathematics Education: International Perspectives on Teaching and Learning, editors Paul Andrews and Tim Rowland introduce research in mathematics education in the tradition of a Master Class. Each of the 17 chapters is organized around a set of core readings (four such readings for all but one chapter). Authors were asked “to include some commentary and/or exposition of the readings, and to set them in the broader context of ideas and methods to which they belong” (p. xiv). Each team of authors is actively engaged in research related to the topic of their chapter. This familiarity gives the reader a sense of having an “insider's view” into the topics as well as an appreciation of the perspective (among many possibilities) that the chapter imparts with regard to the given topic. Throughout this review, we refer to the intended audience for this book–a novice to mathematics education research–as “the reader,” and to one who might assign or recommend the book to such a reader as “the mentor.” The two main purposes of this review are (a) to aid the mentor in deciding how to use this book with the reader and (b) to aid the reader as they use the book and are introduced to research in mathematics education. Thus, we hope the mentor will consider assigning this review as introductory reading. We have organized the review into three main sections. The first contains brief summaries of each of the 17 chapters, the second a critique of how well the book fulfills its primary purposes (as outlined in its preface), and the third our overall recommendations for use of the book.
Shari L. Stockero, Blake E. Peterson, Keith R. Leatham, and Laura R. Van Zoest
Identify student thinking that has potential to support significant mathematical discussion and pedagogical opportunity.
Allison W. McCulloch, Keith R. Leatham, Jennifer N. Lovett, Nina Gabrielle Bailey, and Samuel D. Reed
Keith R. Leatham, Kathy Lawrence, and Denise S. Mewborn
This article discusses the nature of open-ended assessment items, their benefit to student learning, and how one teacher began using such items in her fourth-grade classroom. Also included are suggestions for getting started using open-ended assessment items in the elementary classroom.
Keith R. Leatham, Blake E. Peterson, Shari L. Stockero, and Laura R. Van Zoest
The mathematics education community values using student thinking to develop mathematical concepts, but the nuances of this practice are not clearly understood. We conceptualize an important group of instances in classroom lessons that occur at the intersection of student thinking, significant mathematics, and pedagogical opportunities—what we call Mathematically Significant Pedagogical Opportunities to Build on Student Thinking. We analyze dialogue to illustrate a process for determining whether a classroom instance offers such an opportunity and to demonstrate the usefulness of the construct in examining classroom discourse. This construct contributes to research and professional development related to teachers' mathematically productive use of student thinking by providing a lens and generating a common language for recognizing and agreeing on a critical core of student mathematical thinking that researchers can attend to as they study classroom practice and that teachers can aspire to notice and build upon when it occurs in their classrooms.