The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of Mentoring Mathematical Minds (M3) units on gains in mathematics achievement and English proficiency of mathematically promising English language learners (MPELLs) in the third grade. The M3 program, developed by Gavin et al., was implemented for 1 year with treatment MPELLs (n = 86) but not with comparison MPELLs (n = 85). Treatment teachers attended 5 days of professional development provided by the program development team members. Researchers analyzed findings using hierarchical linear modeling and found that treatment students demonstrated significantly higher gains in mathematics achievement than comparison students (d = .63), but not in English proficiency. Qualitative data focused on treatment teachers’ instructional behaviors were collected and included in considerations for high- and low-fidelity implementation with treatment students and teachers. The results supplemented the evidence that students’ achievement gains in mathematics could be from the challenging mathematics content and instructional and language scaffolding strategies within the M3 units.
BalboniG.NaglieriJ.A.CubelliR. (2010). Concurrent and predictive validity of the raven progressive matrices and the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(3), 222-235.
2.
BaronR.KennyD. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
BlaseK. A.FixsenD. L. (2005, Summer). The national research network: Improving the science and practice of implementation. CYF News, pp. 8-12.
5.
BoalerJ.StaplesM. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110, 608-645.
6.
Boix MansillaV.GardnerH. (2008). Disciplining the mind. Educational Leadership, 65, 14-19.
7.
BorlandJ.WrightL. (2004). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. In RenzulliJ. (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. 25-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
8.
BrintonD. M.SnowM. A.WescheM. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York, NY: Newbury House.
9.
BrownC. L.CadyJ. A.TaylorP. M. (2009). Problem solving and the English language learner. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14, 533-539.
10.
ChapinS. H.O’ConnorC.AndersonN. C. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students to learn, grades 1-6 (2nd ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
Council of Chief State School Office. (2012). Framework for English language proficiency development standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
13.
DobsonL. D.CookT. J. (1980). Avoiding Type III error in program evaluation: Results from a field experiment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 3, 269-276.
14.
EchevarriaJ.ShortD. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 195-211.
15.
EchevarriaJ.VogtM. E. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
EnyedyN.RubelL.CastellonV.MukhopadhyayS.EsmondeI.SecadaW. (2008). Revoicing in a multilingual classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 134-162.
17.
FinnC. E. (2014). Gifted, talented, and underserved. National Affairs, 18, 50-62.
18.
FormanE. A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: Speaking, inscribing, and doing mathematics within communities of practice. In KilpatrickJ.MartinW. G.SchifterD. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 333-352). Reston VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19.
FrasierM. M.PassowA. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential (Technical Report). Hartford, CT: National Research Center for Gifted and Talented.
20.
GarcíaE. E.FredeE. C. (2010). Young English language learners: Current research and emerging directions for practice and policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
21.
GavinM. K. (2003). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
22.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.SheffieldL. J. (2009). The impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 188-202.
23.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.AdelsonJ. L.CarrollS. R.SheffieldL. J.SpinelliA. M. (2007). Project M3: Mentoring mathematical minds: A research-based curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 566-681.
24.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.FirmenderJ. M.CarrollS. R. (2013). The impact of advanced geometry and measurement curriculum units on the mathematics achievement of first-grade students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 71-84.
GlaserB. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussion. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
27.
GutierrezR. (2002). Beyond essentialism: The complexity of language in teaching mathematics to Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 1047-1088.
28.
HansenW. B.GrahamJ. W.WolkensteinB. H.RohrbachL. A. (1991). Program integrity as moderator of prevention program effectiveness: Results for fifth-grade students in the adolescent alcohol prevention trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(6), 568-579.
29.
Harcourt Assessment. (2004). Stanford English Language Proficiency Test. Richmond, VA: Author.
30.
HenningsenM.SteinM. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524-549.
31.
JarrettD. (1999). The inclusive classroom: Teaching mathematics and science to English language learners—It’s just good teaching. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
32.
KaplanS. N. (2009). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.McMillenK. S.EckertR. D.LittleC. A. (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 323-352). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
33.
KhistyL. L.ChvalK. B. (2002). Pedagogic discourse and equity in mathematics: When teachers’ talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14, 154-168.
34.
KolbeL. J.IversonD. C. (1981). Implementing comprehensive health education: Educational innovations and social change. Health Education Quarterly, 8, 57-80.
35.
KrashenS. D. (1985). The input hypothesis, issues and implications. London, England: Longman Group UK.
36.
LeeO.QuinnH.ValdésG. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42, 223-233.
37.
MarlandS. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Vol. 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by U.S. commissioner of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
38.
McCallumR. S. (2003). The Universal nonverbal intelligence test. In McCallumR. S. (Ed.), Handbook of nonverbal assessment (pp. 87-111). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher.
MillerR.MillsC.TangherliniA. (1995). The Appalachia model mathematics program for gifted students. Roeper Review, 18, 138-141.
41.
MoschkovichJ. (1999). Supporting the participation of English language learners in mathematical discussions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(1), 11-19.
42.
MoschkovichJ. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective of bilingual mathematics learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 189-212.
NaglieriJ. (2008). NNAT2 Manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education.
45.
NaglieriJ. A.FordD. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155-160.
46.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
47.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
48.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
49.
National Education Association. (2007). Truth in labeling: Disproportionality in special education. Washington, DC: Author.
50.
PeregoyS. F.BoyleO. F. (2008). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for teaching K-12 English learners (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
51.
PicaT. (2008). Task-based teaching and learning. In SpolskyB.HultF. K. (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 525-538). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
52.
PluckerJ.BurroughsN.SongR. (2010). Mind the other gap: The growing excellence gap in K-12 education. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
53.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
RenzulliJ. S.LeppienJ. H.HaysT. S. (2000). The multiple menu model: A practical guide for developing differentiated curriculum. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
56.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2004). Curriculum compacting: A research-based differentiation strategy for culturally diverse talented students. In BootheD.StanleyJ. C. (Eds.), The eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 87-100). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
57.
RenzulliJ. S.SiegleD.ReisS.GavinK. M.ReedR. E. S. (2009). An investigation of the reliability and factor structure of four new scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 84-108.
58.
Riverside Publishing. (2005). Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Rolling Meadows, IL: Author.
59.
RobinsonA.StanleyT. D. (1989). Teaching to talent: Evaluating an enriched accelerated mathematics program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 253-267.
60.
RothenbergC.FisherD. (2007). Teaching English language learners: A differentiated approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
61.
ScarcellaR. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Technical Report No. 2003–1, No. 1). Santa Barbara: The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
62.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
63.
ShadishW. R.SweeneyR. (1991). Mediators and moderators in meta-analysis: There’s a reason we don’t let dodo birds tell us which psychotherapies should have prizes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 883-893.
64.
SheffieldL. J. (1994). The development of gifted and talented mathematics students and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards (Research Monograph No. 9404). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
65.
SheffieldL. J. (1999). Serving the needs of the mathematically promising. In SheffieldL. J. (Ed.), Developing mathematically promising students (pp. 43-55). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
66.
SlavinR. E.CalderonM. (2001). Effective programs for Latino students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
SnowM. A. (2001). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In Celce-MurciaM. (Ed.), Teaching English as a second for foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 303-318). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
68.
SriramanB. (2004). Gifted ninth graders’ notions of proof: Investigating parallels in approaches of mathematically gifted students and professional mathematicians. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 267-292.
69.
SteinM. K.EngleR. A.SmithM. S.HughesE. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313-340.
70.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.
71.
TabakI.BaumgartnerE. (2005). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 393-429.
72.
TiesoC. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26, 29-36.
73.
TomlinsonC. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One school’s journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77-87.
74.
TomlinsonC. A.EidsonC. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
75.
TurnerE.DominguezH.MaldonadoL.EmpsonS. (2013). English learners’ participation in mathematical discussion: Shifting positioning and dynamic identities. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 199-234.
76.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Report of the academic competitiveness council (ED 496649). Washington, DC: Author.
77.
WebbN. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Council of Chief State School Officers and National Institute for Science Education, Monograph No. 6). Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin.
78.
WheatleyG. H. (1983). A mathematics curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 77-80.
79.
YoonB. (2007). Offering or limiting opportunities: Teachers’ roles and approaches to English-language learners’ participation in literacy activities. The Reading Teacher, 61, 216-225.
80.
YoonB. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 495-522.
