View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Who Benefits Most from Language-Responsive Learning Materials in Mathematics? Investigating Differential Effects in Heterogeneous Classrooms

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Who Benefits Most from Language-Responsive Learning Materials in Mathematics? Investigating Differential Effects in Heterogeneous Classrooms
Language: English
Authors: Katja Lenz (ORCID 0000-0002-8018-3155), Andreas Obersteiner (ORCID 0000-0002-7945-5678), Gerald Wittmann (ORCID 0000-0003-2094-0908)
Source: Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2024 116(2):185-211.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Elementary Education
Grade 7
Descriptors: Language of Instruction, Multilingual Materials, Middle School Mathematics, Grade 7, Mathematics Instruction, Language Proficiency, Instructional Materials
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-024-10321-9
ISSN: 0013-1954
1573-0816
Abstract: Students' proficiency in the language of instruction is essential for their mathematical learning. Accordingly, language-responsive instruction, which includes adapting teaching material to students' language needs, is thought to promote mathematical learning, particularly for students with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction. However, empirical evidence for the effectiveness of this type of instruction in heterogeneous classrooms is scarce, and potential differential effects for learners with different learning prerequisites still need to be studied. The present study examines whether language-responsive instructional materials can promote students' learning of fractions. We conducted a quasi-experimental intervention study with a pre- and posttest in Grade 7 (N = 211). The students were assigned to one of three instructional conditions: fraction instruction with or without additional language support or to a control group. The results showed that both intervention groups had higher learning gains than the control group. However, students with lower proficiency in the language of instruction benefited more from fraction instruction with additional language support than without it. The opposite was true for students with higher proficiency in the language of instruction. Moreover, learning gains depended on students' levels of mathematics anxiety. Our study contributes to a more detailed understanding of the effectiveness of language-responsive instruction in heterogeneous classrooms.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1426273
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEI51pZhmh66yUDlkM4ax1xAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKkpkm7SIti3YEFhzQIBEICBmy63cpDRNXG2RF0ko0qmomwXfz_qJ9ixYseETcoqF86dQMZuIZf_BIyCpWb_qmKGIVxVtl6HvqSxhkoUi0N-WUAXociXiMKJHfovY3q7eXZPRfa_U2ZzbROhsDO6kk-lGox8UsGa1FZzTBMFEu3NyyLoptu4xu-6_YXxycu6O3k7UILTna8w7LsFFcru-tyLXs2IVqX24Trx8NdG
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177560351;esm01jun.24;2024Jun03.05:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177560351-1">Who benefits most from language-responsive learning materials in mathematics? Investigating differential effects in heterogeneous classrooms </title> <p>Students' proficiency in the language of instruction is essential for their mathematical learning. Accordingly, language-responsive instruction, which includes adapting teaching material to students' language needs, is thought to promote mathematical learning, particularly for students with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction. However, empirical evidence for the effectiveness of this type of instruction in heterogeneous classrooms is scarce, and potential differential effects for learners with different learning prerequisites still need to be studied. The present study examines whether language-responsive instructional materials can promote students' learning of fractions. We conducted a quasi-experimental intervention study with a pre- and posttest in Grade 7 (N = 211). The students were assigned to one of three instructional conditions: fraction instruction with or without additional language support or to a control group. The results showed that both intervention groups had higher learning gains than the control group. However, students with lower proficiency in the language of instruction benefited more from fraction instruction with additional language support than without it. The opposite was true for students with higher proficiency in the language of instruction. Moreover, learning gains depended on students' levels of mathematics anxiety. Our study contributes to a more detailed understanding of the effectiveness of language-responsive instruction in heterogeneous classrooms.</p> <p>Keywords: Language-responsive instruction; Intervention study; Differential effects; Fractions</p> <p>Katja Lenz is a first Author.</p> <p>Students need language skills to participate in classroom instruction. There is empirical evidence that students with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction benefit less from mathematics instruction than students with higher levels of proficiency in the language of instruction (Barwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]; Braswell et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]; Ellerton & Clarkson, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>]; Haag et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref4">45</reflink>]; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref5">74</reflink>]; Secada, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref6">99</reflink>]). In studies that distinguished between procedural and conceptual mathematical knowledge, the development of conceptual knowledge was especially closely tied to learners' proficiency in the language of instruction (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref7">37</reflink>]). Consequently, it seems crucial to develop and evaluate specific language-responsive instructional approaches to support students' acquisition of conceptual knowledge.</p> <p>There is no commonly accepted definition of language-responsive instruction, and studies vary in how they operationalized it: More general approaches focus on teaching mathematics following different literacy strategies (Benjamin, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]), making use of everyday language (Prediger et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref9">91</reflink>]; Setati & Adler, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref10">101</reflink>]) or students' native language (Bermejo et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]; Wagner et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref12">123</reflink>]). Content-specific approaches use learning materials with integrated systematic language learning paths (Coggins et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]; Pöhler et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref14">82</reflink>]; Prediger & Wessel, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref15">88</reflink>]). Teaching methods range from classroom discourse to adapting students' learning materials. Overall, these different approaches are united by the idea of supporting learning by addressing learner's language requirements.</p> <p>Although these language-responsive instructional approaches were initially developed for multilingual students with limited proficiency in the language of instruction, their implementation also seems promising in language-diverse mainstream classrooms because both multilingual and monolingual students can face language difficulties in mathematics classrooms (Barwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]; Prediger & Wessel, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref17">89</reflink>]; Setati, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref18">100</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nevertheless, studies that test the effectiveness of language-responsive instruction with broader groups of students are scarce (Prediger & Neugebauer, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref19">86</reflink>]). Therefore, the present study examines the effectiveness of a language-responsive learning approach based on materials with additional language support in linguistically diverse classrooms under controlled conditions. Given the great heterogeneity in classrooms (Nusser & Gehrer, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref20">73</reflink>]; Vock & Gronostaj, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref21">120</reflink>]), the key question concerns the extent to which students with different learning prerequisites benefit differently from learning materials with or without additional language support.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-2">Theoretical and empirical background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177560351-3">Relationship between mathematics and language</hd> <p>Considering the learning process in mathematics classrooms, two functions of language come into play. First, language has a communicative function. It is used to describe, explain, and present mathematical content (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref23">37</reflink>]; Moschkovich, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref24">69</reflink>]). Language is needed to communicate, document thoughts and solutions, discuss mathematical problems with each other, and much more. Second, language has an epistemic function. It is a cognitive tool for thinking and learning, and is thus necessary to understand mathematics (Pimm, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref25">79</reflink>]; Prediger et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref26">90</reflink>]).</p> <p>Language proficiency includes various receptive and productive skills (Oller, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref27">76</reflink>]; Pimm, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref28">79</reflink>]; Vollmer & Sang, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref29">121</reflink>]). Receptive skills include reading and listening, and learners need them to follow teacher explanations or extract text information. Productive skills include writing and speaking, and are needed to produce utterances, for example, to describe mathematical facts (Paetsch et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref30">78</reflink>]; Pimm, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref31">79</reflink>]). Learning mathematics encompasses various activities, including understanding concepts, solving problems, using mathematical language and notation, receiving instruction, collaborating with peers, and applying mathematical knowledge. Proficiency in the language of instruction is deeply intertwined with each of these components and is, therefore, essential to learning mathematics.</p> <p>To learn mathematics in school, students need cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in the language of instruction, which encompasses the more academic and cognitive aspects of language needed for success in school (Cummins, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref32">30</reflink>]). CALP is essential for understanding cognitively demanding and abstract content (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]; Cummins, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]). It is characterized by specialized vocabulary and complex grammatical structures and includes impersonal forms and decontextualized and abstract formulations (Bailey, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]; Morek & Heller, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref36">67</reflink>]). In contrast, children use basic interpersonal communicative skills in their daily lives (e.g., when playing together, exercising at a sports club, or shopping). CALP is more related to written language, which many students need to become more experienced in as they are less familiar with it (Cummins, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]). Accordingly, a lack of CALP in the language of instruction may impede overall mathematics performance (Haag et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>]; Ní Ríordáin & O'Donoghue, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref39">72</reflink>]; Prediger et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref40">90</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-4">Proficiency in the language of instruction and its relevance to mathematics achievement</hd> <p>The large-scale Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) found positive and very high correlations between proficiency in the language of instruction and mathematical performance (average latent correlation of 0.85 between mathematics and reading; OECD, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref41">75</reflink>]), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress in the U. S. (NAEP) reported that English language learners in Grade 8 lagged far behind the mathematics achievement of non-English language learners (NAEP, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref42">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>Much of the research on the impact of language proficiency on mathematics achievement has been framed by sociocultural theories (e.g., Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]; Forman, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref44">40</reflink>]; Takeuchi, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref45">114</reflink>]). However, when studying the impact of materials rather than classroom communication on students' learning, as is the case in the present study, cognitive load theory is a more appropriate theoretical framework. Cognitive load theory (Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref46">112</reflink>]; Sweller et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref47">113</reflink>]) rests on the idea that working memory is limited to processing information from the environment. Hence, learning processes can only succeed when the total cognitive load does not exceed the working memory capacity. Given that standardized tests need to be completed in the language of instruction and contain language-dependent tasks, they compound cognitive demands, particularly for second language learners (Abedi & Lord, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>]; Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]). Accordingly, second language learners perform less well when completing tasks in a non-native language due to increased cognitive demands (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref50">21</reflink>]). Linguistic features, such as the lengths of words and sentences, passive constructions, comparative structures, or conditional clauses, are associated with morphological and syntactic complexity (Abedi & Lord, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>]). These features require little mental processing by students with higher proficiency in the language of instruction. However, they may lead to increased cognitive load for students with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction, which may lead to misinterpretations, slower reading, and task solving, and thus poorer test performance (Abedi & Lord, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]; Abedi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>]; Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref54">21</reflink>]; Haag et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref55">45</reflink>]). In line with these findings, mathematical test items can be linguistically adapted to reduce language load. For example, Abedi and Lord ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]) examined the effects of a linguistic modification of test items in a study with <emph>N</emph> = 1,031 Grade 8 students in Southern California. The findings show that linguistic simplifications of test items improved the test performance of English language learners (ELLs).</p> <p>Although adapting test items allowed students to show higher achievement in mathematics, the research on the effect of adapting the linguistic demands of instructional material is scarce. Since instructional material plays a key role in mathematics classrooms, it seems crucial to investigate the effects of using linguistically adapted learning materials to support learners with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction of their mathematics learning.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-5">Relationship between proficiency in the language of instruction and conceptual knowledge of m...</hd> <p>There is evidence that the development of conceptual knowledge is related to learners' proficiency in the language of instruction (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref57">37</reflink>]). Conceptual knowledge comprises knowledge of concepts and principles that are fundamental in a particular domain, as well as knowledge of why a mathematical procedure works (Byrnes & Wasik, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref58">20</reflink>]; Crooks & Alibali, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]; Hiebert & Lefevre, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref60">52</reflink>]; Kilpatrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref61">57</reflink>]). Specifically, students with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction performed less well on tasks that needed conceptual knowledge than on language-free computational tasks (Abedi & Leon, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>]; Heinze et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref63">49</reflink>]; Prediger et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref64">90</reflink>]; Ufer & Bochnik, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref65">117</reflink>]; Ufer et al., [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref66">118</reflink>]). Such findings are not surprising, given that mathematical discourse practices, such as arguing and explaining meanings, are fundamental to the development of conceptual knowledge (Prediger, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref67">83</reflink>]; Prediger et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref68">90</reflink>]; Ufer et al., [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref69">118</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the example of learning fractions, students with lower language proficiency may not fully benefit from teachers' conceptual explanations. This may affect their ability to understand and internalize fraction concepts, ultimately affecting the depth of their conceptual understanding. In addition, these students may face challenges due to the specific linguistic demands of the learning content. For example, when multiplying fractions, the meaning of the term "of" can be an obstacle according to the specific linguistic demands (e.g., Prediger & Wessel, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref70">87</reflink>]; Purnomo et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref71">94</reflink>]). Explaining the meaning of 2/3 × 1/4 requires relating the two thirds to the correct whole, which is itself given as a part. This can be challenging due to the linguistic complexity, especially for students who are not proficient in the language of instruction (Prediger & Wessel, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref72">87</reflink>]). However, explanations based on a concept's underlying principles can help develop conceptual knowledge (Geller et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref73">42</reflink>]). In contrast, learners who are more proficient in the language of instruction are better able to express ideas and concepts, which can enhance their conceptual knowledge (Pimm, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref74">79</reflink>]; Wessel et al., [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref75">126</reflink>]). Therefore, learners with lower proficiency in the language of instruction may benefit from additional language support to further develop their linguistic skills and engage in conceptual learning activities. Thus, instructional approaches are needed to support students in improving their use of mathematical language, especially for the development of conceptual knowledge (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref76">37</reflink>]; Moschkovich, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref77">69</reflink>]; Prediger & Neugebauer, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref78">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>Qualitative studies that have focused on supporting students' conceptual knowledge in various domains through language-responsive instruction are, for example, Moschkovich ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref79">68</reflink>]), for the slope of functions, Pöhler et al. ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref80">80</reflink>]), for percentages, Prediger and Wessel ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref81">88</reflink>]), for fractions, Prediger and Zindel ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref82">92</reflink>]), for functional relationships, and Smit and van Eerde ([<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref83">107</reflink>]), for line graphs. From these studies, six major design principles were identified: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>) engaging students in rich discourse practices, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>) establishing various mathematics language routines, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>) connecting language varieties and multimodal representations, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref87">4</reflink>) including students' multilingual resources, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref88">5</reflink>) using macro-scaffolding to sequence and combine language and mathematics learning opportunities, and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref89">6</reflink>) comparing language pieces (form, function, etc.) to raise students' language awareness (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref90">37</reflink>]). The results of quantitative studies provide empirical evidence for the effectiveness of language-responsive instruction based on the above design principles. For example, Prediger and Wessel ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref91">88</reflink>]) designed a language-responsive intervention program for multilingual 7th-grade students with lower proficiency in the language of instruction to enhance their conceptual knowledge of fractions. They evaluated its effectiveness in a quasi-experimental pre-post intervention study in a small-group laboratory setting in the context of remedial instruction (six 90-min lessons with a student-teacher ratio of 2:1). The intervention group (<emph>n</emph> = 36), working under language-responsive conditions, scored significantly higher on the posttest than the control group (<emph>n</emph> = 36), which was taught by the regular teacher using the standard textbook. In a follow-up study with 7th graders performing low in mathematics (<emph>N</emph> = 343), Prediger and Wessel ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref92">89</reflink>]) compared two language-responsive fraction interventions, one with and one without emphasis on vocabulary learning. Both intervention groups achieved significantly higher learning gains than the control group, but no significant differences were found between the two intervention groups. Monolingual and multilingual students had similar learning gains.</p> <p>Previous research on language-responsive instruction on fractions has predominantly concentrated on specific student groups, namely, second-language learners with lower mathematics performance and proficiency in the language of instruction. As a result, the impact of language-responsive learning materials on broader groups of students with diverse learning prerequisites remains largely unexplored.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-6">Learning fractions as a challenging field</hd> <p>The development of fraction knowledge is crucial to student success in more advanced mathematics (Booth & Newton, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref93">18</reflink>]; Siegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref94">106</reflink>]; Torbeyns et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref95">116</reflink>]) and predicts academic, occupational, and financial success (Siegler & Lortie-Forgues, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref96">104</reflink>]). At the same time, fractions are one of the most challenging topics in school mathematics (Lortie-Forgues et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref97">60</reflink>]). Typical errors are well explored and documented<emph> (</emph>Ashlock, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref98">9</reflink>]; Eichelmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref99">34</reflink>]). These difficulties may result from whole number bias (Ni & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref100">71</reflink>]), which means that new knowledge about fractions interferes with prior knowledge regarding whole numbers. Consequently, children often consider the numerator and denominator of a fraction to be two separate numbers, leading to errors when performing operations with fractions or comparing them (Reinhold et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref101">97</reflink>]; Vamvakoussi et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref102">119</reflink>]). One way to overcome these problems is to foster students' conceptual knowledge of fractions rather than focusing mainly on procedural knowledge (Ashlock, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref103">9</reflink>]; Geller et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref104">42</reflink>]; Siegler & Pyke, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref105">105</reflink>]).</p> <p>Conceptual knowledge of fractions involves knowing specific characteristics of fractions (e.g., the relation of numerator and denominator and density of fractions) and different interpretations of fractions (e.g., part of a whole, quotient, and ratio) and is activated whenever two representations (concrete materials, visualizations, verbal representations, and symbolic notations) are used and related (Haapasalo & Kadijevich, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref106">46</reflink>]; Padberg & Wartha, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref107">77</reflink>]; Reinhold et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref108">97</reflink>]). It is assumed that integrating conceptual knowledge reduces errors when making calculations with fractions. For example, by utilizing visual representations, students can understand that fractions need to have the same denominators in order to add them. This is because only combinations of equal parts can be expressed symbolically with a fraction.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-7">The role of mathematics anxiety</hd> <p>It is widely acknowledged that mathematical development depends on cognitive skills and learners' attitudes, beliefs, emotions, and motivations (Batchelor et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref109">14</reflink>]; Zan et al., [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref110">128</reflink>]). Specifically, mathematics anxiety, as a negative emotion about mathematics-related situations and tasks (Ashcraft & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref111">8</reflink>]; Foley et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref112">39</reflink>]; Halme et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref113">48</reflink>]), is associated with mathematics performance from young children to adults (Ashcraft & Krause, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref114">7</reflink>]; Miller & Bichsel, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref115">65</reflink>]; Ramirez et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref116">95</reflink>]; Vukovic et al., [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref117">122</reflink>]). In particular, mathematics anxiety correlates negatively with mathematics performance (<emph>r</emph> = –0.28 in a meta-analysis by Barroso et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref118">12</reflink>]). This relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance is bidirectional (Ashcraft, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref119">5</reflink>]; Dowker, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref120">32</reflink>]). Children with higher mathematics anxiety experience negative emotions when working on mathematics tasks. They may devote less time and effort to studying mathematics to avoid triggering these negative emotions. This avoidance of mathematics leads to lower mathematics performance, further increasing mathematics anxiety and creating a vicious cycle (Ashcraft & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref121">8</reflink>]; Jansen et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref122">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fractions are a topic that has been shown to elicit more negative attitudes in students than whole numbers (Mielicki et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref123">63</reflink>]; Sidney et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref124">103</reflink>]), and even educators with years of teaching experience report more anxiety about fractions than other mathematical content (Mielicki et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref125">63</reflink>]). In addition, studies have found that mathematics anxiety negatively affects fraction learning (Mielicki et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref126">64</reflink>]; Rayner et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref127">96</reflink>]; Sidney et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref128">102</reflink>]). Learning fractions is associated with more complex mathematical skills and may interfere with prior knowledge of whole numbers. Children may encounter difficulties with fractions, which can exacerbate mathematics anxiety (Starling-Alves et al., [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref129">109</reflink>]). Therefore, considering students' mathematics anxiety when supporting them in learning fractions seems essential. Although there is little research on the relationship between mathematics anxiety and language proficiency, it seems plausible that language difficulties in understanding classroom demands and mathematics concepts may increase anxiety about mathematics learning and, therefore, affect learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-8">Differential effectiveness of language-responsive instruction: the framework of aptitude-trea...</hd> <p>Research on the relationship between learning outcomes and heterogeneous learning conditions has been conducted since the 1970s using the aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) approach (Cronbach & Snow, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref130">28</reflink>]; Kalyuga, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref131">55</reflink>]). ATI is based on the assumption that instructional approaches (treatments) are more or less effective for particular groups of learners, depending on their specific abilities or characteristics (aptitudes) (Corno et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref132">26</reflink>]; Cronbach & Snow, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref133">28</reflink>]; Snow, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref134">108</reflink>]).</p> <p>Interactions between aptitudes and treatments generally affect cognitive load (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref135">22</reflink>]). More precisely, it depends on the student's specific aptitude when the demands associated with information processing reach a critical threshold. For example, Yeung et al. ([<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref136">127</reflink>]) found that integrating explanatory notes directly into a text improved the text comprehension of learners with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction. In contrast, for students with higher levels of proficiency in the language of instruction, the same format hampered their text comprehension. As the explanatory notes were difficult to ignore, learners with higher levels of proficiency in the language of instruction needed to process redundant units of information and match them with their existing knowledge schemas, which caused unnecessary cognitive load. This study shows that learning material that is effective with novice learners may be less effective or even harm more experienced learners (the so-called expertise reversal effect) (Kalyuga & Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref137">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, noncognitive individual characteristics, such as mathematical anxiety, can mediate ATI effects. Specifically, anxiety may reduce working memory resources (Ashcraft & Kirk, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref138">6</reflink>]; Mammarella et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref139">62</reflink>]; Suárez-Pellicioni et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref140">110</reflink>]). Accordingly, mathematics anxiety could be a mediator when investigating the effectiveness of language-responsive instruction. In particular, learning materials with additional language support presumably impose an extraneous load, which can affect learners with higher levels of mathematics anxiety.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-9">Research questions</hd> <p>As a result of previous research, it seems important to consider how the use of language-responsive learning material affects learning of fractions by students with varying levels of proficiency in the language of instruction. Therefore, we developed learning materials for fractions that did or did not include additional language support and explored the effectiveness of these learning materials. We addressed two research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>RQ1) Are there differences in students' learning gains in fraction knowledge between students who use material with additional language support and students who use material without additional language support?</emph> </item> <p></p> <item> <emph>RQ2) To what extent do students with different learning prerequisites (regarding their proficiency in the language of instruction and their mathematics anxiety) benefit differently from learning materials with or without additional language support?</emph> </item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177560351-10">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177560351-11">Sample</hd> <p>A total of 211 Grade 7 students from eleven secondary school classrooms (nine in the intervention condition and two in the control condition) of five schools in Germany participated in this study. The average age of the participants was 12.6 years (range 11–14 years). Approximately half of the students were male (53.1%), and half were female (46.9%). The sample encompassed a range of socioeconomic status backgrounds (assessed by the book-at-home index), including low (27.5%), middle (33.6%), and high (36.5%). Concerning language background (operationalized by family language), the study involved a diverse group of participants, including both monolingual (72%) and multilingual learners (28%).</p> <p>The students attended either the middle or the lowest track of Germany's tripartite secondary school system. These different types of schools ensured a broad range of heterogeneous aspects in the sample, particularly concerning mathematical competence and German language proficiency. In German curricula, most fraction instruction occurs in Grades 5 and 6, where the mathematics class focuses on fractions for a few weeks. Furthermore, the curriculum includes repetition units in the upper grades (especially Grades 7 and 8) as fractions of the necessary basis for rational numbers (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref141">66</reflink>]). Our study is situated within a repetition unit on fractions in Grade 7 that aims to reactivate and consolidate students' knowledge of fractions.</p> <p>The responsible Ministry of Education approved the study, and the students and their parents gave informed consent.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-12">Research design and procedure</hd> <p>We ran a quasi-experimental intervention study under highly controlled conditions in typical classrooms, following a pretest and posttest design with two treatment groups and a waiting control group.</p> <p>Both treatment groups worked for three lessons of 45 min each on self-learning materials with repetition units of fractions. The first intervention group (<emph>n</emph> = 79) received materials with additional language support, and the second intervention group (<emph>n</emph> = 87) received materials without additional language support (cf. section Intervention material). Between the pretest and posttest, the classes of the control group (<emph>n</emph> = 45) were taught by their regular teachers. They worked on a textbook unit unrelated to fractions. After the posttest, they received the same intervention on fractions as the intervention groups.</p> <p>The two intervention groups were recruited from nine classes by randomly assigning the students (within classes) to one of the two groups with minor practical limitations. For example, students sitting at the same table worked on the same material to ensure that communication stimulated by the material was possible in partner work. The waiting control group (n = 45) comprised two complete classes recruited from the same schools as the intervention groups. Accordingly, the treatment and comparison groups shared similar sociodemographic characteristics, which contributed to minimizing systematic differences.</p> <p>The intervention was conducted by the first author and a specially trained research assistant, both of whom had teaching experience at the secondary school level. This approach was used to ensure a standardized intervention procedure and a high implementation fidelity level, as other studies have suggested that even trained teachers may have varying levels of implementation fidelity (e.g., Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref142">23</reflink>]). The regular teachers participated in the intervention to create a familiar classroom setting for the learners. They were responsible for classroom management and pedagogical issues (e.g., addressing ritualized procedures, motivating the learners, and avoiding and dealing with disturbances in class).</p> <p>The teaching method of working with self-learning materials was familiar to the students, and most of them were motivated by the pretest to fill their knowledge gaps. Before working with the material, it was explicitly pointed out that oral and written explanations are part of the learning concept and promote an understanding of the mathematical content. As in regular lessons, students could ask the teachers for help. If needed, the teachers provided limited motivational support ("You can do that"), general strategic support ("Reread the task carefully"), or organizational support (making students aware of missing tasks) but no content-related support.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-13">Intervention material</hd> <p>The intervention contained a repetition unit on fractions that focused on conceptual knowledge but also addressed procedural knowledge, as the two types of knowledge are closely intertwined. It comprised three lessons: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref143">1</reflink>) the concept of fractions, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref144">2</reflink>) the equivalence of fractions, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref145">3</reflink>) the addition and subtraction of fractions. The intervention material was based on existing learning materials to promote conceptual knowledge, which were designed and evaluated in previous research (Prediger & Hußmann, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref146">85</reflink>]; Wessel et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref147">125</reflink>]) and are available as an open educational resource through the German Centre for Mathematics Teacher Education (DZLM).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref148">1</reflink>] The original material contains oral and written language production activities that require describing, explaining, justifying, and promoting language learning and conceptual knowledge development. There were two different versions of the learning material (Fig. 1). One version (M_LING) contained language support (see the blue box in Figs. 1 and 2) to support students' oral and written language production specifically; the second version (M_NOLING) contained no additional language support. Except for the additional language support, both versions of the material contained the same tasks.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Intervention Material With and Without Additional Language Support</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Tasks Sample tasks with additional Language Support</p> <p>Overall, the following design principles for language-responsive learning (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref149">37</reflink>]) were considered in the material: the students were encouraged to engage in <emph>rich discourse practices</emph> through prompts (see partner tasks in Fig. 2). Both oral and written language production are stimulated through prompts (cf. Swain, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref150">111</reflink>]; the output hypothesis). The prompts focus primarily on explaining, describing, and arguing, which are particularly relevant to promoting conceptual knowledge in mathematics learning (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref151">37</reflink>]; Geller et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref152">42</reflink>]; Prediger et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref153">84</reflink>]). On the design level, engagement in discourse practices is accompanied by sentence modules (see the blue boxes in Fig. 2, e.g., sentence starters, word lists, sentence patterns, and language frames). These sentence modules make the needed vocabulary available and serve as scaffolds for students to solve tasks and become fluent in fraction-specific academic language without impairing conceptual explorations. When students document what they are exploring, they can concretize abstract ideas, internalize the new information, make relationships between concepts more explicit, and thus better understand the content (Countryman, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref154">27</reflink>]; Pugalee, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref155">93</reflink>]).</p> <p>Language varieties (everyday, academic, and technical language<emph>)</emph> and multimodal mathematical representations (iconic, symbolic, and verbal) were connected to support conceptual learning (Duval, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref156">33</reflink>]; Lesh et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref157">59</reflink>]). For example, the symbolic notation of fractions is intertwined with the iconic representation in the rectangle model, which ultimately leads to a description of the explorations made (Task 1 in Fig. 2). Learners are initially supposed to communicate with their learning partners in everyday language. To document their mathematical discoveries, technical vocabulary and sentence frames were provided to support the students in expressing their explorations in a precise manner.</p> <p>Macro-scaffolding was used to sequence and combine language and mathematics learning opportunities (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref158">37</reflink>]; Gibbons, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref159">43</reflink>]; Pimm, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref160">79</reflink>]; Pöhler & Prediger, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref161">81</reflink>]). The material started from students' everyday experiences using everyday language and gradually introduced more formal concepts with academic and technical language.</p> <p>Some tasks compared different explanations or arguments to raise students' <emph>awareness of the specificities of language</emph> (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref162">37</reflink>]; García, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref163">41</reflink>]). Furthermore, in mathematics classrooms, when two near concepts or two slightly varied sentence structures are compared and contrasted (e.g., Task 2 in Fig. 1), students become sensitized to the subtleties of language (Erath et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref164">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>The adaptation process was performed in close collaboration with in-service teachers and teacher trainers to ensure that all tasks were appropriate for students and could be implemented in real-life conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-14">Test instruments</hd> <p>The assessment was conducted in written form and consisted of six parts: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref165">1</reflink>) a test of conceptual and procedural fraction knowledge, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref166">2</reflink>) a test of German language proficiency, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref167">3</reflink>) a test of basic arithmetic competence, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref168">4</reflink>) a test of general cognitive abilities, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref169">5</reflink>) a mathematics anxiety rating scale, and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref170">6</reflink>) demographics (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and multilingual background).</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-15">Fraction knowledge</hd> <p>To assess fraction knowledge in both pretest and posttest, we used a validated test that measured conceptual and procedural fraction knowledge (Lenz et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref171">58</reflink>]; Table 1). The conceptual knowledge subscale contained three different task types: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref172">1</reflink>) verbalization of conceptual knowledge (e.g., writing explanations), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref173">2</reflink>) application of conceptual knowledge (e.g., number line tasks to assess the measurement aspect), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref174">3</reflink>) visualization of conceptual knowledge (e.g., to draw a visualization or shade a figure to match a given fraction in symbolic form). The subscale for procedural knowledge comprised two task types: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref175">1</reflink>) verbalization of procedural knowledge (e.g., writing instructions concerning a calculation procedure) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref176">2</reflink>) application of procedural knowledge (e.g., expanding and simplifying fractions or adding and subtracting fractions). These task types align with the basic fraction knowledge addressed in the intervention material (the concept of fractions, the equivalence of fractions, and the addition and subtraction of fractions).</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive Data and Comparability of the Intervention Groups and the Control Group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variables with M(SD)</p><p>or distribution (in %)</p></th><th align="left"><p>M_NOLING</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 87)</p></th><th align="left"><p>M_LING</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 79)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Control group</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 45)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Test for the significance of differences</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Pretest score fractions</p><p>(max. 50)</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.37 (9.17)</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.94 (9.91)</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.87 (8.97)</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>F</italic>(2) = 2.58,</p><p><italic>p</italic> = 0.08</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Posttest score fractions</p><p>(max. 50)</p></td><td align="left"><p>22.22 (10.08)</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.89 (11.28)</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.71 (9.40)</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>F</italic>(2) = 2.62,</p><p><italic>p</italic> = 0.08</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Learning gains</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.85 (5.48)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.95 (5.97)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.84 (5.08)</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>F</italic>(2) = <italic>14.48,</italic></p><p><italic>p</italic> < 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>German language proficiency</p><p>(max. 60)</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.32 (11.25)</p></td><td align="left"><p>34.61 (11.92)</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.13 (10.28)</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>F</italic>(2) = 2.17,</p><p><italic>p</italic> = 0.12</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Basic arithmetic competence</p><p>(max. 120)</p></td><td align="left"><p>80.77 (13.08)</p></td><td align="left"><p>82.37 (16.15)</p></td><td align="left"><p>81.98 (13.64)</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>F</italic>(2) = 0.27,</p><p><italic>p</italic> = 0.76</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General cognitive abilities</p><p>(max. 25)</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.48 (7.15)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.89 (6.89)</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.13 (6.36)</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>F</italic>(2) = 0.48,</p><p><italic>p</italic> = 0.62</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mathematics anxiety</p><p>(max. 4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.35 (0.61)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.18 (0.72)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.56 (0.69)</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>F</italic>(2) = 1.39</p><p><italic>p</italic> = 0.25</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender (girls)</p></td><td align="left"><p>43.7%</p></td><td align="left"><p>43.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>60.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>(2) = 3.94,</p><p><italic>p</italic> = 0.14</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Socioeconomic status (low/medium/high)</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.9%/40.7%/</p><p>38.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.0%/28.0%/</p><p>36.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>28.9%/21.1%/</p><p>37.8%</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>(4) = 5.20,</p><p><italic>p</italic> = 0.27</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Multilingual background</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>26.6%</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>(2) = 0.76,</p><p><italic>p</italic> = 0.68</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>n</emph> = number of students; <emph>M</emph> = mean value; <emph>SD</emph> = standard deviation</p> <p>The test instrument exists in two parallel versions with structurally identical items. We used one version in the pretest and the other in the posttest. For each of the two versions, we created two test booklets containing the same items but in a different order. The students were randomly assigned to one of the test booklets and worked at their own pace (approximately 30–45 min). The students' responses were scored dichotomously (0: incorrect, fragmentary, or missing; 1: correct). The internal consistency was excellent, with Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.92 for the pretest (50 items, <emph>N</emph> = 211) and <emph>α</emph> = 0.93 for the posttest (50 items, <emph>N</emph> = 211).</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-16">German language proficiency</hd> <p>German academic language proficiency was assessed in a time-saving but valid way using a C-Test, which is based on cloze texts (Grotjahn, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref177">44</reflink>]) and especially addresses skills related to reading and writing. Following previous studies (e.g., Pöhler & Prediger, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref178">81</reflink>]; Prediger & Neugebauer, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref179">86</reflink>]; Prediger & Wessel, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref180">89</reflink>]), we used a C-Test by Daller ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref181">31</reflink>]), which consisted of three texts in everyday and academic formal language (Cronbach's α = 0.76, three texts, <emph>N</emph> = 211).</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-17">Basic arithmetic competence</hd> <p>Before the intervention, basic arithmetic competence was measured with three subtests (addition, subtraction, and multiplication) of the standardized test "HRT 1–4" (Haffner et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref182">47</reflink>]) (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.80, 3 subtests, <emph>N</emph> = <emph>211</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-18">General cognitive abilities</hd> <p>General cognitive abilities were measured using the "Figural Analogies" subscale of "KFT 4–12 + R" (Heller & Perleth, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref183">50</reflink>]), a German version of the "Cognitive Abilities Test" (Thorndike & Hagen, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref184">115</reflink>]). This subscale consisted of 25 multiple-choice items requiring the accurate drawing of analogies to show an understanding of the relationships between the two presented figures and to transfer these to another pair of figures (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.88, <emph>N</emph> = 211).</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-19">Mathematics anxiety</hd> <p>Mathematics anxiety was measured using a scale from PISA 2012, comprising five items describing negative emotions in mathematical situations (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref185">75</reflink>]). The students had to indicate how they felt when they anticipated having to perform mathematical tasks, when they anticipated their performance in mathematics class, and when they were attempting to solve mathematics problems (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.80, <emph>N</emph> = 211) on a four-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree".</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-20">Demographics</hd> <p>Demographic data were collected using a self-report questionnaire. Socioeconomic status (SES), a relevant factor for achievement (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref186">74</reflink>]), was measured by the book-at-home index, an easy-to-use and reliable instrument. Previous research grouped the response categories into low, medium, and high SES (Prediger & Neugebauer, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref187">86</reflink>]; Prediger & Wessel, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref188">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>Multilingual background was operationalized by family language. If students reported speaking multiple family languages or a non-German family language with parents and/or siblings, they were classified as having a multilingual background.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-21">Data analysis</hd> <p>The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 28) was used for the data analysis. There were no missing data, as children who did not fully participate in the intervention were excluded from the data set.</p> <p>To answer RQ1 (learning gains in fraction knowledge), repeated measures of analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) were conducted to compare the mean values in the fraction knowledge of the pretest and the posttest. Group and time were the main factors in the ANOVA. Partial Eta squared was used as a measure of effect sizes.</p> <p>A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate how the intervention effects with and without additional language support depended on learners' proficiency in the language of instruction and mathematics anxiety (RQ2). The analysis included the two intervention groups but not the control group. According to Snow ([<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref189">108</reflink>]), learning gains in fraction knowledge were used as the dependent variable, operationalized as the difference between pretest and posttest scores. All variables were mean-centered and z-standardized for the regression analysis to establish meaningful zero points. The intercept can be interpreted as the learning gains of one child with average language ability in the condition coded as "0" (Aiken & West, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref190">4</reflink>]; Enders & Tofighi, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref191">36</reflink>]). In our study, the condition without additional language support was coded as "0," and the condition with additional linguistic support was coded as "1."</p> <p>Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine whether interaction terms significantly contributed to predicting learning gains in fraction knowledge. In the first step (Model 1), we analyzed the main effects of the two independent variables, treatment type (with or without additional language support) and German language proficiency, on learning gains in fraction knowledge (dependent variable). Additionally, we controlled for general cognitive abilities, basic arithmetic competence, and mathematics anxiety because we wanted to analyze the associations beyond these potential third variables. All variables were entered simultaneously. The second step (Model 2) added interaction terms (treatment × German language proficiency and treatment × mathematics anxiety). Finally, in the third step (Model 3), the triple interaction term (treatment × German language proficiency × mathematics anxiety) was entered.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-22">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177560351-23">Descriptive analysis</hd> <p>Table 1 shows the descriptive characteristics of the two intervention groups and the control group and the results of the variance tests (ANOVA for continuous variables and chi-square test for dichotomous variables). There were no significant differences between the two intervention groups and the control group in the pretest score for fraction knowledge, the control variables (German language proficiency, general cognitive abilities, basic arithmetic competence, and mathematics anxiety) or the distribution of gender, multilingual background, and SES (<emph>p</emph> > 0.05 for all variables). These results suggest that the three groups were comparable before the intervention and that there were no systematic differences.</p> <p>Table 2 shows the intercorrelations, Cronbach's alpha value means, and standard deviations of all variables. As expected, there was a strong correlation between basic arithmetic competence and fraction knowledge and moderate correlations between these mathematical competencies and German language proficiency. Moreover, in our sample, the moderate negative correlations related to mathematics anxiety show that anxiety is related to mathematics-related performance and linguistic competence.</p> <p>Table 2 Summary of Intercorrelations, Cronbach's Alpha, Means, and Standard Deviations</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>α</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Pretest score fractions (max. 50)</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.49</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. German language proficiency (max. 60)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.40***</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.76</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>32.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.38</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Basic arithmetic competence (max. 120)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.58***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.36***</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.80</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>81.63</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.37</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. General cognitive abilities (max. 25)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.45***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.29***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.38***</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.88</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Mathematics anxiety (max. 4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.31***</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.34***</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.16*</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.80</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.67</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. Learning gains</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.4**</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.14*</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.16*</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>—</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>5.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.94</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>All intercorrelations are Pearson correlations, significance level * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01; *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <emph>α</emph> = Cronbach's alpha, <emph>M</emph> = mean, <emph>SD</emph> = standard deviation</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-24">RQ 1: Learning gains in fraction knowledge</hd> <p>There was a main effect of time, suggesting that regardless of group, scores increased significantly from pretest to posttest (<emph>F</emph><subs>time</subs> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref192">1</reflink>, 211) = 168.97, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, η<sups>2</sups> = 0.45). No main effect of group was found (<emph>F</emph><subs>group</subs> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref193">2</reflink>, 211) = 1.576, <emph>p</emph> = 0.21). However, the interaction effect of time x group was significant (<emph>F</emph><subs>time × group</subs> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref194">2</reflink>, 211) = 14.48, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, η<sups>2</sups> = 0.12), suggesting that the learning gains differed to some extent among the three groups. Post hoc analyses with Tukey's HSD showed that both intervention groups had higher learning gains from the pretest to the posttest than the control group. The <emph>t</emph>-test estimates showed an increase in the test score of 11.65 from the pretest to the posttest (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001; <emph>d</emph> = –1.25) for the intervention group without additional language support and 10.35 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <emph>d</emph> = –1.17) for the intervention group with additional language support. The learning gains were both significant, with high effect sizes. The learning gains in the control group were not statistically significant (mean difference = 1.84; <emph>p</emph> = 0.24) (post hoc results in the appendix).</p> <p>Together, these results show that both materials effectively promoted fraction knowledge. The control group showed no significant change in the mean between the pretest and posttest, suggesting that the learning gains were due to the treatments and that the testing had no effect on learning.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-25">RQ 2: Differential effectiveness</hd> <p>RQ2 asks whether there were differential effects of the treatments with and without additional language support for students with different levels of proficiency in the language of instruction. Table 3 presents the results of the linear regression analyses. The requirements for regression analyses were met in all models (Model 1: main effects, Model 2: main effects and interaction effects, and Model 3: triple interaction). The range of the variance inflation factor values (1.04–2.49) confirmed that there was no multicollinearity between the predictor variables. No model has autocorrelation; the values of the Durbin-Watson statistic are 1.61 for Model 1, 1.64 for Model 2, and 1.64 for Model 3, which indicates the independence of the residuals. Furthermore, the data show the normality of errors and homoscedasticity.</p> <p>Table 3 Results of the Regression Analyses (Dependent Variable: Learning Gain in Fraction Knowledge)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model 1 (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.09)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model 2 (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.13)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model 3 (<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.13)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>β</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Std. Errors</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>β</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Std. Errors</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>β</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Std. Errors</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Treatment type</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>−0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.85</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.97</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>German language proficiency</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.48</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.61</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.61</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General cognitive abilities</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.09</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Basic arithmetic competence</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.94</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.89</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mathematics anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.34</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Treatment type × German language proficiency</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>−0.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Treatment type × mathematics anxiety</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>−0.25</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>−3.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.34</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Treatment type × German language proficiency × mathematics anxiety</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.24</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>β</emph> = standardized regression coefficients</p> <p>Fit values in terms of R<sups>2</sups> were weak to moderate (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref195">25</reflink>]). Model 1 shows that proficiency in the language of instruction and general cognitive abilities are significant predictors of learning gains. Treatment type, basic arithmetic competence, and mathematics anxiety do not significantly impact learning gains. In Model 2, interaction factors, including treatment type, basic arithmetic competence, general cognitive abilities, and mathematics anxiety, do not significantly impact the learning gains. However, Model 2 shows both a main effect of German language proficiency on learning gains in fraction knowledge and significant interaction effects between treatment type and German language proficiency, and between treatment type and mathematics anxiety. The significant R<sups>2</sups> change shows that including the interactions increases the explained variance. The two interaction terms explained an additional 4% of the variance in fraction learning gains. Finally, Model 3 shows no significant triple interaction among treatment type, German language proficiency, and mathematics anxiety, which indicates that mathematics anxiety does not mediate the effect of German language proficiency.</p> <p>The linear regression results provide evidence of the differential effectiveness of the treatment with and without additional language support. Specifically, they show that learning gains in fraction knowledge depend on German language proficiency in the treatment without additional language support. Concerning students' achievement on the posttest, students with higher levels of German language proficiency performed significantly better on the fraction knowledge test when using the material without additional language support. Students with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction performed significantly better on the fraction knowledge test when using the material with additional language support (Fig. 3). Furthermore, the statistically significant interaction between mathematics anxiety and treatment suggests that students with higher levels of mathematics anxiety gained significantly less from the material with additional language support (Fig. 4). The nonsignificant three-way interaction indicates that the effect of proficiency in the language of instruction and learning material was not mediated by mathematics anxiety.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Associations Between Learning Gains in Fraction Knowledge and Proficiency in the Language of Instruction in Both Treatment Groups</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Associations Between Learning Gains in Fraction Knowledge and Mathematics Anxiety in Both Treatment Groups</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-26">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177560351-27">Learning gains in fraction knowledge</hd> <p>Our study compared the effectiveness of two learning materials for fractions (with and without additional language support) in a controlled classroom setting using a quasi-experimental design. Both intervention groups achieved significant but comparable learning gains in fraction knowledge, whereas no significant learning gains were found in the control group. First, this confirms the quality of both intervention materials. Second, the results show that language-responsive learning material with additional language support can also be effective in a more heterogeneous group of students with varying levels of proficiency in the language of instruction. This finding extends previous research that has primarily focused on second language learners with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction.</p> <p>The effect sizes in our study were comparable to other studies in the field of language-responsive instruction on fractions conducted in Germany, for example, Prediger and Wessel ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref196">88</reflink>]) (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.13 and <emph>d</emph> = 1.22), Prediger and Wessel ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref197">89</reflink>]) (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.12 and <emph>d</emph> = 1.03), and Schüler-Meyer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref198">98</reflink>]) (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.09 and <emph>d</emph> = 0.9). This result is remarkable because, compared to these studies, our intervention was relatively concise (three lessons) and based only on self-learning material (macro-scaffolding). As such, the results indicate an effect on the material itself, so our research can provide some guidance for designing instructional materials, such as textbooks. Furthermore, the learning gains might be even higher when teachers support the learning process in a communicative way (micro-scaffolding). However, teachers must be professionally trained to accompany mathematics and language learning.</p> <p>Given that the present study was conducted under highly controlled conditions, it remains to be explored to what extent the effectiveness of language-responsive instruction with additional language support can manifest in ecologically valid learning situations. Therefore, further studies are needed to explore language-responsive instructional approaches under real-life conditions. Bridging the gap between controlled settings and practical contexts is crucial, as it is essential to consider the complexities of the real world to deepen our understanding of language-responsive learning.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-28">Differential effectiveness</hd> <p>By empirically demonstrating the differential effects of language-responsive learning materials in heterogeneous classes, the present study shows that interactions between aptitudes and treatments appear not only in laboratory settings but also in a more noisy field setting. This aspect addresses a research gap in ATI research, in which interactions have been demonstrated mainly in laboratory experiments (Blumenthal et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref199">17</reflink>]; Walter, [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref200">124</reflink>]). Moreover, we linked two research strands: research on ATI as a framework for research on individual differences in learning on the one hand, and research on language-responsive instruction on the other.</p> <p>Although both types of instruction (with and without language support) resulted in similar learning gains from the pretest to the posttest across the whole sample, the linear regression analysis revealed differential effects with regard to language proficiency and mathematics anxiety. Learners with lower proficiency in the language of instruction benefit more from learning materials with additional language support than from materials without language support. In comparison, learners with higher proficiency in the language of instruction benefit more from learning materials without language support than from materials with additional language support. Additional language support may hamper learners with higher levels of proficiency in the language of instruction. As the sentence modules were directly integrated into the tasks, learners could not ignore them. Therefore, learners with higher levels of proficiency in the language of instruction had to process them and match them with their existing knowledge, although they may not have needed them to solve the tasks. For these learners, additional language support may lead to unnecessary cognitive load. Yeung et al. ([<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref201">127</reflink>]) provided a silmilar explanation to their finding that integrating explanatory notes into a text improved the comprehension of learners with lower proficiency in the language of instruction, while it hampered the understanding of learners with higher proficiency in the language of instruction.</p> <p>Furthermore, learners with higher mathematics anxiety benefit more from the material without additional language support than material with additional language support. This finding highlights the important role of anxiety in the learning process, which previous research has not yet addressed in such detail. For example, previous research has focused on group-level correlations between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance (see the meta-studies by Ma, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref202">61</reflink>] and Hembree, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref203">51</reflink>]). This approach provided important information about the overall relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance but did not convey information about the underlying learning process. Our study shows that mathematics anxiety has a significant impact on learning gains, even in short-term interventions. This suggests that mathematics anxiety may moderate the effectiveness of different learning materials. The cognitive load theory can explain this ATI effect, as learners with limited working memory capacity may struggle to regulate their anxiety levels (Hofmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref204">53</reflink>]). Anxiety can also deplete their working memory resources (Ashcraft & Kirk, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref205">6</reflink>]; Mammarella et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref206">62</reflink>]; Suárez-Pellicioni et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref207">110</reflink>]). New stimuli can create uncertainty, particularly for anxious learners, so additional linguistic support may increase their cognitive load to a critical threshold. Following this assumption, newly designed learning materials may initially challenge anxious learners, so they need to be well-designed and require introduction and guidance. This explanation remains speculative because we did not assess the learners' cognitive load.</p> <p>Our study has implications for classroom practice. Considering the heterogeneity of students in typical classrooms (Nusser & Gehrer, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref208">73</reflink>]; Vock & Gronostaj, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref209">120</reflink>]), teachers face the challenge of providing adaptive instruction to accommodate varying cognitive and emotional prerequisites among students. In our study, we focused on two aspects of heterogeneity, namely proficiency in the language of instruction and mathematics anxiety, demonstrating ATI effects based on these factors. The findings indicate that the principle of 'more is better' does not always apply to additional language support, and that identical learning materials may not be suitable for all students. This highlights the importance of adaptive teaching, while also demonstrating the challenges of tailoring instruction to diverse learners, given the complex interactions among various factors. For example, based on our findings, the following question arises: What constitutes appropriate learning materials for students with lower levels of language proficiency who also experience mathematics anxiety? This question also pertains to the practical implementation of assigning learning materials to students. Such assignments must be tailored to specific content and grounded in empirical evidence. Additionally, it is challenging to simultaneously address and monitor the specific needs of multiple learners.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-29">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The research project was conducted within the HeLPS Research Group ("Heterogeneity: effective learning and professionalism in schools"), which was financed and ideally supported by the University of Education Freiburg. Furthermore, Deutsche Telekom Stiftung financially supported this project.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-30">Funding</hd> <p>Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The article processing charge was funded by the Baden‐Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Culture and the University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd in the funding programme Open Access Publishing. Additionally, this work was supported by Deutsche Telekom Stiftung.</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-31">Appendix</hd> <p>Results of the posthoc analyses.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Mean differences</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic><sub>Tukey</sub></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Treatment without linguistic support, pretest</p></td><td align="left"><p>treatment with linguistic support, pretest</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.57</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.665</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.556</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>control group, pretest</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.920</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.393</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>treatment without linguistic support, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.85</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.433</p></td><td align="left"><p> < 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>treatment with linguistic support, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.170</p></td><td align="left"><p> < 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>control group, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.34</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.932</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.042</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Treatment with linguistic support, pretest</p></td><td align="left"><p>control group, pretest</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.93</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.502</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.996</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>treatment without linguistic support, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.28</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.775</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.065</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>treatment with linguistic support, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.95</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.052</p></td><td align="left"><p> < 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>control group, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.77</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.497</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.667</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Control group, pretest</p></td><td align="left"><p>treatment without linguistic support, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.839</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.443</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>treatment with linguistic support, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.247</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.017</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>control group, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.214</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.236</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Treatment without linguistic support, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>treatment with linguistic support, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.729</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.514</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>control group, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>–1.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>–0.827</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.962</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Treatment with linguistic support, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>control group, posttest</p></td><td align="left"><p>–4.18</p></td><td align="left"><p>–2.252</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.218</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>p</emph> value adjusted for comparing a family of 15</p> <hd id="AN0177560351-32">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0177560351-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref62" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abedi, J, & Leon, S. (1999). Impact of student language background on content-based performance: Analyses of extant data. University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref48" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abedi J, Lord C. The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education. 2001; 14; 3: 219-234. 10.1207/S15324818AME1403_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref53" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Abedi J, Zhang Y, Rowe SE, Lee H. Examining effectiveness and validity of accommodations for English language learners in mathematics: An evidence-based computer accommodation decision system. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2020; 39; 4: 41-52. 10.1111/emip.12328</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref87" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. 1991; Sage Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref88" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ashcraft MH. Mathematics anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2002; 11; 5: 181-185. 10.1111/1467-8721.00196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref89" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ashcraft MH, Kirk EP. The relationships among working memory, mathematics anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2001; 130; 2: 224-237. 10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref114" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ashcraft MH, Krause JA. Working memory, math performance, and mathematics anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & RevIew. 2007; 14; 2: 243-248. 10.3758/BF03194059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref111" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Ashcraft MH, Moore AM. Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2009; 27; 3: 197-205. 10.1177/0734282908330580</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref98" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Ashlock RB. Error patterns in computation. 201010; Allyn & Bacon</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bailey, A.L. (Eds.) (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211404199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bailey, A. L, Butler, F. A, LaFramenta, C, & Ong, C. (2004). Towards the characterization of academic language in upper elementary science classrooms (CSE Report 621). University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barroso C, Ganley CM, McGraw AL, Geer EA, Hart SA, Daucourt MC. A meta-analysis of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. Psychological Bulletin. 2021; 147; 2: 134-168. 10.1037/bul0000307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barwell, R, Clarkson, P, Halai, A, Kazima, M, Moschkovich, J, Planas, N, Setati Phakeng, M, Valero, P, & Villavicencio Ubillús, M. (Eds.). (2016). Mathematics education and language diversity: The 21st ICMI Study. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14511-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Batchelor S, Torbeyns J, Verschaffel L. Affect and mathematics in young children: An introduction. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2019; 100: 201-209. 10.1007/s10649-018-9864-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benjamin A. Math in plain english: Literacy strategies for the mathematics classroom. 2011; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bermejo, V, Ester, P, & Morales, I. (2021). How the language of instruction influences mathematical thinking development in the first years of bilingual schoolers. Frontiers in Psychology,12, 533141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.533141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blumenthal Y, Kuhlmann K, Hartke BHasselhorn M, Schneider W, Trautwein U. Diagnostik und Prävention von Lernschwierigkeiten im Aptitude Treatment Interaction-(ATI-) und Response to Intervention-(RTI-)Ansatz [Diagnostic and prevention of learning difficulties following aptitude-treatment and response-to-intervention approach]. Lernverlaufsdiagnostik [Learning process diagnostics]. 2014; Hogrefe: 61-81</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Booth JL, Newton KJ. Fractions: Could they really be the gatekeeper's doorman?. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2012; 37; 4: 247-253. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braswell, J. S, Dion, G. S, Daane, M. C, & Jin, Y. (2005). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2003. (NCES 2005–451). U.S. Department of Education, Government Printing Office. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2003/2005451.pdf. Retrieved 8 April 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrnes JP, Wasik BA. Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural learning. Developmental Psychology. 1991; 27; 5: 777-786. 10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.777</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell AE, Adams V, Davis G. Cognitive demands and second-language learners: A framework for analyzing mathematical instructional contexts. Mathematical Thinking and Learning. 2007; 9: 3-30. 10.1080/10986060709336603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen O, Kalyuga S, Sweller J. The expertise reversal effect is a variant of the more general element interactivity effect. Educational Psychology Review. 2017; 29; 2: 393-405. 10.1007/s10648-016-9359-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho S, Yang J, Mandracchia M. Effects of M3 curriculum on mathematics and English proficiency achievement of mathematically promising English language learners. Journal of Advanced Academics. 2015; 26; 2: 112-142. 10.1177/1932202X15577205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coggins D, Kravin D, Coates GD, Carroll MD. English Language Learners in the Mathematics Classroom. 2007; Corwin Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corno L, Cronbach LJ, Kupermintz H, Lohman DF, Mandinach EB, Porteus AW, Talbert JE. Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. 2002; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Countryman J. Writing to learn mathematics. 1992; Heinemann</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cronbach LJ, Snow RE. Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. 1977; Irvington</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crooks NM, Alibali MW. Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental Review. 2014; 34; 4: 344-377. 10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual matters. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2001.10162800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daller H. Migration und Mehrsprachigkeit. 1999; Peter Lang</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dowker, A. (2005). Individual differences in arithmetical abilities: Implications for psychology. Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duval R. A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2006; 61; 1–2: 103-131. 10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eichelmann, A, Narciss, S, Schnaubert, L, & Melis, E. (2012). Typische Fehler bei der Addition und Subtraktion von Brüchen – Ein Review zu empirischen Fehleranalysen [Typical errors for fraction addition and subtraction – A review of empirical error analysis.]. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 33(1), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-011-0031-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellerton, N. F, & Clarkson, P. C. (1996). Language factors in mathematics teaching and learning. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 987–1033). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enders CK, Tofighi D. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods. 2007; 12; 2: 121-138. 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erath K, Ingram J, Moschkovich J, Prediger S. Designing and enacting instruction that enhances language for mathematics learning: A review of the state of development and research. ZDM – Mathematics Education. 2021; 53; 2: 245-262. 10.1007/s11858-020-01213-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erath K, Prediger S, Quasthoff U, Heller V. Discourse competence as an important part of academic language proficiency in mathematics classrooms: The case of explaining to learn and learning to explain. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2018; 99; 2: 161-179. 10.1007/s10649-018-9830-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foley AE, Herts JB, Borgonovi F, Guerriero S, Levine SC, Beilock SL. The math anxiety-performance link: A global phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2017; 26; 1: 52-58. 10.1177/0963721416672463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forman EAKilpatrick J, Martin WG, Schifter D. A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: Speaking, inscribing, and doing mathematics within communities of practice. A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics. 2003; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: 333-352</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García PN. Implementing concept-based instruction in the heritage language classroom: A pedagogical proposal. Euro American Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages. 2017; 4; 1: 1-19. 10.21283/2376905X.6.86</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geller EH, Son JY, Stigler JW. Conceptual explanations and understanding fraction comparisons. Learning and Instruction. 2017; 52: 122-129. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.05.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language. Scaffolding learning. Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grotjahn RGrotjahn R. Konstruktion und Einsatz von C-Tests. Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis [Design and use of C-tests. A guide for practical use]. Der C-Test. Theoretische Grundlagen und praktische Anwendungen [The C-test. Theoretical principles and practical applications]. 20024; AKS-Verlag: 211-225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haag N, Heppt B, Stanat P, Kuhl P, Pant HA. Second language learners' performance in mathematics: Disentangling the effects of academic language features. Learning and Instruction. 2013; 28: 24-34. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haapasalo L, Kadijevich D. Two types of mathematical knowledge and their relation. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik. 2000; 21; 2: 139-157. 10.1007/BF03338914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haffner J, Baro K, Parzer P, Resch F. Heidelberger Rechentest (HRT 1–4) [Heidelberg arithmetic test]. 2005; Hogrefe</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halme H, Trezise K, Hannula-Sormunen MM, McMullen J. Characterizing mathematics anxiety and its relation to performance in routine and adaptive tasks. Journal of Numerical Cognition. 2022; 8; 3: 414-429. 10.5964/jnc.7675</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinze A, Herwartz-Emden L, Reiss K. Mathematikkenntnisse und sprachliche Kompetenz bei Kindern mit Migrationshintergrund zu Beginn der Grundschulzeit [Mathematics and language skills of immigrant children at the beginning of primary school]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik. 2007; 53; 4: 562-581. 10.25656/01:4412</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller KA, Perleth C. KFT 4–12+ R Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen. Manual [Cognitive ability test for 4th to 12th grades. Manual]. 2000; Hogrefe</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hembree R. The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 1990; 21; 1: 33-46. 10.2307/749455</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, J, & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge. The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofmann SG, Smits JAJ, Asnaani A, Gutner CA, Otto MW. Cognitive enhancers for anxiety disorders. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 2011; 99; 2: 275-284. 10.1016/j.pbb.2010.11.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jansen BRJ, Louwerse J, Straatemeier M, Van der Ven SHG, Klinkenberg S, Van der Maas HLJ. The influence of experiencing success in math on mathematics anxiety perceived math competence, and math performance. Learning and Individual Differences. 2013; 24: 190-197. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalyuga S. Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive E-Learning environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review. 2007; 19: 387-399. 10.1007/s10648-007-9051-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalyuga, S, & Sweller, J. (2014). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 247–262). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilpatrick, J, Swafford, J, & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenz, K, Dreher, A, Holzäpfel, L, & Wittmann, G. (2020). Are conceptual and procedural knowledge empirically separable? – The case of fractions. British Journal of Educational Psychology,90(3), 809–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesh, R, Post, T, & Behswainr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem-solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33–40). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lortie-Forgues H, Tian J, Siegler RS. Why is learning fraction and decimal arithmetic so difficult?. Developmental Review. 2015; 38: 201-221. 10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma X. A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 1999; 30; 5: 520-540. 10.2307/749772</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mammarella IC, Hill F, Devine A, Caviola S, Szucs D. Mathematics anxiety and developmental dyscalculia: A study on working memory processes. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2015; 37; 8: 878-887. 10.1080/13803395.2015.1066759</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mielicki MK, Schiller LK, Fitzsimmons CJ, Scheibe D, Thompson CA. Perceptions of ease and difficulty, but not growth mindset, relate to specific math attitudes. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2021; 92; 2: 707-729. 10.1111/bjep.12472</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mielicki MK, Wilkey ED, Scheibe DA, Fitzsimmons CJ, Sidney PG, Bellon E, Ribner AD, Soltanlou M, Starling-Alves I, Coolen I, Ansari D, Thompson CA. Task features change the relation between math anxiety and number line estimation performance with rational numbers: Two large-scale online studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2023; 152; 7: 2094-2117. 10.1037/xge0001382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller H, Bichsel J. Anxiety, working memory, gender, and math performance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2004; 37; 3: 591-606. 10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg (2016). Gemeinsamer Bildungsplan für die Sekundarstufe I. Mathematik. [Ministry of Education Baden-Württemberg (2016). Curriculum for secondary level 1]. https://<ulink href="http://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/site/bildungsplan/get/documents/lsbw/export-pdf/depot-pdf/ALLG/BP2016BW%5fALLG%5fSEK1%5fM.pdf">www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/site/bildungsplan/get/documents/lsbw/export-pdf/depot-pdf/ALLG/BP2016BW%5fALLG%5fSEK1%5fM.pdf</ulink>. Retrieved 8 April 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morek, M, & Heller, V. (2012). Bildungssprache – Kommunikative, epistemische, soziale und interaktive Aspekte ihres Gebrauchs [Academic language – communicative, epistemic, social and interactive aspects of its use]. Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik,57(1), 67–101. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2012-0011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moschkovich J. A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning. 2002; 4; 2: 189-212. 10.1207/S15327833MTL04023_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moschkovich J. Academic literacy in mathematics for English learners. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 2015; 40; A: 43-62. 10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.01.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2017). Academic performance and outcomes for English learners: Performance on national assessments and on-time graduation rates. U.S. Department of Education. https://www..ed.gov/datastory/el-outcomes/index.html. Retrieved 8 April 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ni Y, Zhou Y. Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist. 2005; 40; 1: 27-52. 10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ní Ríordáin M, O'Donoghue J. The relationship between performance on mathematical word problems and language proficiency for students learning through the medium of Irish. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2009; 71: 43-64. 10.1007/s10649-008-9158-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nusser L, Gehrer K. Addressing heterogeneity in secondary education: Who benefits from differentiated instruction in German classes?. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2020. 10.1080/13603116.2020.1862407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD (2007). PISA 2006. Science competencies for tomorrow's world (Vol. 2). DIPF Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264040151-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD (2012). PISA. Programme for Institutional Student Assessment.https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/database-cbapisa2012.htm">www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/database-cbapisa2012.htm</ulink>. Retrieved 8 April 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oller JW Jr. Expectancy for successive elements: Key ingredient to language use. Foreign Language Annals. 1974; 7; 4: 443-452. 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1974.tb01503.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Padberg, F, & Wartha, S. (2023). Didaktik der Bruchrechnung. Gemeine Brüche – Dezimalbrüche [Didactics of fractions. Common fractions – decimal fractions]. Springer Spektrum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52969-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paetsch J, Radmann S, Felbrich A, Lehmann R, Stanat P. Sprachkompetenz als Prädiktor mathematischer Kompetenzentwicklung von Kindern deutscher und nicht-deutscher Familiensprache. [Language proficiency as a predictor of mathematical development in monolingual and multilingual children.]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und pädagogische Psychologie. 2016; 48; 1: 27-41. 10.1026/0049-8637/a000142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pimm D. Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. 1987; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pöhler B, George A-C, Prediger S, Weinert H. Are word problems really more difficult for students with low language proficiency? Investigating percent items in different formats and types. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education. 2017; 12; 3: 667-687. 10.29333/iejme/641</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pöhler B, Prediger S. Intertwining lexical and conceptual learning trajectories – A design research study on dual macro-scaffolding towards percentages. Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 2015; 11; 6: 1697-1722. 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1497a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pöhler, B, Prediger, S, & Neugebauer, P. (2017b). Content- and language-integrated learning: A field experiment for the topic of percentages. In Kaur, B, Ho, W. K, Toh, T. L, & Choy, B. H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 73–80. Singapore: PME.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger, S. (2022). Enhancing language for developing conceptual understanding: A research journey connecting different research approaches. In Hodgen, J, Geraniou, E, Bolondi, G, & Ferretti, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 12, Online-Conference from Bolzano, Italy, February 2022 (Plenary paper after Keynote). https://<ulink href="http://www.ld.mathematik.tu-dortmund.de/~prediger/veroeff/22-CERME-Plenary-Language-Prediger-Webversion.pdf">www.ld.mathematik.tu-dortmund.de/~prediger/veroeff/22-CERME-Plenary-Language-Prediger-Webversion.pdf</ulink>. Retrieved 8 April 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger, S, Clarkson, P, & Bose, A. (2016). Purposefully relating multilingual registers: building theory and teaching strategies for bilingual learners based on an integration of three traditions. In Barwell, R, Clarkson, P, Halai, A, Kazima, M, Moschkovich, J, Planas, N, Setati-Phakeng, M, Valero, P, & Villavicencio Ubillús, M. (Eds.), Mathematics education and language diversity (pp. 193–215). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger, S, & Hußmann, S. (Eds.). (2014). Mathe sicher können [Be confident in math]. Cornelsen.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger S, Neugebauer P. Can students with different language backgrounds profit equally from a language-responsive instructional approach for percentages? Differential effectiveness in a field trial. Mathematical Thinking and Learning. 2021; 25; 1: 2-22. 10.1080/10986065.2021.1919817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger, S. & Wessel, L. (2011). Relating registers for fractions – Multilingual learners on their way to conceptual understanding. In Setati, M, Nkambule, T. & Goosen, L. (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the ICMI Study 21 – Mathematics and Language Diversity (pp. 324–333). Brazil.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger S, Wessel L. Fostering German-language learners' constructions of meanings for fractions – Design and effects of a language- and mathematics-integrated intervention. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 2013; 25; 3: 435-456. 10.1007/s13394-013-0079-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger S, Wessel L. Brauchen mehrsprachige Jugendliche eine andere fach- und sprachintegrierte Förderung als einsprachige? [Do multilingual learners need different subject and language integrated support than monolingual learners?]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft. 2018; 21; 2: 361-382. 10.1007/s11618-017-0785-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger S, Wilhelm N, Büchter A, Gürsoy E, Benholz C. Language proficiency and mathematics achievement – Empirical study of language-induced obstacles in a high stakes test, the central exam ZP10. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik. 2018; 39; 2: 1-26. 10.1007/s13138-018-0126-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger, S, Uribe, À, & Kuzu, T. (2019). Disentangling students' personal repertoires for meaning-making. The case of newly arrived emergent multilingual students. In Jankvist, U. T, van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M, & Veldhuis, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1746–1753). Freudenthal Group & ERME.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prediger, S, & Zindel, C. (2017). School academic language demands for understanding Functional relationships – A design research project on the role of language in reading and learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education,13(7b), 4157–4188. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00804a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pugalee DK. A comparison of verbal and written descriptions of students' problem solving processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2004; 55; 1: 27-47. 10.1023/B:EDUC.0000017666.11367.c7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purnomo YW, Pasri A, Aziz TA, Shahrill M, Prananto IW. Students' failure to understand fraction multiplication as a part of the quantity. Journal on Mathematics Education. 2022; 13; 4: 681-702. 10.22342/jme.v13i4.pp681-702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramirez G, Gunderson EA, Levine SC, Beilock SL. Mathematics anxiety, working memory, and math achievement in early elementary school. Journal of Cognition Development. 2013; 14; 2: 187-202. 10.1080/15248372.2012.664593</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner V, Pitsolantis N, Osana H. Mathematics anxiety in preservice teachers: Its relationship to their conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 2009; 21: 60-85. 10.1007/BF03217553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinhold, F, Obersteiner, A, Hoch, S, Hofer, S. I, & Reiss, K. (2020). The interplay between the natural number bias and fraction magnitude processing in low-achieving students. Frontiers in Education, 5, (Article 29). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schüler-Meyer A, Prediger S, Kuzu T, Wessel L, Redder A. Is formal language proficiency in the home language required to profit from a bilingual teaching intervention in mathematics? A mixed methods study on fostering multilingual students' conceptual understanding. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2019; 17: 317-339. 10.1007/s10763-017-9857-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Secada WGGrouws DA. Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in mathematics. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. 1992; MacMillan: 623-660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setati M. Teaching Mathematics in a Primary Multilingual Classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2005; 36; 5: 447-466. 10.2307/30034945</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setati M, Adler J. Between languages and discourses: Language practices in primary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2001; 43; 3: 243-269. 10.1023/A:1011996002062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sidney PG, Thalluri R, Buerke ML, Thompson CA. Who uses more strategies? Linking mathematics anxiety to adults' strategy variability and performance on fraction magnitude tasks. Thinking & Reasoning. 2018; 25; 1: 94-131. 10.1080/13546783.2018.1475303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sidney PG, Thompson CA, Fitzsimmons CJ, Taber JM. Children's and adults' math attitudes are differentiated by number type. The Journal of Experimental Education. 2021; 89; 1: 1-32. 10.1080/00220973.2019.1653815</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegler RS, Lortie-Forgues H. Conceptual knowledge of fraction arithmetic. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2015; 107; 3: 909-918. 10.1037/edu0000025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegler RS, Pyke AA. Developmental and individual differences in understanding of fractions. Developmental Psychology. 2013; 49; 10: 1994-2004. 10.1037/a0031200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegler RS, Thompson CA, Schneider M. An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology. 2011; 62; 4: 273-296. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smit J, van Eerde D. What counts as evidence for the long-term realisation of whole-class scaffolding?. Learning Culture and Social Interaction. 2013; 2; 1: 22-31. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow RE. Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1991; 59; 2: 205-216. 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Starling-Alves I, Wronski MR, Hubbard EM. Math anxiety differentially impairs symbolic, but not nonsymbolic, fraction skills across development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2022; 1509; 1: 113-129. 10.1111/nyas.14715</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suárez-Pellicioni M, Núñez-Peña MI, Colomé À. Mathematics anxiety: A review of its cognitive consequences, psychophysiological correlates, and brain bases. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2016; 16; 1: 3-22. 10.3758/s13415-015-0370-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G, & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science. 1988; 12; 2: 257-285. 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller, J, Ayres, P, & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory in perspective. In J. Sweller, P. L. Ayres, S. Kalyuga (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 237–242). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takeuchi M. The situated multiliteracies approach to classroom participation: English language learners' participation in classroom mathematics practices. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. 2015; 14; 3: 159-178. 10.1080/15348458.2015.1041341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorndike RL, Hagen EP. Cognitive abilities test. 1971; Houghton-Mifflin</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torbeyns J, Schneider M, Xin Z, Siegler RS. Bridging the gap: Fraction understanding is central to mathematics achievement in students from three different continents. Learning and Instruction. 2015; 37: 5-13. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ufer S, Bochnik K. The role of general and subject-specific language skills when learning mathematics in elementary school. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik. 2020; 41: 81-117. 10.1007/s13138-020-00160-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ufer S, Reiss K, Mehringer VBecker-Mrotzek M, Schramm K, Thürmann E, Vollmer HJ. Sprachstand, soziale Herkunft und Bilingualität: Effekte auf Facetten mathematischer Kompetenz [Language proficiency, social background, and bilingualism: implications for aspects of mathematics literacy]. Sprache im Fach [Language in school subjects]. 2013; Waxmann: 185-201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vamvakoussi X, van Dooren W, Verschaffel L. Naturally biased? In search for reaction time evidence for a natural number bias in adults. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 2012; 31; 3: 344-355. 10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vock M, Gronostaj A. Umgang mit Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht. [Managing heterogeneity in schools and classrooms]. 2017; Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vollmer, H. J, & Sang, F. (1983). Completing hypotheses about second language ability: a plea for caution. In Oller, J. W. Jr, (Ed.), Issues in Language Testing Research (pp. 29–79). Newbury House Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vukovic RK, Kieffer MJ, Bailey SP, Harari RR. Mathematics anxiety in young children: Concurrent and longitudinal associations with mathematical performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2013; 38; 1: 1-10. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, J, Kuzu, T, Redder, A, & Prediger, S. (2018). Vernetzung von Sprachen und Darstellungen in einer mehrsprachigen Matheförderung – linguistische und mathematikdidaktische Fallanalysen [Connecting Language and Representation in Multilingual Mathematics Instruction-linguistic and mathematical-educational case analyses]. Fachsprache – International Journal of Specialized Communication, 40(1–2), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.24989/fs.v40i1-2.1600</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walter, J. (2008). Adaptiver Unterricht erneut betrachtet: Über die Notwendigkeit systematischer formativer Evaluation von Lehr- und Lernprozessen und die daraus resultierende Diagnostik und Neudefinition von Lernstörungen nach dem RTI-Paradigma [Adaptive teaching revisited: On the need for systematic formative evaluation of teaching and learning processes and the resulting diagnosis and redefinition of learning disorders according to the RTI paradigm]. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik,59(6), 202–215.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wessel, L, Prediger, S, & Kuzu, T. (2018). Brüche verstehen und vergleichen. Sprach- und fachintegriertes Fördermaterial [Understanding and comparing fractions. Material for Content and Language Integrated Learning]. https://sima.dzlm.de/unterricht/unterrichtsmaterialien-sekundarstufe. Retrieved 8 April 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wessel, L, Prediger, S, Stein, A, Wijers, M, & Jonker, V. (2020). Language for mathematics in vocational contexts. Handbook for teachers and facilitators. DZLM. OER. https://<ulink href="http://www.bra.nrw.de/system/files/media/document/file/io3-handbook-pd-en.docx">www.bra.nrw.de/system/files/media/document/file/io3-handbook-pd-en.docx</ulink>. Retrieved 8 April 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeung AS, Jin P, Sweller J. Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1998; 23; 1: 1-21. 10.1006/ceps.1997.0951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zan R, Brown L, Evans J, Hannula MS. Affect in mathematics education: An introduction. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2006; 63: 113-121. 10.1007/s10649-006-9028-2</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0177560351-34"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> https://mathe-sicher-koennen.dzlm.de/material/inhalte-der-diagnose-und-f%C3%B6rderbausteine/online-material-zum-inhaltsbereich-br%C3%BCche-prozente https://sima.dzlm.de/sites/simams/files/uploads/sima6-brueche_ue_langfassung_deutsch-190313.pdf</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Katja Lenz; Andreas Obersteiner and Gerald Wittmann</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref202"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref203"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref204"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1426273
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Who Benefits Most from Language-Responsive Learning Materials in Mathematics? Investigating Differential Effects in Heterogeneous Classrooms
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katja+Lenz%22">Katja Lenz</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8018-3155">0000-0002-8018-3155</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andreas+Obersteiner%22">Andreas Obersteiner</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7945-5678">0000-0002-7945-5678</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gerald+Wittmann%22">Gerald Wittmann</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2094-0908">0000-0003-2094-0908</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Studies+in+Mathematics%22"><i>Educational Studies in Mathematics</i></searchLink>. 2024 116(2):185-211.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+of+Instruction%22">Language of Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multilingual+Materials%22">Multilingual Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Mathematics%22">Middle School Mathematics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Instruction%22">Mathematics Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Materials%22">Instructional Materials</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10649-024-10321-9
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0013-1954<br />1573-0816
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Students' proficiency in the language of instruction is essential for their mathematical learning. Accordingly, language-responsive instruction, which includes adapting teaching material to students' language needs, is thought to promote mathematical learning, particularly for students with lower levels of proficiency in the language of instruction. However, empirical evidence for the effectiveness of this type of instruction in heterogeneous classrooms is scarce, and potential differential effects for learners with different learning prerequisites still need to be studied. The present study examines whether language-responsive instructional materials can promote students' learning of fractions. We conducted a quasi-experimental intervention study with a pre- and posttest in Grade 7 (N = 211). The students were assigned to one of three instructional conditions: fraction instruction with or without additional language support or to a control group. The results showed that both intervention groups had higher learning gains than the control group. However, students with lower proficiency in the language of instruction benefited more from fraction instruction with additional language support than without it. The opposite was true for students with higher proficiency in the language of instruction. Moreover, learning gains depended on students' levels of mathematics anxiety. Our study contributes to a more detailed understanding of the effectiveness of language-responsive instruction in heterogeneous classrooms.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1426273
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1426273
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10649-024-10321-9
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 185
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Language of Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multilingual Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Mathematics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 7
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Materials
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Who Benefits Most from Language-Responsive Learning Materials in Mathematics? Investigating Differential Effects in Heterogeneous Classrooms
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katja Lenz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andreas Obersteiner
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gerald Wittmann
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0013-1954
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-0816
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 116
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Studies in Mathematics
              Type: main
ResultId 1