{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026825633383010434, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005961251862891207, 'mean_word_length': 6.220430107526882, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How do professional development programs on comparing solution methods and classroom discourse affect students’ achievement in mathematics? The mediating role of students’ subject matter justifications

Comparing solution methods can foster strategic flexibility in equation solving. Productive classroom discourse orchestrated by teachers can improve students’ justifications during classroom discussions and student achievement. Do students’ subject matter justifications during classroom discourse mediate the effect of teachers’ professional development programs (PDs) focused on comparing and productive classroom discourse on students’ mathematics achievement? We investigated whether two PDs (i.e., comparing or comparing + productive classroom discourse) compared to a control group increased the number of student justifications, and whether this affected mathematics achievement (i.e., strategic flexibility, procedural knowledge, and conceptual knowledge). The study (N = 739 9th and 10th grade students in 39 classes) had an experimental pre-post control group design. The results of our multilevel path models showed significant mediation effects in the comparing + productive classroom discourse group on procedural and conceptual knowledge, but not strategic flexibility. No mediation effects were found in the comparing group.