The Linguistic Blueprint of Mathematical Thought: An Analysis of How ELA-Related Vocabulary Deficits Impede Conceptual Understanding and Problem Solving
I. The Foundational Link: The Co-Development of Reading and Mathematical Competence
I.A. Establishing the Correlational Bedrock
The premise that mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) are distinct, isolated academic domains is a persistent misconception. An extensive body of educational research establishes a contrary and foundational truth: a student's proficiency in language is a powerful and statistically significant predictor of their achievement in mathematics.1 This relationship is not ancillary; it is central to understanding mathematical performance.
Research analyses consistently identify English proficiency as an "essential predictor of mathematics performance".2 This positive correlation is so robustly established that statistical models examining mathematics achievement frequently use ELA scores as a necessary covariate to control for its known influence.3 This linkage is documented across diverse student populations and educational contexts. Studies affirm that "good English skills are needed for understanding mathematics and better achievement," while, conversely, "low proficiency in English results in lower achievement in mathematics".3 This evidence forms the bedrock of any inquiry into math-related deficits: language skills and mathematical outcomes are inextricably linked.4
I.B. Beyond Correlation: The Unidirectional "Reading-to-Math" Developmental Pathway
While the static, positive correlation is well-established, it significantly underrepresents the depth of the relationship. The connection between language and mathematics is not merely correlational; it is directional, dynamic, and developmental. To "elucidate the reading-math dynamics," advanced methodological approaches such as Bivariate Latent Change Score models have been employed.5 These models move beyond a simple correlation to examine "coupling effects," or the degree to which "development in one construct influences subsequent development in the other construct".5
The findings from this longitudinal research are profound and reshape the understanding of the ELA-math connection. In academically at-risk elementary students, this advanced modeling reveals a unidirectional longitudinal coupling effect from reading to math.5 This means that a student's reading performance in one grade is associated with subsequent changes in the growth rate of their mathematical skills in the next grade. Critically, the reverse was not found to be true; math performance did not predict subsequent changes in reading growth.5
This developmental asymmetry is a crucial finding. High levels of reading performance "pave the way for children to develop their math skills," with strong readers demonstrating accelerated gains in math. Conversely, low levels of reading performance dampen or suppress subsequent math growth.5 This reframes the entire problem: an ELA deficit is not merely a parallel academic challenge. It is a foundational barrier that actively inhibits the future development of mathematical competence. This aligns with linguistic and cognitive "bootstrapping" theories, which posit that language skills are a prerequisite for forming abstract number concepts.5
I.C. Pinpointing the Deficit: Conceptual Application vs. Rote Computation
This developmental linkage must be further refined to identify what kind of mathematical skill is dependent on language. Longitudinal studies provide a critical distinction.6 When researchers tracked students over time, they found that early reading comprehension had its largest and most significant effects on higher-order mathematical tasks: "Problem Solving and Data Interpretation" and "Mathematical Concepts and Estimation".6
In stark contrast, the same study found that early reading comprehension had negligible effects on "Mathematical Computation".6 This finding isolates the nature of the deficit with precision. An ELA-related vocabulary deficit does not primarily hinder a student's ability to perform a rote, algorithmic calculation (e.g., executing $135 - 78$). Instead, it hinders their ability to understand what needs to be done, why it needs to be done, and how to apply a conceptual model to a novel problem.
The deficit lies squarely in the domains of conceptual understanding and application. Language, it appears, is the vehicle for conceptualization. This explains the common educational paradox of the student who can flawlessly complete a worksheet of arithmetic algorithms but is rendered inert by a word problem, which demands linguistic comprehension, translation, and strategic application.7
II. The "Hidden" Hurdle: General Academic (Tier 2) Vocabulary Deficits
II.A. Defining the Tiers: The Academic Language Framework
To systematically diagnose the impact of ELA-related vocabulary, it is essential to disaggregate the term "vocabulary" into a functional framework. The three-tier framework for vocabulary provides this necessary clarity, categorizing words not by their difficulty, but by their utility and domain-specificity.8
Tier 1: These are basic, high-frequency words of everyday conversation, such as 'friend', 'speak', or 'bright'. These are typically not a source of academic difficulty.8
Tier 2: These are general academic, high-utility words that appear across a wide range of academic subjects but are not specific to any single one. Examples include 'analyze', 'dynamic', 'evidence', 'compare', and 'contrast'.8 They are the "language of school" and are central to academic discourse and text.
Tier 3: These are low-frequency, domain-specific, technical words. Their meaning is essential for conceptual understanding within a specific discipline. In mathematics, this includes terms like 'circumference', 'integer', 'coefficient', and 'numerator'.8
This report will now analyze the distinct, but equally damaging, roles of Tier 2 and Tier 3 vocabulary deficits, as requested by the user query.
II.B. Table 1: The Three-Tier Framework for Mathematical Vocabulary
The following table operationalizes the three-tier framework within the context of mathematics education, providing concrete examples drawn from the research. This distinction is critical for targeting assessment and instruction.
II.C. Tier 2 Vocabulary as a Source of Assessment Invalidity: Differential Item Functioning (DIF)
The primary mechanism by which Tier 2 vocabulary deficits hinder performance is by creating assessment invalidity. Research on the linguistic properties of mathematics assessments has found that general academic vocabulary is a significant source of Differential Item Functioning (DIF).12 DIF occurs when an test item is shown to be more difficult for one group of students (e.g., English Language Learners) than for another, even when both groups have the same underlying level of mathematical ability.
This indicates the test item is not measuring what it purports to measure (mathematics). It is, instead, invalidly measuring a secondary, confounding trait: knowledge of general academic language.
The most revealing finding from this research is that Tier 2 words like 'substantial' or 'based on' were more likely to cause DIF on items that required "relatively easy content knowledge".12 This fact is analytically crucial. When a student fails a mathematically easy problem that contains a linguistically complex Tier 2 word, it strongly isolates the language as the point of failure. The student likely knew the mathematics but was blocked from demonstrating it by a word they did not understand. The assessment, therefore, produces a false-negative result, diagnosing a math deficit where the true deficit is in academic language. This has profound, negative implications for student placement, remediation, and educational pathways.
II.D. The Pedagogical Blind Spot: Why "Assumed" Words Hinder Comprehension
The persistence of this problem stems from a "pedagogical blind spot." Research suggests that in content-area instruction, teachers often provide explicit, direct instruction on technical Tier 3 vocabulary (e.g., 'denominator', 'equation').17 However, these same teachers often lack the opportunity or awareness to teach general academic Tier 2 words (e.g., 'based on', 'represent').12
These Tier 2 words are treated as "assumed knowledge".18 A mathematics instructor, for instance, may not perceive the word 'represent' or 'following' as "math vocabulary" and thus, logically, does not include it in their vocabulary instruction. These words fall into a pedagogical "no-man's-land"—not technical enough to be taught by the math department, yet not used in the same context by the ELA department.
Because of this "invisibility," Tier 2 words are a hidden barrier. Students—particularly English Language Learners, but also many native speakers—are left to decipher the "language of school" on their own.18 When they fail to do so, their failure is misattributed to a lack of mathematical content knowledge, and the true root cause remains unaddressed. A comprehensive mathematics-vocabulary intervention plan, therefore, must explicitly include the teaching of these general academic terms in a mathematical context.
III. The Conceptual Core: How Specific Mathematical (Tier 3) Terminology Defines Understanding
III.A. Defining the Domain: Tier 3 as the Language of Mathematical Concepts
While Tier 2 words create barriers to accessing the problem, Tier 3 words—the specific, technical terms of the discipline—are the "building blocks" of mathematical concepts themselves.14 This includes the words from the user's query ('sum', 'factor', 'variable') as well as terms like 'integer' 10, 'coefficient' 10, and 'numerator'.11
These words are not merely labels for pre-existing ideas; they are the linguistic structures that give the concepts form and precision. The goal of instruction is to help students "build precise definitions for math terms" 11 because these definitions are the concepts. Research demonstrates a direct, positive correlation between a teacher's use of precise mathematical vocabulary and their students' subsequent achievement.19 Unsurprisingly, explicit instruction designed to help students "communicate their understanding" by incorporating mathematical vocabulary is a highly effective pedagogical strategy.20
III.B. The Vocabulary-Concept Link: Why Deficits in Tier 3 Terms Are Conceptual Misunderstandings
A deficit in Tier 3 vocabulary is not a symptom of a mathematical misunderstanding; it is the misunderstanding. When educators conduct an "error analysis"—a diagnostic process of reviewing student work to identify patterns of errors—they find that many consistent errors are not "careless." They are the direct result of "conceptual misunderstandings" or "skill deficits".21
Research from the IRIS Center explicitly links these conceptual misunderstandings to "poor vocabulary knowledge".21
A student who does not understand the meaning of the terms 'difference', 'factor', or 'denominator' is, by definition, lacking the conceptual understanding of subtraction, multiplication, or fractions. This vocabulary deficit leads directly to an inability to "translate the information in the word problem into a mathematical equation".21 For example, a student who does not know that 'difference' maps to the concept and procedure of subtraction cannot possibly solve the problem, even if their computational skills are perfect.
This is also seen in other "common student misconceptions." For instance, when a student claims "The value of 4 in 1,427 is 4" 13, they are demonstrating a linguistic failure to distinguish between the symbol (the digit '4') and the concept it represents (the 'value' of 400). A student's inability to define, use, or identify a Tier 3 word is a direct, reliable diagnostic indicator of a core conceptual gap.
III.C. The Language of Reasoning: How Vocabulary Deficits Inhibit Mathematical Discourse
Mathematics is not a solitary, silent activity. Modern pedagogical research emphasizes that learning and "deepen[ing] understanding" occur through "verbal discourse," a structured process of discussion, questioning, and "explaining mathematical thinking".22 This social, linguistic process is where conceptual understanding is built, tested, and refined.
Tier 3 vocabulary is the non-negotiable currency of this discourse. Effective instruction requires teachers to "incorporate mathematical vocabulary and language to help students communicate their understanding" 20, and it requires students, in turn, to use this precise language to "discuss different problem-solving strategies, explaining their reasoning and justifying their preferred method".13
A student who lacks the Tier 3 vocabulary (e.g., 'variable', 'sum', 'factor') is effectively rendered mute in this academic conversation. They are unable to formulate a precise question, articulate a hypothesis, or "communicate their problem-solving processes".20 This blocks them from participating in the very "verbal discourse strategies" 22 that are proven to build conceptual mastery. The vocabulary deficit thus becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of exclusion from learning.
IV. A Deeper Diagnosis: Lexical Ambiguity as the Root of Mathematical Misconception
IV.A. The Polysemy Problem: When "Knowing" a Word Leads to Misunderstanding
The analysis thus far has focused on unknown Tier 2 words and poorly understood Tier 3 words. However, the most pernicious linguistic barrier is often a third category: polysemous words. These are words that have a common, everyday meaning that is in direct conflict with their precise, technical meaning in mathematics. This "lexical ambiguity" is a primary and "robust" source of student misconception.23
This problem is more dangerous than simple unfamiliarity. A student who does not know the word 'integer' has a missing concept; they are a blank slate, ready for instruction. A student who misinterprets the word 'random' based on its colloquial meaning has an incorrect concept that must be actively un-learned before the correct one can be built.
These students are often highly confident in their error because they "know" the word. The brain, upon encountering the word "random" in a math problem, retrieves the dominant, pre-existing, colloquial definition (e.g., "haphazard, strange, or unusual" 23). This incorrect definition blocks the acquisition of the new, technical definition (a process governed by a known probability distribution). This cognitive interference explains why certain mathematical misconceptions are so "sticky" and notoriously resistant to instruction. The instructional challenge is not merely to add a new definition but to override a pre-existing, dominant one.
IV.B. Table 2: Analysis of Lexical Ambiguity in Tier 3 Mathematical Terminology
The following table provides a domain-specific analysis of high-impact polysemous terms. It details how a pre-existing ELA understanding (the colloquial meaning) directly generates a specific, common mathematical misconception.
IV.C. Case Study (Algebra): The 'Variable' as a "Label"
Algebra is the "building block" of higher mathematics 14, and the concept of the 'variable' is its foundation. It is also a prime example of polysemy. Students enter algebra classrooms with a colloquial definition of "variable" as "something that changes." This weak definition, combined with early, non-standard uses (e.g., "$\text{s} + 2 = 5$"), leads to a profound misconception: that the letter is a label for an object or a placeholder for a single unknown, rather than a "generalized number" that can represent a range of quantities.14
This misconception manifests in critical errors. Research shows students misinterpreting '$3s$' as "3 shirts" instead of "3 times the price (s) of one shirt".14 In this error, the student is treating '$s$' as a label for "shirt," not as a quantity representing its price. This single linguistic misunderstanding makes the translation of word problems into algebraic equations—the fundamental skill of algebra—impossible.26
IV.D. Case Study (Statistics): The 'Random' and 'Average' Fallacies
The domain of statistics is perhaps the most compromised by lexical ambiguity.23 The colloquial meaning of the word 'random' as "haphazard, spontaneous, or strange" 23 is the conceptual antithesis of its statistical meaning. A statistical "random sample" is not haphazard; it is the product of a rigorous, deliberate process where every outcome has a precise, known probability. A student who holds the colloquial definition is conceptually locked out of the entire field of probability and statistical inference.
Similarly, the word 'average' is colloquially understood as "typical" or "normal".23 This leads students to conflate the concept of "average" (a measure of central tendency) with the "normal distribution" (a specific theoretical model). This hinders their ability to understand that a distribution can have an average (a mean) without being "normal".23 Students may be able to calculate a mean (as noted in 27, they can "add-um-up and divide"), but they cannot describe what "average" means conceptually, a failure of literacy that reveals a deep conceptual void.
IV.E. Case Study (Geometry): The 'Similar' Misinterpretation and the Linguistic Demands of 'Proof'
In geometry, polysemy creates errors of intuition. The term 'similar' has a common meaning of "somewhat alike".24 This leads students to rely on visual intuition, identifying two shapes as "similar" because they look alike. The precise geometrical definition—requiring the same shape, with all corresponding angles equal and all corresponding sides in exact proportion—is lost. The linguistic ambiguity encourages a weak, non-mathematical standard of proof.
Furthermore, geometry introduces a unique text genre: the 'proof'. "Reading comprehension of geometry proof (RCGP)" is a distinct, high-level linguistic skill.24 A proof is a complex text that requires the reader to do more than just understand the words; they must identify the "logical status of statements and the critical ideas".24 This is a pure ELA challenge (reading comprehension of an argumentative text) that is a prerequisite for success in formal geometry.
IV.F. The 'Outlier' Example: When a Single Word Invalidates a Correct Procedure
A powerful example from the research illustrates how these vocabulary deficits interact to cause catastrophic failure, even when procedural knowledge is strong.15 In a study, students were asked to find the 'mean' of a data set that included an 'outlier'.
The researchers noted a devastating finding: students "were still confident in their answer because they understood the mathematical definition of the word mean and they were able to correctly explain all the steps to find the mean...".15 However, they still got the problem wrong. Why? "That one word, outlier, changes everything. If students did not identify that word as being important or did not know that word, they did not get the correct answer".15
This case perfectly isolates the linguistic failure. The students' procedural knowledge (how to calculate a mean) was perfect. Their conceptual knowledge of the word 'mean' was also correct. But a separate, parasitic Tier 3 vocabulary deficit (not knowing 'outlier') attached to the problem and invalidated their entire, correct procedure. This demonstrates the extreme fragility of mathematical performance in the face of linguistic ambiguity. A single point of vocabulary failure can cascade, causing a total breakdown of the problem-solving process.
V. The Cognitive Mechanism: Linguistic Complexity, Working Memory, and Cognitive Load
V.A. The Cognitive Bottleneck: Working Memory as a Finite Resource
To understand why these linguistic barriers are so effective at derailing math performance, one must look to the underlying cognitive mechanism. Human cognition operates using a limited "desktop" of conscious processing space known as Working Memory (WM).29 WM is the system responsible for holding and manipulating information (e.g., holding the numbers from a word problem in mind while also retrieving the correct algorithm).29
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) posits that this WM resource is finite and easily overwhelmed.31 When the total "cognitive load" of a task—the amount of mental effort required—exceeds the available WM capacity, learning stops, and performance fails.32
V.B. Linguistic Complexity as an Extraneous Cognitive Load
A math word problem (WP) places two distinct types of load on a student's working memory:
Intrinsic Load: The inherent mathematical difficulty (e.g., multi-digit vs. single-digit arithmetic).
Extraneous Load: Load created by the design of the task, which is not inherent to the math itself.31
Linguistic complexity—unfamiliar Tier 2 vocabulary, complex sentence structures, or ambiguous Tier 3 terms—is a primary source of extraneous cognitive load.33 As research notes, "math word problems might require additional cognitive load for some bilingual students to comprehend the linguistic information... and represent the information in the form of math expression".33
This creates a cognitive failure state. For a student with ELA-related deficits, their limited WM capacity is "hijacked" by the task of linguistic decoding. They must expend significant cognitive resources simply to decipher what the question is asking. By the time they have (perhaps incorrectly) interpreted the text, their WM resources are depleted, leaving insufficient capacity to perform the actual mathematical reasoning, planning, and computation.35 The student gives up, not because the math was too hard, but because the language was too demanding. Failure is misdiagnosed as a math deficit when it was, in fact, a cognitive resource depletion triggered by an extraneous linguistic load.
V.C. The "Over-Additive" Burden: How Linguistic and Numerical Demands Interact
This cognitive model explains why the "poorest problem solving performance" is observed on problems that are both linguistically complex and mathematically challenging.35 The two sources of load (linguistic and numerical) do not merely add; they appear to interact, creating an "over-additive" burden that disproportionately overwhelms working memory.36
This also explains the finding from Section I.C. Language skills are more strongly associated with word problem solving (high linguistic load) than with basic arithmetic (low linguistic load).7 The linguistic component is not just an 'extra' part of the problem; it is a cognitive-load multiplier that can be the single-aiding point of failure.
VI. Magnified Deficits: Linguistic Mismatches in Diverse Student Populations
VI.A. The Dual Challenge for English Language Learners (ELLs): Register-Switching and the Mathematics Register
The cognitive burden of language is not distributed equally. For English Language Learners (ELLs), these challenges are magnified, creating a "dual challenge": they must learn the mathematical content while simultaneously learning the language of instruction.37
The language they must learn is not "everyday English." It is the "mathematics register"—a specific, formal, technical, and precise form of language.37 This register uses vocabulary that is "not used in everyday English registers".37 ELLs are thus required to engage in constant "register-switching" (from their home language to informal English to the technical math register), a process that itself consumes significant cognitive load and "processing time".37 As a result, ELLs often demonstrate "limited mathematics vocabulary knowledge" 37 and are, as previously noted, disproportionately impacted by the linguistic complexity of assessments, leading to high rates of DIF.12
VI.B. The "Linguistic Mismatch" Hypothesis: African American English (AAE) and Assessment Validity
A more subtle, but equally profound, linguistic barrier exists for speakers of diverse language varieties, such as African American English (AAE). In this case, the barrier is not a "deficit" but a "linguistic mismatch".40 This refers to the divergence between the linguistic repertoires that AAE-speaking children develop at home and in their community, and the General American English (GAE) typically used in standardized mathematics assessments.41
This divergence is "magnified" for speakers of minoritized language varieties.40 It is hypothesized to impose a greater "cognitive cost" or cognitive load, as the student must constantly reconcile the differences between the language forms on the page and their own linguistic framework.41
This finding, combined with the evidence from ELLs, points to a critical equity and validity issue: for diverse learners, mathematics assessments are often language assessments in disguise. The test purports to measure mathematical ability, but it is confounded by linguistic variables. For an ELL, it invalidly measures knowledge of Tier 2 words.12 For an AAE speaker, it may invalidly measure their facility in processing a less-familiar dialect.41 In both cases, the resulting test score is compromised as a pure measure of math content knowledge.
VI.C. A Critical Finding: How Mismatch Impacts Strategy Selection, Not Computational Ability
The research on AAE speakers provides a precise mechanism for how this mismatch hinders performance, connecting directly back to the report's central thesis. The linguistic mismatch was found to create difficulties in forming "mental representations of the problems".40
The critical finding was that the mismatch primarily impacted strategy selection, not computational ability.40 In other words, AAE-speaking students who experienced a linguistic mismatch were more likely to select the wrong strategy (e.g., adding when subtraction was required). Their ability to perform the computation, once a strategy was chosen, was unaffected.
This is a powerful finding. It demonstrates that the problem is not a lack of ELA skill (a deficit), but a mismatch that interferes with comprehension. It proves, once again, that language is the vehicle for conceptualization and application (the "what to do"), not just computation (the "how to do it"). It also broadens the report's entire thesis, showing that the term "native English speaker" is not a monolith, and that ELA-related barriers can exist even within a student's "native" language.
VII. From Diagnosis to Intervention: Pedagogical and Assessment Implications
VII.A. Diagnostic Assessment: Using Error Analysis to Distinguish Language Gaps from Skill Gaps
Given the profound impact of linguistic deficits, the first and most critical intervention is accurate diagnosis. Educators must move beyond simply marking answers "correct or incorrect" and adopt a diagnostic process of Error Analysis.21 This process involves collecting a sample of a student's work and identifying patterns of errors to determine the why behind them.21
This process is the essential bridge from assessment to instruction. It allows a teacher to distinguish between two students who both fail the same problem:
Student A fails because they cannot correctly perform the multi-digit subtraction algorithm. This is a procedural skill deficit.
Student B fails because they do not know that the Tier 3 word "difference" signals the need for subtraction.21 This is a linguistic and conceptual deficit.
Without error analysis, both students would be misdiagnosed and placed in a procedural remediation group, which would be an effective intervention for Student A but a complete failure for Student B.
VII.B. The Pedagogical Mandate: Explicit, Systematic, and Contextual Vocabulary Instruction
The evidence is clear: because the problem is fundamentally linguistic, the solution must be as well. The research calls for explicit and systematic instruction 20 that "explicitly define[s] relevant vocabulary terms" 11 and, crucially, provides students with multiple "opportunities to practice using the math vocabulary".11
This instruction must be comprehensive, targeting all three tiers of vocabulary. It must address the technical Tier 3 words (e.g., 'integer') 17, as well as the "assumed," "invisible" Tier 2 academic words (e.g., 'represent', 'justify').18
A common but flawed pedagogical response to linguistic complexity is to "simplify" the language of math problems, avoiding complex words. The research points in the opposite direction. Students must be prepared for high-stakes assessments and higher-level academic discourse.44 They cannot do this if they have been "protected" from the language of the discipline. The solution is not avoidance of academic language, but explicit instruction in it.20
VII.C. Evidence-Based Strategies: From Graphic Organizers to Structured Discourse
Research points to several specific, evidence-based strategies for this explicit instruction:
Graphic and Semantic Organizers: Using tools like the Frayer Model, which (like a Concept Organizer) asks students to define a word, list its characteristics, and provide both examples and non-examples.8 The use of non-examples is particularly critical for combating lexical ambiguity.
Structured Dialogues: One study found that "learning math vocabulary through the use of structured dialogues contributed to greater understanding".15 This directly leverages the "verbal discourse" model of learning.22
Multiple Exposures: Reviewing words often and in various contexts to ensure they are acquired.8
Morphology: Teaching word parts (e.g., 'poly' meaning 'many' in polygon; 'quad' meaning 'four' in quadrilateral) to provide students with tools to decode new terms.8
Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Applying an MTSS framework to vocabulary intervention.47 This involves providing high-quality core instruction in vocabulary for all students (Tier 1), supplemental intervention for those who struggle (Tier 2), and intensive, data-driven intervention for students with the greatest need (Tier 3).48
VII.D. Conclusion: Reframing Mathematics as a Linguistic and Conceptual Discipline
This report has synthesized extensive research to build a comprehensive model of how ELA-related vocabulary deficits hinder mathematical learning. The analysis confirms that the link is not spurious but is developmental, cognitive, and deeply mechanistic.
The evidence compels a reframing of mathematics education. Mathematics is not a "universal language" that exists separate from ELA. It is a specific, complex, and often counter-intuitive register of language that must be explicitly taught.
ELA-related vocabulary deficits are not a peripheral issue. They are central to the mechanisms of:
Conceptual Failure: Deficits in Tier 3 words are the conceptual deficits.
Cognitive Overload: Unfamiliar Tier 2 and Tier 3 words create extraneous cognitive load, draining the working memory resources needed for problem-solving.
Assessment Invalidity: Linguistic complexity on tests creates DIF, producing false-negative results that disproportionately penalize diverse learners (ELLs and AAE speakers).
Ultimately, the path to mathematical competence is, fundamentally, a path paved with words. An effective, equitable mathematics program must be, at its core, a program of language instruction.
Works cited
accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279180801_Examining_the_Relationship_Between_Math_Scores_and_English_Language_Proficiency#:~:text=Analysis%20reveals%20English%20proficiency%20as,English%20proficiency%20on%20mathematics%20scores.
Examining the Relationship Between Math Scores and English Language Proficiency, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279180801_Examining_the_Relationship_Between_Math_Scores_and_English_Language_Proficiency
Academic Performance in Mathematics of High School Students with Virtual Instruction vs. Face-to-Face Instruction, accessed November 17, 2025, https://digitalcommons.shawnee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=math_etd
Students consistently test higher in reading and math - CSUSM, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.csusm.edu/artopp/documents/pdf-citations/readingmath.pdf
Developmental Dynamics Between Reading and Math in ... - NIH, accessed November 17, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7725923/
Longitudinal associations between reading and mathematics achievement - PubMed, accessed November 17, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18473206/
Full article: The associations between mathematical skills, cognitive performance, and language background in elementary school children. a two-year follow-up study - Taylor & Francis Online, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00313831.2024.2419063
Evidence-Based Vocabulary Intervention Strategies | HMH, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.hmhco.com/blog/evidence-based-vocabulary-intervention-strategies
UNDERSTANDING LANGUAGE/ STANFORD CENTER FOR ASSESSMENT, LEARNING, AND EQUITY Stanford University Graduate School of Education, accessed November 17, 2025, https://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/u6232/ULSCALE_ToA_Principles_MLRs__Final_v2.0_030217.pdf
Agenda | State Board of Education April 11, 2025 - Texas.gov, accessed November 17, 2025, https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2025/sboe-2025-april/april-2025-sboe-agenda.pdf
Evidence-Based Instructional Principles and Sequences for Effective Fraction Instruction A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY - University Digital Conservancy, accessed November 17, 2025, https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstreams/e9db0381-bdd7-4ad1-82ae-a5d3b83c63ab/download
Exploring Language as a Source of DIF in a Math Test for English ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=nera_2011
Texas Education Agency, Open Education Resources, Bluebonnet Learning Grade 4 Math, Edition 1, Mathematics, Grade 4, accessed November 17, 2025, https://tea.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/imra/imra-2024-texas-education-agency-open-education-resources-bluebonnet-learning-math-edition-1-grade-4-report.pdf
Analysis of student errors and misconceptions in algebra, accessed November 17, 2025, https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/bitstreams/8a33a934-0e48-4ff5-ac31-bc1ee5df00bb/download
Math Vocabulary & Number Sense: Instructional Strategies for ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=edd
Performance Differences on a Measure of Mathematics Vocabulary for English Learners and Non-English Learners with and without Mathematics Difficulty | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344944065_Performance_Differences_on_a_Measure_of_Mathematics_Vocabulary_for_English_Learners_and_Non-English_Learners_with_and_without_Mathematics_Difficulty
Mathematics Vocabulary: Teaching Tier 3 Language Of Math Fractions To English Learners - Digital Commons@Hamline, accessed November 17, 2025, https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5258&context=hse_all
ELL Mathematics: Best Practice and Methodology - Spark, accessed November 17, 2025, https://spark.bethel.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1883&context=etd
A Quantitative Study of Mathematical Language in Upper Elementary Classrooms - EdWorkingPapers.com, accessed November 17, 2025, https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai24-1029.pdf
Teaching argument writing in math class: challenges and solutions ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10251315/
IRISCase Study: Mathematics: Identifying and Addressing Student ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/mcontent/cs_parent/ics_matherr/
The Impact of Verbal Discourse on General and Special Education Students in the Ninth Grade Algebra I Classroom - Digital Commons@Kennesaw State, accessed November 17, 2025, https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=dissertations
Increasing Statistical Literacy by Exploiting Lexical Ambiguity of ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1260&context=numeracy
The Effect of Proof Format on Reading Comprehension of Geometry ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.ejmste.com/download/the-effect-of-proof-format-on-reading-comprehension-of-geometry-proof-the-case-of-indonesian-10782.pdf
Analyzing the Linguistic Features of Standardized Math Items: A Text Mining Approach - CUNY Academic Works, accessed November 17, 2025, https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6189&context=gc_etds
Analyzing common algebra-related misconceptions and errors of middle school students - SciSpace, accessed November 17, 2025, https://scispace.com/pdf/analyzing-common-algebra-related-misconceptions-and-errors-5584xfqlw8.pdf
The Vocabulary of Statistical Literacy - Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2003/wat03297.pdf
A model of reading comprehension of geometry proof - ResearchGate, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226110047_A_model_of_reading_comprehension_of_geometry_proof
Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and Education - PMC, accessed November 17, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4207727/
Challenging Cognitive Load Theory: The Role of Educational Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence in Redefining Learning Efficacy - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed November 17, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11852728/
Working Memory and Instructional Fit: Reintroducing Aptitude–Treatment Interaction in Education Research - MDPI, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/15/6/765
Full article: Exploring the Impact of Working Memory Capacity on Academic Reading and Achievement in South African Online Tertiary Students, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02702711.2024.2447228
EBP Briefs: Effects of Reading Strategy Intervention on Math Word Problems in Bilingual School-Age Students With Math Difficulti - Pearson Assessments, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/ebp-briefs/ebp-v16a6.pdf
Effects of Reducing the Cognitive Load of Mathematics Test Items on Student Performance - Digital Commons @ USF - University of South Florida, accessed November 17, 2025, https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=numeracy
Effects of Linguistic Complexity and Math Difficulty on Word Problem Solving by English Learners - ResearchGate, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270773376_Effects_of_Linguistic_Complexity_and_Math_Difficulty_on_Word_Problem_Solving_by_English_Learners
Word problems: a review of linguistic and numerical factors ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4381502/
Language challenges in mathematics education for English ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312649293_Language_challenges_in_mathematics_education_for_English_language_learners_A_literature_review
Teachers' Perspectives of the Sudden Shift Towards Online Learning: Challenges and Future Lessons - Journal of Language Teaching and Research, accessed November 17, 2025, https://jltr.academypublication.com/index.php/jltr/article/download/5368/4342/14631
Rethinking Proficiency in the Language of Teaching and Learning (LoTL) as a Pillar in the Learning of School Mathematics - IIARD, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.iiardjournals.org/get/IJELCS/VOL.%207%20NO.%201%202021/RETHINKING%20PROFICIENCY%20IN%20THE%20LANGUAGE.pdf
Dialect and Mathematics Performance in African American Children ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10627197.2024.2370787
Dialect and mathematics performance in African American children ..., accessed November 17, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11360242/
Malik Goes to School: Examining the Language Skills of African American Students From Preschool-5th Grade | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282162493_Malik_Goes_to_School_Examining_the_Language_Skills_of_African_American_Students_From_Preschool-5th_Grade
Supporting students significantly behind in literacy and numeracy – A review of evidence-based approaches - Australian Education Research Organisation, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/aero-supporting-students-significantly-behind-literacy-numeracy.pdf
The Academic Language of Mathematics - Higher Education | Pearson, accessed November 17, 2025, https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/0/2/0/5/0205627587.pdf
Assessing Academic Language in an Elementary Mathematics Teacher Licensure Exam, accessed November 17, 2025, https://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/castellano_tellez_et_al.pdf
Bringing literacy strategies into content instruction - ERIC, accessed November 17, 2025, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521883.pdf
Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS) for 6-12 - Ohio Department of Education, accessed November 17, 2025, https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Literacy/Literacy-Academy/Literacy-Academy-on-Demand/Leading-Literacy/MTSS-for-6-12
No comments:
Post a Comment