Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Primary teachers’ written unit plans in mathematics and their perceptions of essential elements of these

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mathematics Education Research Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The content and purpose of written unit plans in mathematics is an under-researched area. In this article, we provide a brief overview of research on teachers’ planning processes and the place of mental and written plans. We report on data from a questionnaire completed by 357 teachers from Victorian Catholic primary schools, where we focused on possible elements of written unit plans for primary mathematics, and the relative importance which teachers attributed to these elements. We then discuss 48 written unit plans which were provided to us by primary schools from which the 357 teachers were drawn. There was considerable variation in the length, intended teaching time, and level of specification of key ideas in these plans. We discuss this variation, and some discrepancies between the ratings of teachers of the importance of certain elements and their presence in the plans we examined. We also suggest potentially productive areas of future enquiry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Peopling Education Policy project is funded by the Australian Research Council (LP110100062) with additional funding provided by the NSW Department of Education and Training, Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, Catholic Education Office Melbourne, and the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. The project is a collaboration between Monash University, Australian Catholic University, University of Melbourne, University of Newcastle, University of Sydney, and University of Technology Sydney. The content is the responsibility of the authors and the views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the universities or the research partners.

References

  • Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D., & Wiliam, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy: final report. London: King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). National professional standards for teachers. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: what is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, R. (1988). Conditions influencing content taught in nine fourth-grade mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 88(4), 387–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, E. P. (2014). Investigating practices of highly successful mathematics teachers of traditionally underserved students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86, 377–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, L. (1982). Curriculum models and curriculum commonplaces. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14(2), 197–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, L. (1992). Curriculum development (4th ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. S. (1988). Twelve middle-school teachers’ planning. The Elementary School Journal, 89(1), 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. M., Clarke, D. J., & Sullivan, P. (2012). Reasoning in the Australian curriculum: understanding its meaning and using the relevant language. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(3), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, L., Wong, N.-Y., Cai, J., & Li, S. (Eds.). (2004). How Chinese learn mathematics: perspectives from insiders. River Edge: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, C., & Cannon, J. (2005). What Japanese and U.S. teachers think about when constructing mathematics lessons: a preliminary investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Schmidt, W. H., Freeman, D. J., & Schwille, J. R. (1981). Responses to curriculum pressures: a policy-capturing study of teacher decisions about content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke, N. K., Knapp, M. S., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1992). In search of school curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 18, 51–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, M., & Gilbert, B. (2013). Connecting teacher learning to curriculum. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Mathematics learning across the life span (Proceedings of the 37th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2, pp. 337–344). Kiel, Germany: PME.

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, R., & Bao, J. (2006). Towards a model for teacher professional development in China: introducing Keli. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(3), 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isoda, M., Stephens, M., Ohara, Y., & Miyakawa, T. (2007). Japanese lesson study: its impact, diversity and potential for educational improvement. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: rethinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it. The Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, A., & Clarke, D. M. (2003). Describing the practice of effective teachers of mathematics in the early years. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 joints meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the Psychology of Mathematics Education Group North America (Vol. 3, pp. 261–268). Hawaii: University of Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutton, T., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: the developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(4), 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Rubenstein, R. (2010). Mathematics curriculum: issues, trends, and future directions (72nd yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robitaille, D. F., Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S., McKnight, C., Britton, E., & Nicol, C. (1993). Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science (TIMSS Monograph No. 1). Vancouver: Pacific International Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J. (1983). Review of research on teachers’ pedagogical judgments, plans and decisions. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 392–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steketee, C., & McNaught, K. (2007). The complexities for new graduates planning mathematics based on student need. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice (Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 2, pp. 671–677). Adelaide: MERGA.

  • Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching mathematics: using research-informed strategies. Australian Education Review 59. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. M., Albright, J., Clarke, D. J., Farrell, L., Freebody, P., … Michels, D. (2012a). Teachers' planning processes: Seeking insights from Australian Teachers. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(3), 4–8.

  • Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. J., & Clarke, D. M. (2012b). Teacher decisions about planning and assessment in primary mathematics. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(3), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., Clarke, D., Gould, P., Leigh-Lancaster, D., & Lewis, G. (2012c). Insights into ways that teachers plan their mathematics teaching. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: expanding horizons (Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 696–703). Singapore: MERGA.

  • Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. J., Clarke, D. M., Farrell, L., & Gerrard, J. (2013a). Processes and priorities in planning mathematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(4), 457–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2013b). Teachers’ decisions about mathematics tasks when planning lessons. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: yesterday, today and tomorrow (Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 626–633). Melbourne: MERGA.

  • Superfine, A. (2008). Planning for mathematics instruction: a model of experienced teachers′ planning processes in context of a reform mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Educator, 18(2), 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomey, R. (1977). Teachers’ approaches to curriculum planning. Curriculum Inquiry, 7(2), 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D. F., & Schaffarzick, J. (1974). Comparing curricula. Review of Educational Research, 44(1), 83–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yinger, R. J. (1979). Routines in teacher planning. Theory Into Practice, 18(3), 163–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. The Elementary School Journal, 80(3), 107–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahorik, J. A. (1970). The effect of planning on teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 71(3), 143–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahorik, J. A. (1975). Teachers’ planning models. Educational Leadership, 33(2), 134–139.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the work of Pam Hammond on the analysis of the written unit plans in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Catholic University, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Melbourne, 3065, Australia

    Anne Roche & Doug M. Clarke

  2. International Centre for Classroom Research, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, 109 Barry Street, Carlton, Melbourne, 3053, Australia

    David J. Clarke

  3. Monash University, Clayton, 3800, Australia

    Peter Sullivan

Authors
  1. Anne Roche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Doug M. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David J. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Roche.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roche, A., Clarke, D.M., Clarke, D.J. et al. Primary teachers’ written unit plans in mathematics and their perceptions of essential elements of these. Math Ed Res J 26, 853–870 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-014-0130-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-014-0130-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation