Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Curriculum enactment patterns and associated factors from teachers’ perspectives

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

Abstract

As part of a larger effort to improve teacher capacity for high-quality mathematics instruction, we investigated the factors that are associated with different enactment patterns at three levels: contextual (e.g., type and quality of textbook), individual (e.g., teacher knowledge), and teachers’ opportunity-to-learn (e.g., professional development experiences). Analysis of 183 teachers’ self-reports on their practices revealed three notable findings. First, the factors at the three levels were all found to be significantly related to the different patterns of enacted curriculum. However, the use of quality textbooks and the alignment of teachers’ views and instructional goals with curriculum goals were found to be the two factors that are most strongly associated with the enactment pattern of high-level problems and high-level teacher questions in instruction. Furthermore, teachers with the enactment pattern of increasing lower cognitive demand of problems into higher ones tended to rate their curriculum knowledge higher than teachers with the enactment pattern of using low-level problems and teacher questions in their teaching. In particular, deviation from and dissatisfaction with their assigned low-quality textbooks were found to be critical factors that are associated with the enactment pattern of increasing lower cognitive demands of problems in instruction.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M. W., & Jungck, S. (1990). “You don’t have to be a teacher to teach this unit”: teaching, technology, and gender in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 227–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of adolescents’ cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 319–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: the case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Elliott, R., & Uchiyama, K. (1999). Professional development: a key to Kentucky’s reform effort. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. J. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 119–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. (2008). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: understanding the teacher-tool relationship. In B. Herbel-Eisenmann, J. Remillard, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–37). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbank, I. K. et al. (1987). Houghton mifflin mathematics Teacher’s edition, Level 4, Houghton Mifflin Canada Ltd.

  • Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: the case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, T. J. (1994). Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation. In D. B. Aichele & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics, 1994 yearbook (pp. 9–22). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36, 153–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding teachers’ self-sustaining, generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galant, J. (2013). Selecting and sequencing mathematics tasks: seeking mathematical knowledge for teaching. Perspectives in Education, 31(3), 34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., & O’Day, J. (1995). Studies of educational reform: systemic reform. New Brunswick: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, U., & Torrance, H. (2011). Curriculum innovation: difference and resemblance. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(2), 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D.W. & Lemeshow, S. (2004). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.

  • Kadijević, Đ. M. (2002). TIMSS 2003 mathematics cognitive domains. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 34, 96–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (2010). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(5), 551–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, G. M. (2014). Implementing a reform-oriented pedagogy: challenges for novice secondary mathematics teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26, 399–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesa, V., & Griffiths, B. (2012). Textbook mediation of teaching: an example from tertiary mathematics instructors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 85–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie, B., Freedman, T., Hwang, S., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., & Cai, J. (2013). An investigation of teachers’ intentions and reflections about using Standards-based and traditional textbooks in the classroom. ZDM, 45, 699–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). TALIS 2013 technical report. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, L. R., & Longnecker, M. T. (2001). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis (5th ed.). Pacific Grove: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pólya, G. (1981). Mathematical discovery (Combinedth ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: implications for teacher learning. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, N. M. (1966). Classroom questions: what kinds? New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S. A., Britton, E. D., Bianchi, L. J. & Wolfe, R. G. (1997). Many visions, many aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: a best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleep, L. (2012). The work of steering instruction toward the mathematical point: a decomposition of teaching practice. American Education Research Journal, 49(5), 935–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, J. (2008). Elementary teachers’ mathematical textbook use patterns in terms of cognitive demands and influential factors: a mixed method study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

  • Son, J., & Crespo, S. (2009). Prospective teachers’ reasoning about students’ non-traditional strategies when dividing fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, (4), 236–261.

  • Son, J., & Kim, O. (2015). Teachers’ selection and enactment of mathematical problems from textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(4), 491–518.

  • Son, J., & Senk, S. (2010). How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 117–142.

  • Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: an analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 50–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: an analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: the longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Walle, J. V., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2009). Elementary and middle school mathematics: teaching developmentally (7th ed.). New York: Virginia Commonwealth University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Steenbrugge, H., Valcke, M., & Desoete, A. (2013). Teachers’ views of mathematics textbook series in Flanders: does it (not) matter which mathematics textbook series schools choose? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 322–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1982). Sobraniye sochineni [Collected Works]. Moscow: Pedagogica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: a study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Teachers’ teaching practices and beliefs regarding context-based tasks and their relation with students’ difficulties in solving these tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27, 637–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. M. (1990). A conflict of interest: the case of Mark Black. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 293–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: an examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning and Instruction, Graduate School of Education, University at Buffalo–The State University of New York, 569 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY, 14260-1000, USA

    Ji-Won Son

  2. Western Michigan University, 1903 W Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008-5248, USA

    Ok-Kyeong Kim

Authors
  1. Ji-Won Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ok-Kyeong Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ji-Won Son.

Appendices

Appendix A

Questions for lesson plan modification

Suppose that you are planning to teach the concept of equivalent fractions to fourth graders. The next page shows a daily lesson. Would you use this lesson plan exactly as it is presented? _______ Yes _______ No

If no: Please describe in detail the modification(s) you would make, including your student objectives, classroom activities, problems, and questions you would use.

Source: Burbank, I. K. et al. (1987). Houghton Mifflin Mathematics Teacher’s Edition, Level 4, Houghton Mifflin Canada Ltd.

Appendix B

Table 9 Factor analysis results of three-level factors
Full size table

Appendix C

Table 10 Framework for categorizing teachers’ modifications in terms of cognitive demand
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Son, JW., Kim, OK. Curriculum enactment patterns and associated factors from teachers’ perspectives. Math Ed Res J 28, 585–614 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0181-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0181-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation