Teacher Learning Opportunities Provided by Implementing Formative Assessment Lessons: Becoming Responsive to Student Mathematical Thinking

  • Hee-jeong KimEmail author


Teachers’ ways of using curriculum materials create not only meaningful learning opportunities for students but also opportunities for teachers to learn and change their teaching practices; however, not enough research has investigated precisely how. This study investigates how teachers’ implementation of innovative curriculum materials specifically designed to support formative assessment practices provides learning opportunities for teachers to become more responsive to student mathematical thinking. 2 teachers’ regular lessons as well as those delivered using the innovative curriculum materials were observed; each teacher was observed over the course of 1 academic year. The analysis of the 2 teachers’ cases demonstrates how their different curriculum adaptation strategies led to different learning opportunities for each of them. Although teachers’ enactment of innovative curriculum materials in class naturally creates opportunities for them to learn about the mathematical content as well as their students’ mathematical thinking, these findings discuss precisely how to promote teacher learning and improvement of teaching practices using formative assessment strategies guided by curriculum materials. The implications in relation to supporting teachers’ instructional improvement while implementing reform-oriented curriculum materials, and to designing curriculum materials facilitating teacher learning, are also discussed.


Curriculum use Formative assessment practice Responsive teaching Teacher learning opportunity Teacher change 



This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under the Algebra Teaching Study (NSF Grant DRL-0909815 to PI Alan Schoenfeld, U.C. Berkeley, and NSF Grant DRL-0909851 to PI Robert Floden, Michigan State University), and under The Mathematics Assessment Project (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grant OPP53342 to PIs Alan Schoenfeld, U.C. Berkeley, and Hugh Burkhardt and Malcolm Swan, The University of Nottingham).

Supplementary material

10763_2017_9866_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.7 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1748 kb)


  1. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. C. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? Evanston, IL: The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction: Building on the knowledge of students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 17(5), 457–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, Grades K-6 (second ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christou, C., Menon, E. M., & Philippou, G. (2009). Beginning teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of new mathematics curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 223–244). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 287–311.Google Scholar
  13. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Developing curriculum vision and trust. In J. T. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 321–337). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 653–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2007). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  17. Heaton, R. M. (2000). Teaching mathematics to the new standards: Relearning the dance. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kim, H. (2012). Pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and content knowledge for teaching mathematics: How do they shape a proficient teachers’ practice when teaching new content? Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Seoul, Korea. 4828–4836.Google Scholar
  23. Kim, H. (2014). Teacher change in teaching practices towards developing students' reasoning in mathematics. Research in Mathematical Education, 18(3), 223–234.Google Scholar
  24. Kim, H., Han, C, Bae, M. & Kwon, O. (2017). The relationship between mathematics teachers’ noticing and responsive teaching: In the context of teaching for all students’ mathematical thinking. Journal of Korean Society of Mathematics Education Series A: The Mathematical Education, 56(3), 341–363.Google Scholar
  25. Lloyd, G. M. (1999). Two teachers’ conceptions of a reform-oriented curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mathematics Assessment Project (2011). Formative Assessment Lesson. Retrieved from
  27. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Olson, J. F., Preuschoff, C., Erberber, E., et al. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  30. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
  31. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council (2005). How students learn mathematics in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003). Learning for tomorrow’s world—First results from PISA. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Education at a glance 2006: Briefing note for the United States. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  35. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 35(5), 352–388.Google Scholar
  39. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Shepard, L. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. Retrieved from
  41. Sherin, M. G. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  44. Smylie, M. A. (1989). Teachers’ views of the effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In J. Frank & K. Lester (Eds.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 319–369). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics EducationHongik UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations