Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 7–31 | Cite as

Connecting changes in secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge to their experiences in a professional development workshop

Article

Abstract

This investigation describes secondary mathematics teachers’ learning and instructional change following their participation in a professional development workshop, the Enhancing Secondary Mathematics Teacher Preparation Project (ESP) (2004–2005), specifically focused on the selection and implementation of cognitively challenging mathematical tasks. Data consist of a pre/post-assessment of teachers’ knowledge of the cognitive demands of mathematical tasks and videotaped discussions and written artifacts from the professional development sessions. A mixed methods approach was used to identify connections between teachers’ learning and their experiences in the ESP workshop. Results indicate that ESP teachers developed new ideas about the influence of mathematical tasks on students’ learning. Increases in teachers’ knowledge of the cognitive demands of mathematical tasks were closely linked to ideas represented in frameworks and discussions from the ESP workshop and to teachers’ experiences in solving challenging mathematical tasks as learners.

Keywords

Professional development Cognitive demands Mathematical tasks Teachers’ learning Instructional change 

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2000). Middle grades mathematics textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://wwwproject2061.org/publications/textbook/mgmth/report/default.htm.
  2. Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 499–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J., Jones, D. L., & Park-Rogers, M. (2006). Examining instructional practices in Core-plus lessons: Implications for professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 517–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. (2002). Engaging in scaffolded instructional innovation. Foundations: Professional Development that Supports School Reform (pp. 83–98). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Borasi, R., Fonzi, J., Smith, C., & Rose, B. J. (1999). Beginning the process of rethinking mathematics instruction: A professional development program. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boston, M. D. (2006). Developing secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge of and capacity of implement instructional tasks with high-level cognitive demands (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Dissertation Abstracts International (Publication No. AAT 3223943).Google Scholar
  8. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2008). Linking professional development to changes in secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge and instructional practices. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 119–156.Google Scholar
  10. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2011). A ‘task-centric approach’ to professional development: Enhancing and sustaining mathematics teachers’ ability to implement cognitively challenging mathematical tasks. ZDM: International Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. doi:10.1007/s11858-011-0353-2.Google Scholar
  11. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farmer, J. D., Gerretston, H., & Lassak, M. (2003). What teachers take from professional development: Cases and implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grouws, D. A., Smith, M. S., & Sztajn, P. (2004). The preparation and teaching practices of United States mathematics teachers: Grades 4 and 8. In P. Kloosterman, F. Lester, & C. Brown (Eds.), Results and Interpretations of the 1990 through 2000 Mathematics Assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  15. Grover, B. (1989). Development and preliminary evaluation of a scoring system for a semi-structured interview for teacher assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, (University of Pittsburgh). UMI Dissertation Services, #9019383.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372–400.Google Scholar
  18. Hughes, E. K., Smith, M. S., Boston, M. D., & Hogel, M. (2008). Case stories: Supporting teacher reflection and collaboration on the implementation of cognitively challenging mathematical tasks. In F. Arbaugh & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Inquiry into mathematics teacher education. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE) Monograph Series, Volume 5.Google 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. Lloyd, G. M., & Wilson, M. L. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher’s conception of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 248–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  24. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientation toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 352–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scher, L., & O’Reilly, F. (2009). Professional development for K-12 math and science teachers: What do we really know? Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 209–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 475–491.Google Scholar
  27. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  28. Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, M. S. (2001). Practice-based professional development for teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, M. S., Bill, V., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Thinking through a lesson protocol: A key for successfully implementing high-level tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14, 132–138.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, M. S., Silver, E. A., Stein, M. K., Henningsen, M., Boston, M., & Hughes, E. (2005). Improving instruction in algebra: Using cases to transform mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2). New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, M. S., Stein, M. K., Arbaugh, F., Brown, C., & Mossgrove, J. (2004). Characterizing the cognitive demands of mathematical tasks: A task sorting activity. In G. Bright & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Professional development guidebook for perspectives on teaching of mathematics: Companion to the sixty-sixth yearbook (pp. 45–72). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  33. Stein, M. K., Baxter, J., & Leinhardt, G. (1990). Subject matter knowledge and elementary instruction: A case from functions and graphing. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 639–663.Google Scholar
  34. Stein, M. K., Grover, B., & 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, 455–488.Google Scholar
  35. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–370). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61, 12–16.Google Scholar
  38. Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1997). Increased knowledge in geometry and instructional practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 467–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middles grades mathematics curricula on student achievement and the classroom learning environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. USDE. (1999). Exemplary and promising mathematics programs: Expert panel report. Retrieved from: www.enc.org/professional/federalresources/exemplary/promising/.
  42. USDE. (2000). Before it’s too late. A report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  43. 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 (Highlights report). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations