ZDM

, Volume 43, Issue 6–7, pp 965–977 | Cite as

A ‘task-centric approach’ to professional development: enhancing and sustaining mathematics teachers’ ability to implement cognitively challenging mathematical tasks

Original Article

Abstract

In this article, we describe a task-centric approach to professional development for mathematics teachers in which teachers’ learning experiences are focused on the selection and implementation of cognitively challenging mathematical tasks. We examined teachers’ selection and implementation of cognitively challenging tasks at three points in time: before and after their participation in the professional development initiative and during a follow-up data collection 2 years later. Data included instructional tasks, samples of student work, and classroom observations, and were compared between the time points to identify changes in teachers’ task selection and implementation and to determine whether these changes were sustained over time. Results indicate that teachers increased and sustained their ability to select high-level instructional tasks and to maintain the level of cognitive demand during instruction. All teachers, however, did not exhibit this pattern. Portraits of teachers who continued to select and enact tasks at a high level are contrasted with those who did not, and factors are identified to account for teachers’ current practices.

References

  1. Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 499–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110, 608–645.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Boston, M. D. (2006). Developing secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge of and capacity of implement instructional tasks with high-level cognitive demands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, (University of Pittsburgh). UMI Dissertation Services, #3223943.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Boston, M. D., & Wolf, M. K. (2006). Assessing academic rigor in mathematics instruction: The development of Instructional Quality Assessment Toolkit. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) Report #672.Google Scholar
  8. Clare, L., & Aschbacher, P. R. (2001). Exploring the technical quality of using assignments and student work as indicators of classroom practice. Educational Assessment, 7, 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Henningsen, M. A., & 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
  11. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  13. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.Google Scholar
  14. Lappan, G., & Briars, D. (1995). How should mathematics be taught? In M. Carl (Ed.), Prospects for school mathematics (pp. 131–156). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  15. Matsumura, L. C. (2003). Teachers’ assignments and student work: Opening a window on classroom practice (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 602). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  16. Simon, M., & Schifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309–331.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, M. S. (2000). Balancing the old and new: An experienced middle school teacher’s learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 351–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, M. S. (2001). Practice-based professional development for teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000, 2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61, 12–16.Google Scholar
  24. Sykes, G., & Bird, T. (1992). Teacher education and the case idea. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 18, pp. 457–521). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  25. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, (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
  26. 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
  27. Watson, A., & Sullivan, P. (2008). Teachers learning about tasks and lessons. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Vol. 2: Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 109–134). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. P. (2004). What is high quality instruction? Educational Leadership, 61, 24–28.Google Scholar
  29. Zaslavsky, O. (1995). Open-ended tasks as a trigger for mathematics teachers’ professional development. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15, 15–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations