, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 699–711 | Cite as

An investigation of teachers’ intentions and reflections about using Standards-based and traditional textbooks in the classroom

  • Bikai Nie
  • Tony Freedman
  • Stephen Hwang
  • Ning Wang
  • John C. Moyer
  • Jinfa Cai
Original Article


This study analyzed teachers’ intentions for and reflections on their use of Standards-based [Connected Mathematics Program (CMP)] textbooks and traditional (non-CMP) mathematics textbooks to guide instruction. In this investigation of the interplay between textbooks and instruction, we focused on learning goals, instructional tasks, teachers’ anticipation of students’ difficulties, and their perceptions of students’ achievement of learning goals. All of these are aspects of teachers’ intentions and reflections that have proved fruitful in comparing the roles of the CMP and non-CMP mathematics textbooks in our Longitudinal Investigation of the Effect of Curriculum on Algebra Learning project. Whereas the cognitive level of the teachers’ intended learning goals appeared generally to reflect the emphases of their respective textbooks, we found that the CMP teachers’ intended learning goals were not as well aligned with the CMP textbooks as the non-CMP teachers’ learning goals were aligned with their non-CMP textbooks. The CMP and non-CMP teachers’ implementations of the lessons seemed to reduce the degree of difference between the cognitive levels of their intended goals. Even so, we found that significantly more CMP lessons than non-CMP lessons were implemented at a high level of cognitive demand. Although the non-CMP teachers’ intended learning goals were better aligned with their textbook’s learning goals, we found that the CMP teachers were more likely than the non-CMP teachers to follow the guidance of their textbooks in designing and selecting instructional tasks for a lesson. Future research should consider other aspects of teachers’ intentions and reflections that may shed a broader light on the role of textbooks and curriculum materials in teachers’ crafting of instructional experiences for their students.


Textbooks Curriculum reform Connected Mathematics Program Instructional tasks Teachers’ intentions and reflections Learning goals Cognitive demand LieCal Project 



The research reported here is supported by Grants from the National Science Foundation (ESI-0454739 and DRL-1008536). Any opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. 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: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Bolhuis, S. (2003). Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning: A multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 13, 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butts, D. P., Koballa, T., Anderson, M., & Butts, D. P. (1993). Relationship between teacher intentions and their classroom use of Superscience. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai, J., & Lester, F. K. (2005). Solution representations and pedagogical representations in Chinese and U.S. classrooms. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai, J., Moyer, J., Nie, B., & Wang, N. (2009). Learning mathematics from classroom instruction using Standards-based and traditional curricula: An analysis of instructional tasks. In S. L. Swars, D. W. Stinson, & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 692–699). Atlanta: Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  6. Cai, J., Ni, Y., & Lester, F. K. (2011a). Curricular effect on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Findings from two longitudinal studies in China and the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 63–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cai, J., Nie, B., & Moyer, J. (2010). The teaching of equation solving: Approaches in Standards-based and traditional curricula in the United States. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5, 170–186.Google Scholar
  8. Cai, J., & Wang, T. (2010). Conceptions of effective mathematics teaching within a cultural context: Perspectives of teachers from China and the United States. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cai, J., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., Wang, C., & Nie, B. (2011b). Longitudinal investigation of the curriculum effect: An analysis of student learning outcomes from the LieCal Project. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning—interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Cooney, T. J., Shealy, B. E., & Arvold, B. (1998). Conceptualizing belief structures of preservice secondary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 306–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 147–164). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Fernandez, C., & Cannon, J. (2005). What Japanese and U.S. teachers think about when constructing mathematics lessons: A preliminary investigation. Elementary School Journal, 105, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323–347). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gross, S., & Merchlinsky, S. (2002). Evaluation of the Singapore Math Pilot Program: Year I report of findings. MD: Montgomery County Public Schools Office of Shared Accountability.Google Scholar
  20. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Chui, A. M., Wearne, D., Smith, M., Kersting, N., Manaster, A., Tseng, E., Etterbeek, W., Manaster, C., Gonzales, P., & Stigler, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  23. Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons from the TIMSS video study. Elementary School Journal, 101, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill, H., Ball, D., & Schilling, S. (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
  26. Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd, G. M. (1999). Two teachers’ conceptions of a reform curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDuffie, A. R., & Mather, M. (2012). Middle school mathematics teachers’ use of curricular reasoning in a collaborative professional development project. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 302–320). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Moyer, J. C., Cai, J., & Laughlin, C. (2009a). High quality coaching using the LieCal observation instrument. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 11(1), 12–20.Google Scholar
  31. Moyer, J. C., Cai, J., Laughlin, C., & Wang, N. (2009b). The effect of curriculum type on middle grades instruction. In S. L. Swars, D. W. Stinson, & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 201–209). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  32. Moyer, J. C., Cai, J., Wang, N., & Nie, B. (2011). Impact of curriculum reform: Evidence of change in classroom practice in the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nie, B., Cai, J., & Moyer, J. C. (2009). How a standards-based mathematics curriculum differs from a traditional curriculum: with a focus on intended treatments of the ideas of variable. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 777–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perry, M., VanderStoep, S. W., & Yu, S. L. (1993). Asking questions in first-grade mathematics classes: Potential influences on mathematical thought. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education (MR-1643-OERI). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  36. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29, 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Charalambous, C. Y., & Mills, V. (2012). Exploring the curriculum implementation plateau: An instructional perspective. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 245–265). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Spillane, J. P. (2000). A fifth-grade teacher’s reconstruction of mathematics and literacy teaching: Exploring interactions among identity, learning, and subject matter. Elementary School Journal, 100, 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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, 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3, 268–275.Google Scholar
  45. Tate, W. F. [issue researcher] (2006). Do the math: Cognitive demand makes a difference. Research Points, 4(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
  46. 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). NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  47. West, L., & Staub. F. C. (2003). Content-focused coaching SM : Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann & Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bikai Nie
    • 1
  • Tony Freedman
    • 1
  • Stephen Hwang
    • 1
  • Ning Wang
    • 2
  • John C. Moyer
    • 3
  • Jinfa Cai
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Widener UniversityChesterUSA
  3. 3.Marquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations