Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 457–480 | Cite as

Processes and priorities in planning mathematics teaching

  • Peter SullivanEmail author
  • David J. Clarke
  • Doug M. Clarke
  • Lesley Farrell
  • Jessica Gerrard
Original Article

Abstract

Insights into teachers’ planning of mathematics reported here were gathered as part of a broader project examining aspects of the implementation of the Australian curriculum in mathematics (and English). In particular, the responses of primary and secondary teachers to a survey of various aspects of decisions that inform their use of curriculum documents and assessment processes to plan their teaching are discussed. Teachers appear to have a clear idea of the overall topic as the focus of their planning, but they are less clear when asked to articulate the important ideas in that topic. While there is considerable diversity in the processes that teachers use for planning and in the ways that assessment information informs that planning, a consistent theme was that teachers make active decisions at all stages in the planning process. Teachers use a variety of assessment data in various ways, but these are not typically data extracted from external assessments. This research has important implications for those responsible for supporting teachers in the transition to the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics.

Keywords

Mathematics curriculum Resources Planning Assessment Teacher education 

References

  1. ACARA (2012). Development of the Australian curriculum. Accessed Jan 2012 from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/The_Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum_V3.pdf
  2. Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research. British Educational Research Journal, 23, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2011). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Educational Policy, 25(4), 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choppin, J. M. (2009). Curriculum-content knowledge: teacher learning from successive enactments of a standards-based mathematics curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(2), 287–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Clements, D. H. (2006). Curriculum research: toward a framework for ‘research-based curricula’. Journal of Research in Mathematics, 38, 35–70.Google Scholar
  7. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: curriculum adaptation in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernandez, C., & Cannon, J. (2005). What Japanese and U.S. teachers think about when constructing mathematics lessons: A preliminary investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 481–498.Google Scholar
  9. Freebody, P., & Muspratt, S. (2008). Uses and effects of The Le@rning Federation’s learning objects: An experimental and observational study. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), (p. 108), [at http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/tlf2/showMe.asp?nodeID=891]
  10. Hamilton, M. (2009). Putting words in their mouths: The alignment of identities with system goals through the use of Individual Learning Plans. British Educational Research Journal, 35, (2), 221–242.Google Scholar
  11. Harris-Hart, C. (2009). Performing curriculum: exploring the role of teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(1), 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heinmans, S. (2011). Education policy, practice and power. Educational Policy (pre-print March 14), 1–25.Google Scholar
  14. Hill, H., Ball, D., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: conceptualising and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372–400.Google Scholar
  15. Holmqvist, M., & Wennås Brante, E. (2011). What is discerned in teachers’ expressions about planning? Education Inquiry, 2(3), 497–514.Google Scholar
  16. Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1999). The rationality and irrationality of international comparative studies. In G. Kaiser, E. Luna, & I. Huntley (Eds.), International comparisons in mathematics education (pp. 241–256). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jin, X. (2012). Chinese middle school mathematics teachers’ practices and perspectives viewed through a Western lens. Monash University: Unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
  19. Levinson, B. A., Sutton, U. M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Educational policy as a practice of power: theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Remillard, J., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: investigating patterns in teachers’ use of reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Superfine, A. C. (2008). Planning for mathematics instruction: a model of experienced teachers’ planning processes in the context of a reform mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Educator, 18(2), 11–22.Google Scholar
  26. Thorsten, M. (2000). Once upon a TIMSS: American and Japanese narrations of the Third international mathematics and science study. Education and Society, 18(3), 45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yates, L., & Grumet, M. (2011). Curriculum in today’s world: configuring knowledge, identities, work and politics. In L. Yates & M. Grumet (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2011—Curriculum in today’s world: Configuring knowledge, identities, work and politics (pp. 3–14). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Sullivan
    • 1
    Email author
  • David J. Clarke
    • 2
  • Doug M. Clarke
    • 3
  • Lesley Farrell
    • 4
  • Jessica Gerrard
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.International Centre for Classroom Research, Melbourne Graduate School of EducationUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Mathematics Education, Mathematics Teaching and Learning Research CentreAustralian Catholic University (Melbourne Campus)FitzroyAustralia
  4. 4.Research and DevelopmentFaculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UTS SydneyBroadwayAustralia
  5. 5.Faculty of EducationUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations