Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 491–518 | Cite as

Teachers’ selection and enactment of mathematical problems from textbooks

  • Ji-Won Son
  • Ok-Kyeong Kim
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

In order to investigate how teachers’ use of textbooks creates different kinds of opportunities for student learning, this study focused on teachers’ selection and enactment of problems and tasks from the textbooks and their influence on the cognitive demand placed on students. By drawing on data from three elementary teachers in the USA, two of which used a reform-oriented textbook—Math Trailblazers and one a commercially developed textbook—this study examined kinds of problems the teachers chose and ways in which they enacted those problems in relation to the cognitive demand of the problems. In particular, we attended to the kinds of questions the teachers asked in enacting the problems and ways in which those questions influenced the cognitive demand of the textbook problems. This study also identified critical issues involved in teacher decision-making on task selection and enactment, such as the match between teachers’ goals and those of the textbooks, and teachers’ perception of textbook problems. Based on the results of the study, we discuss implications for teacher education and professional development.

Keywords

Task selection Task enactment Cognitive demand Teacher questioning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  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: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Arbaugh, F. B., Brown, C.A. (2002). Influences of the mathematical tasks framework on high scholl mathematics teachers’ knowledge, thinking, and teaching. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA Google 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. Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of adolescents’ cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Askew, M., Hodgen, J., Hossain, S., & Bretscher, N. (2010). Values and variable. Mathematics education in high-performing countries. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Atanga, N. A. (2014). Elementary school teachers’ use of curricular resources for lesson design and enactment. Unpublished dissertation in Western Michigan University.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and curriculum guides: a dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birman, B., Le Floch, K. C., Klekotka, A., Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., Walters, K., et al. (2007). State and local implementation of the No child left behind Act: Vol. 2. Teacher quality under NCLB: interim report. Washington, DC: Department of Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; Policy and Program Studies Service.Google Scholar
  9. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: the case of railside school. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, S. T., Pitvorec, K., Ditto, C., & Kelso, C. R. (2009). Reconceiving fidelity of implementation: an investigation of elementary whole-number lessons. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(4), 363–395.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Choppin, J. (2011). The role of local theories: teacher knowledge and its impact on engaging students with challenging tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chval, K., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Tarr, J. E., & Chávez, Ó. (2006). Pressures to improve student performance: a context that both urges and impedes school-based research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3), 158–166.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: a commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisenmann, T., & Even, R. (2011). Enacted types of algebraic activity in different classes taught by the same teacher. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 313–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman, D. T., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groth, R. (2007). Understanding teachers’ resistance to the curriculum inclusion of alternative algorithms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 699–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., & Murray, H. (1997). Making sense: teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Improving Curriculum Use for Better Teaching (ICUBiT) Project. (2011). A comparative analysis of mathematical and pedagogical components of five elementary mathematics curricula. Unpublished project report.Google Scholar
  23. Kadijević, Đ. M. (2002). TIMSS 2003 mathematics cognitive domains. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 34, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). “Lost at sea”: new teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kim, O. K., & Atanga, N. A. (2013). Teachers’ decisions on task enactment and opportunities for students to learn. Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the north american chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 66–73). Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. Kim, O. K., Atanga, N. A. (2014). Teacher fidelity decisions and their impact on lesson enactment. Paper presented at 2014 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Conference in New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  28. Komoski, P. K. (1977). Instructional materials will not improve until we change the system. Educational Leadership, 42, 31–37.Google Scholar
  29. Kong, F., & Shi, N. (2009). Process analysis and level measurement of textbooks use by teachers. Frontiers of Education in China, 4(2), 268–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers: understanding the connections. Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra word problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 329–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: AuthorGoogle Scholar
  36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  38. Nie, B., Freedman, T., Hwang, S., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., & Cai, J. (2013). An investigation of teachers’ intentions and reflections about using Standards-based and traditional textbooks in the classroom. ZDM, 45, 699–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pepin, B., Haggarty, L., & Keynes, M. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in english, french, and German classrooms: a way to understand teaching and learning cultures. The International Journal on Mathematics Education (ZDM), 33(5), 158–175.Google Scholar
  40. Pólya, G. (1981). Mathematical discovery (combinedth ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  41. Randall, C., Crown, W., Fennell, F., Caldwell, J., Cavanagh, M., Chancellor, D., Ramirez, A., Ramos, J. F., Sammons, K., Schielack, J. F., Tate, W., Thompson, M., & Van de Walle, J. (2005). Scott foresman-addison Wesley mathematics. Grade 5. Glenview, IL: Pearson Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  42. Ravitz, J.L., Becker, H.J., & Wong, Y-T. (2000). Constructivist compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. teachers. (Teaching, Learning & Computing Report 4.) Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California. Available: http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/report4/
  43. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: a framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29, 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of “standards”-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 74-95.Google Scholar
  46. Sanders, N. M. (1966). Classroom questions: what kinds? New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  47. Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S. A., Britton, E. D., Bianchi, L. J., & Wolfe, R. G. (1997). Many visions, many aims: a cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18, 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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(4), 351–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Son, J. (2008). Elementary teachers’ mathematical textbook use patterns in terms of cognitive demands and influential factors: A mixed method study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  52. Son, J., & Crespo, S. (2009). Prospective teachers’ reasoning about students’ non-traditional strategies when dividing fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 236–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Son, J., & Senk, S. (2010). How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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(4), 639–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. (2010). Selecting and supporting the Use of mathematics curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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(4), 268–75.Google Scholar
  58. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (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
  59. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: a casebook for professional development. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  60. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–16.Google Scholar
  62. Sullivan, P., & Mornane, A. (2014). Exploring teachers’ use of, and students’ reactions to, challenging mathematics tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26, 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., & Clarke, B. (2009). Converting mathematics tasks to learning opportunities: an important aspect of knowledge for mathematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.Google Scholar
  65. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  67. Wagreich, P., Goldberg, H., & TIMS Project Staff. (2004). Math trailblazers: a mathematical journey using science and language arts, a complete mathematics curriculum, including student textbooks and teacher’s manuals for grades K-5. Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt.Google Scholar
  68. 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. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.Google Scholar
  69. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  70. Wormeli, R. (2005). Busting the mythos about differentiated instruction. Principal Leadership, 5(7), 28–33.Google Scholar
  71. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Education, Department of Learning and InstructionUniversity at Buffalo - The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Western Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options