Abstract
This study examines primary grades teachers’ instructional decisions in their mathematics classroom during their participation in a year-long professional development program on formative assessment. Teachers participated in 40 h of face-to-face workshops followed by 40 h of classroom-embedded activities that were facilitated in an asynchronous online format. Inductive analysis of teachers’ online discussion forum posts and their frequency of using an internet-based formative assessment system indicated significant variance in teachers’ use of the formative assessment tool. Some teachers used the assessment system regularly and reported modifying instruction based on the data collected through formative assessment. However, some teachers demonstrated difficulty determining how the assessments aligned to specific mathematics standards, and how the assessment should inform their use of curriculum. Implications for future research include the need to triangulate data from instructional plans, surveys, and classroom observations, while implications for practice include the need to more explicitly support teachers’ instructional planning process using specific curricular resources.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrams, L. M. (2007). Implications of high-stakes testing for the use of formative classroom assessment. In H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative assessment classroom: Theory into practice (pp. 70–98). New York: Teachers College Press.
Andrade, H., & Cizek, G. J. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Taylor and Francis.
APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: Author.
Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2005). Te Kotahitanga: Improving the educational achievement of Māori students in mainstream schools (Progress report and planning document). Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working iside the black box: assessment for leraning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–71.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Coffey, A. J., & Atkinson, P. A. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2011). Common Core State Standards-Mathematics. Retrieved from: http://corestandards.org.
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, R. M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.
Fennema, L., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Levi, M., Jacobs, V., & Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403–434.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199–208.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Briman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Glazer, E. M., Hannafin, M. J., Polly, D., & Rich, P. (2009). Factors and interactions influencing technology integration during situated professional development in an elementary school. Computers in the Schools, 26(1), 21–39.
Hawley, W. D. & Valli, L. (2000). Learner-centered professional development. Research Bulletin, 27. Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research.
Heck, D. J., Banilower, E. R., Weiss, I. R., & Rosenberg, S. L. (2008). Studying the effects of professional development: The case of the NSF’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(2), 113–152.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145.
Higgins, J., & Parsons, R. (2009). A successful professional development model in mathematics: A system-wide New Zealand case. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 231–242.
Higgins, J., Parsons, R., & Hyland, M. (2003). The numeracy development project: Policy to practice. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 12, 157–175.
Koellner, K., Colsman, M., & Risley, R. (2011). Multidimensional assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(2), 48–56.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Martin, C. S., & Polly, D. (2015). Using the AMC Anywhere web-based assessment system to examine primary students’ understanding of number sense. In D. Polly (Ed.), Cases on technology integration in mathematics education (pp. 366–377). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6497-5.ch018.
Martin, C. S., Polly, D., Wang, C., Lambert, R. G., & Pugalee, D. K. (accepted). Perspectives and practices of elementary teachers using an internet-based formative assessment tool: The case of Assessing Mathematics Concepts. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education.
McGee, J. R., Wang, C., & Polly, D. (2013). Guiding teachers in the use of a standards-based mathematics curriculum: Perceptions and subsequent instructional practices after an intensive professional development program. School Science and Mathematics, 113(1), 16–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00172.x.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching (NPEAT). (2000). Revisioning professional development: What learner-centered professional development looks like. Oxford, OH: Author.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Polly, D. (2006). Participants’ focus in a learner-centered technology-rich mathematics professional development program. Mathematics Educator, 16(1), 14–21.
Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Reexamining technology’s role in learner-centered professional development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 557–571.
Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining how learner-centered professional development influences teachers’ espoused and enacted practices. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 120–130.
Polly, D. & Orrill, C. H. (2012). Developing technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) through professional development focused on technology-rich mathematics tasks. The Meridian, 15. Retrieved from: http://ced.ncsu.edu/meridian/index.php/meridian/article/view/44/43.
Polly, D., Wang, C., Martin, C. S., Lambert, R. G., Pugalee, D. K., Stephan, M., et al. (2014a). Examining the influence of professional development on primary students’ mathematical achievement. Paper presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA.
Polly, D., Wang, C., McGee, J., Lambert, R. G., Martin, C. S., & Pugalee, D. (2014b). Examining the influence of a curriculum-based elementary mathematics professional development program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28(3), 327–343. doi:10.1080/02568543.2014.913276.
Richardson, K. (1998). Developing number concepts: Counting, comparing, and pattern. New York: Dale Seymour.
Richardson, K. (2012). How children learn number concepts: A guide to the critical learning phases. Bellingham, WA: Math Perspectives.
Wang, C., Polly, D., Lehew, A., Pugalee, D., Lambert, R., & Martin, C. S. (2013). Supporting teachers’ enactment of elementary school student-centered mathematics pedagogies: The evaluation of a curriculum-focused professional development program. New Waves-Educational Research and Development, 16(1), 76–91.
Wiliam, D. (2007a). What does research say the benefits of formative assessment are? National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Brief. Retrieved from: http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Research_News_and_Advocacy/Research/Clips_and_Briefs/Research_brief_05_-_Formative_Assessment.pdf.
Wiliam, D. (2007b). Keeping learning on track: Formative assessment and the regulation of learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053–1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
William, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 18–40). New York, NY: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Overview of professional development activities
Summer professional development workshops | |
|---|---|
Teachers learn about the mathematical concepts embedded in the AMC Anywhere system Teachers participate in, analyze, and discuss the assessments in the AMC Anywhere system Teachers use the AMC Anywhere system to assess other adults during role playing scenarios Teachers use the AMC Anywhere system to assess students participating in a summer program Teachers participate in, analyze, and discuss the instructional activities in the Developing Number Concepts (DNC) resources Teachers analyze a set of classroom data to identify trends and patterns in the data set Teachers analyze a set of classroom data and collaboratively select instructional activities that address various levels of student performance |
Classroom-embedded professional development (online modules) | ||
|---|---|---|
Module | Time of year | Activities |
Module 1 | First two months of the school year | Teachers assess their students using the AMC Anywhere system Teachers design and share their plan for organizing their mathematics instruction to differentiate activities based on data Teachers collaborate via online discussion boards sharing ideas about instructional activities to use |
Module 2 | Middle of the school year | Teachers watch a video of an assessment, evaluate the student using the system, analyze the students’ performance, and discuss appropriate instructional activities Teachers assess their students using the AMC Anywhere system Teachers design and share their plan for intensive targeted support for a group of their students who require specific differentiation Teachers collaborate via online discussion boards their successes, barriers to implementation, questions, and progress of their students |
Module 3 | Last two months of the school year | Teachers assess their students using the AMC Anywhere system Teachers provide results and updates about their students’ growth, the use of the AMC Anywhere system and associated instructional materials Teachers learn about Number Talks, a process for facilitating conversation about number sense, and implement at least one Number Talk in their classroom |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Polly, D., Martin, C.S., Wang, C. et al. Primary Grades Teachers’ Instructional Decisions During Online Mathematics Professional Development Activities. Early Childhood Educ J 44, 275–287 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0711-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0711-8