Advertisement

CLASSROOM EXPERIENCES WITH NEW CURRICULUM MATERIALS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN MATHEMATICS: A CASE STUDY OF TEACHERS COPING WITH CHANGE

  • Samuel ObaraEmail author
  • Margaret Sloan
Article

Abstract

A qualitative case study was conducted to investigate the classroom experiences of three sixth-grade teachers and their mathematics coach as they worked with new instructional materials during the implementation of a new state-mandated curriculum based on performance standards in mathematics. Teachers' collective participation in the exploration of the new standards, selection of materials, participation in a summer professional development workshop specifically tied to the use of the new materials, and the creation of an in-school professional development program were catalysts in the teachers' perception of the need to change their practice. The intended state-level standards were implemented with some success; however, despite their desire to change their practice and in contrast to their belief that considerable change had occurred, the data suggest that the change in the teachers' instructional practice was minimal.

Key words

Connected Math culture curriculum ELL Georgia Performance Standards GPS implementation NCLB performance standards 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, D. L. (1995). Developing mathematics reform: What don't we know about teacher learning-but would make good working hypotheses?. East Lansing: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8. 14.Google Scholar
  3. Bay, J. M., Beem, J. K., Reys, R. E., Papick, I., & Barnes, D. E. (1999). Student reactions to standards-based mathematics curricula: The interplay between curriculum, teachers, and students. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 182–188.Google Scholar
  4. Bay, J. M., Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (1999). The top 10 elements that must be in place to implement standards-based mathematics curricula. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(7), 503–506.Google Scholar
  5. Borko, H., Davinroy, K. H., Bliem, C. L., & Cumbo, K. B. (2000). Exploring and supporting teacher change: Two third-grade teachers' experiences in a mathematics and literacy staff development project. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 273–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, D. K. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). State policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113(4), 515–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuevas, G. J. (1984). Mathematics learning in English as a second language. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drake, C. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaption and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards, T. G. (1995). Cooperative learning in response to an innovative curriculum as a manifestation of change in teaching practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  13. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depth of educational reform. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  14. Garrison, L., Ponce, G., & Amaral, O. M. (2007). Ninety percent of the games is half mental. Teaching Children Mathematics, 14(1), 12–17.Google Scholar
  15. Georgia Department of Education (2006). Georgia Performance Standards. Mathematics curriculum revision: Executive summary. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/gps_summary_math.pdf?p=4BE1EECF99CD364EA5554055463F1FBBF5D074D5FB1F2CAEB3B63B3ECB220CDD26C2114F3C57D8D2925C2E80687C2A69&Type=D.
  16. Heaton, R. M. (1992). Who is minding the mathematics content? A case study of a fifth-grade teacher. Elementary School Journal, 93(2), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herbst, P. G. (2002). Engaging students in providing: A double blind on the teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(3), 176–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howson, A. G., Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum development in mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kilpatrick, J. (2000). Reflections on verifying change in school mathematics. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35(1), 28–30.Google Scholar
  20. Kilpatrick, J., Lynn, H., Mewborn, D. S., & Stallings, L. (1996). Teaching and learning cross-country mathematics. In S. A. Raizen & E. D. Britton (Eds.), Bold ventures (Vol. 3). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Lappan, G., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W., Friel, S. N., & Phillips, E. D. (2005). Connected mathematics series. Glenview: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Lloyd, G. M. (2002). Mathematics teachers' belief and experiences with innovative curriculum materials. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Tèorner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 149–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge within. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Center for Alternative Certification. (2007). Teacher education report: Georgia adopts integrated math curriculum. Retrieved December 29, 2007, from http://www.teach-now.org/newsdisp.cfm?newsid=98#1.
  25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  26. Remillard, J. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Remillard, J. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Remillard, J. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Remillard, J., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientation toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implication for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reys, B., Reys, R., Barnes, D., Beem, J., & Papick, I. (1997). Collaborative curriculum investigation as a vehicle for teacher enhancement and mathematics curriculum reform. School Science and Mathematics, 97(5), 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ridgway, J. E., Zawojewski, J. S., Hoover, M. N., & Lamdin, D. V. (2003). Student attainment in the connected mathematics curriculum. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 193–224). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, J. P. (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for reform. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stake, R. E. (1986). Quieting reform: Social science and social action in an urban youth program. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  35. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research: Perspectives on practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–369). Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  37. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  38. Teppo, A. (1997). Diverse ways of knowing. In A. Teppo (Ed.), Qualitative research methods in mathematics education (pp. 1–16). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  39. The Governor's Office of Student Achievement. (2005–2006). K-12 public schools annual report card. Retrieved December 30, 2007, from http://reportcard2006.gaosa.org/k12/reports.aspx?TestType=QCC&ID=776:4050.
  40. Trafton, P. R., Reys, B. J., & Wasman, D. G. (2001). Standards-based mathematics curriculum materials: A phrase in search of a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 259–264.Google Scholar
  41. Valverde, G. A. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson, M. S., & Cooney, T. J. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Tèorner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 127–147). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.Washington-Wilkes Comprehensive High SchoolWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations