Examining the Pedagogical Approaches in Five Curriculum Programs

  • Janine T. RemillardEmail author
  • Ok-Kyeong Kim
  • Rowan Machalow
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)


This chapter explores the pedagogical approach incorporated into each of the five curriculum programs we analyzed (The five programs are Everyday Mathematics (EM), Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (INV), Math in Focus (MIF), Math Trailblazers (MTB), and Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Mathematics (SFAW). See Chap.  1 for more details about the programs.). Specifically, we consider explicit and implicit messages about how students should interact with mathematics, one another, the teacher, and the textbook around these mathematical ideas. The analysis considers the role the teacher is expected to play and the corresponding roles the textbooks and students play in shaping these interactions. Following Hiebert and colleagues’ notion that teaching is an interactive system, involving a constellation of interrelated features, we present the approach of each program in a holistic profile, which overviews five dimensions: participant structures, nature of student work, role of the teacher, sources of knowledge, and cognitive demand of tasks. We also consider ways that these features bolster or moderate one another. Using a dialogic-to-direct instruction continuum characterized by Munter and colleagues, we highlight several key differences of the pedagogical approaches across the five programs. We also discuss ways that a single continuum is insufficient for characterizing the way pedagogical approach is represented in teacher’s guides.


Curriculum analysis Mathematics curriculum materials Curriculum materials pedagogy Teacher’s role Dialogic instruction Source of knowledge Cognitive demand Participant structure Teacher’s guide Role of teacher Everyday Mathematics Investigations in Number, Data, and Space Math in Focus Math Trailblazers Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics 


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Boesen, J., Helenius, O., Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., Palm, T., & Palmberg, B. (2014). Developing mathematical competence: From the intended to the enacted curriculum. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boston, M. D., & Candela, A. G. (2018). The instructional quality assessment as a tool for reflecting on instructional practice. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50, 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 199–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charles, R. I., Crown, W., Fennell, F., et al. (2008). Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Mathematics. Glenview, IL: Pearson.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duke, N. K., & David Pearson, P. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension (pp. 205–242). In: What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.). International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  8. Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 633–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Heck, D. J., Chval, K. B., Weiss, I. R., & Ziebarth, S. W. (2012). Developing measures of fidelity of implementation for mathematics curriculum materials enactment. In D. J. Heck, K. B. Chval, I. R. Weiss, & S. W. Ziebarth (Eds.), Approaches to studying the enacted mathematics curriculum (pp. 67–87). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. W., Jacobs, J. K., Garnier, H., Smith, M. S., Hollingsworth, H., Manaster, A., Wearne, D., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hiebert, J., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, ME: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  13. Houang, R. T., & Schmidt, W. H. (2008). TIMSS international curriculum analysis and measuring educational opportunities. 3rd IEA International research conference TIMSS, 1–18. Retrieved from
  14. Howson, G. (2013). The development of mathematics textbooks: Historical reflections from a personal perspective. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, K., & Fujita, T. (2013). Interpretations of National Curricula: The case of geometry in textbooks from England and Japan. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 671–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marshall Cavendish International. (2010). Math in focus: The Singapore approach by Marshall Cavendish. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  17. Munter, C., Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (2015). Dialogic and direct instruction: Two distinct models of mathematics instruction and the debate(s) surrounding them. Teachers College Record, 117(11), 1–32.Google Scholar
  18. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  20. NCTM. (1991). The professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Osterholm, M., & Bergqvist, E. (2013). What is so special about mathematical texts? Analyses of common claims in research literature and of properties of textbooks. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 751–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Otten, S., & Soria, V. M. (2014). Relationships between students’ learning and their participation during enactment of middle school algebra tasks. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46, 815–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Re-sourcing teachers’ work and interactions: A collective perspective on resources, their use and transformation. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 929–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (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
  25. Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(5), 705–718.Google Scholar
  26. Remillard, J. T., & Reinke, L. T. (2017). Mathematics curriculum in the United States: New challenges and opportunities. In D. R. Thompson, M. A. Huntly, & C. Suurtamm (Eds.), International perspectives on mathematics curriculum (pp. 131–162). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Remillard, J. T. (2018). Examining Teachers’ Interactions with Curriculum Resource to Uncover Pedagogical Design Capacity. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Recent Advances in Research on Mathematics Teachers’ Textbooks and Resources (pp. 69–88). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.Google Scholar
  30. 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 classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., & 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). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. TIMS Project. (2008). Math trailblazers teacher implementation guide, grades 3, 4, 5. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  33. TERC. (2008). Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (2nd edition). Glenview, IL: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  34. TIMS Project (2008). Math Trailblazers (3rd Edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  35. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2008). Everyday Mathematics (3rd Edition). Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  36. Vincent, J., & Stacey, K. (2008). Do mathematics textbooks cultivate shallow teaching? Applying the TIMSS Video Study criteria to Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 82–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janine T. Remillard
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ok-Kyeong Kim
    • 2
  • Rowan Machalow
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations