The Constantly Underestimated Challenge of Improving Mathematics Instruction

  • James Hiebert


Many U.S. efforts to improve mathematics learning opportunities for ­students have not made it through the classroom door. Teaching is the single common pathway along which improvements reach students. But mathematics teaching has not changed much over the past century. Why is teaching so hard to change? The reasons seem to lie in an incomplete understanding of why mathematics teaching looks like it does, what aspects of teaching should change, and how teachers learn to teach mathematics in different ways. Examining these issues reveals a number of challenging research agendas.


Preservice Teacher Teaching Quality Cultural Activity Teacher Preparation Learning Goal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 115–131.Google Scholar
  2. Berk, D., & Hiebert, J. (2009). Improving the mathematics preparation of elementary teachers, one lesson at a time. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 337–356.Google Scholar
  3. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Branson, R. K., & Grow, G. (1987). Instructional systems development. In R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 397–428). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Buddin, R., & Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher qualifications and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 66(2), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from
  7. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Duncan, A. (2009, October 22). Teacher preparation: Reforming the uncertain profession. Remarks of Secretary Arne Duncan at Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from
  9. Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107, 186–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fey, J. (1979). Mathematics teaching today: Perspectives from three national surveys. Mathematics Teacher, 72, 490–504.Google Scholar
  11. Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 537–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gladwell, M. (2008, December 15). Most likely to succeed: How do we hire when we can’t tell who’s right for the job? New Yorker. Retrieved from
  13. Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.Google Scholar
  14. Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001 Revised). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  15. Gootman, E. (2009, June 5). Next test: Value of $125,000-a-year teachers. New York Times. Retrieved from
  16. Green, E. (2010, March 7). Building a better teacher. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  17. Hiebert, J. (Ed.). (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., & Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: An “experiment” model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. W., Jacobs, J. K., Givvin, K. B., Garnier, H., Smith, M., et al. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. P., Jr. (1969). The persistence of the recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klein, D. (2007). A quarter century of U.S. math wars and political partisanship. British Society for the History of Mathematics, 22, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., et al. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U.S. perspective (NCES 2005–003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  24. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Moore, D. S. (1995). The craft of teaching. MAA Focus, 15(2), 5–8.Google Scholar
  26. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010–451). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  27. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  31. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (2001). The strands of mathematical proficiency. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paige, R. (2004). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretarys annual report on teacher quality, 2004. Retrieved from
  35. Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement and improvement in classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Quality Counts. (2008, January 10). Tapping into teaching—unlocking the key to student success. Education Week, 27(18).Google Scholar
  37. Raudenbush, S. W. (2008). Advancing policy by advancing research on instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 206–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.Google Scholar
  41. Schaefer, R. J. (1967). The school as the center of inquiry. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Silver, E. A., Mesa, V. M., Morris, K. A., Star, J. R., & Benken, B. M. (2009). Teaching mathematics for understanding: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 501–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Solmon, L. C., Bigler, P., Hanushek, E. A., Shulman, L. S., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). How to determine who is a quality teacher. In L. C. Solmon & T. W. Schiff (Eds.), Talented teachers: The essential force for improving student achievement (pp. 49–85). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  45. Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 404–411.Google Scholar
  46. Star, J. R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 132–135.Google Scholar
  47. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the worlds’ teachers for improving education in the classroom (paperback ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wooden, J. R., & Jamison, S. (1997). Wooden: A lifetime of observations and reflections on and off the court. Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations