Abstract
To support teachers in understanding the design of their curriculum program and effectively transforming the written lesson as they enact it with their students, some curriculum authors have taken up recommendations to add transparency to their curriculum materials. Our analysis characterizes the different ways the authors of five elementary mathematics curriculum programs make design decisions transparent to teachers and the frequency, regularity, and depth of this support. We found that authors provided rationale for the design of the curriculum in varied and limited ways. While four of the five programs regularly communicated the purpose of instructional activities, they seldom elaborated why these particular activities or actions were appropriate or effective for serving these purposes. The authors of three of the programs provided storyline support aimed at helping teachers understand how the curriculum developed across time, most often making explicit connections across lessons and units. The depth of these connections, however, varied considerably, and authors rarely went so far as to explain how teachers might leverage these connections during instruction. Through analysis and illustrative examples, the chapter illuminates the possibilities for future design and research.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 422–449.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.
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), 6–14.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Using educative curriculum materials to support preservice elementary teachers’ curricular planning: A comparison between two different forms of support. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(5), 679–703.
Beyer, C. J., Delgado, C., Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977–998.
Charles, R. I., Crown, W., Fennell, F., et al. (2008). Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Mathematics. Glenview, IL: Pearson.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Marulis, L., & Iwashyna, S. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24–52.
Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Developing curriculum vision and trust. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 321–337). New York: Routledge.
Elementary Mathematics Department. (1997). PEP math, grade three (Vol. 1). Beijing: People’s Education Press.
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.
Kim, O. K. (2018). Teacher decisions on lesson sequence and their impact on opportunities for students to learn. In L. Fan & L. Trouche (Eds.), Recent advances in research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources (pp. 315–339). New York: Springer.
Li, J. (2004). A comparative study of United States and Chinese elementary mathematics textbook teacher guides. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Males, L. M. (2011). Educative supports for teachers in middle school mathematics curriculum materials: What is offered and how is it expressed? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Marshall Cavendish International. (2010). Math in focus: The Singapore approach by Marshall Cavendish. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Morris, A. K., Hiebert, J., & Spitzer, S. M. (2009). Mathematical knowledge for teaching in planning and evaluating instruction: What can preservice teachers learn? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 491–529.
Reinke, L. T., & Atanga, N. A. (2013, April 27–May 1). An analysis of authors’ communication of transparency and rationale for design in five elementary mathematics curriculum guides. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315–342.
Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
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.
Remillard, J. T., Reinke, L. T., & Kapoor, R. (2019). What is the point? Examining how curriculum materials articulate mathematical goals and how teachers steer instruction. International Journal of Educational Research, 93, 101–117.
Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Sleep, L. (2012). The work of steering instruction toward the mathematical point a decomposition of teaching practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 935–970.
Stein, M. K., & Kim, G. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale urban reform. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (p. 37). New York: Routledge.
TERC. (2008). Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (2nd edition). Glenview, IL: Pearson Education Inc.
TIMS Project (2008). Math Trailblazers (3rd Edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2008). Everyday Mathematics (3rd Edition). Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.
Watanabe, T. (2001). Content and organization of teacher’s manuals: An analysis of Japanese elementary mathematics teacher’s manuals. School Science and Mathematics, 101(4), 194–205.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reinke, L.T., Remillard, J.T., Kim, OK. (2020). Examining Design Transparency in Elementary Mathematics Curriculum Materials. In: Elementary Mathematics Curriculum Materials. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38588-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38588-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-38587-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-38588-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)