Abstract
The overall purpose of our work is to document the range of preservice teachers’ (PSTs’) curricular knowledge (Shulman, Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2):4–14, 1986) and curriculum use practices. In this chapter, we present PSTs’ responses to a set of questions that elicited their knowledge and practices for reading, evaluating, and adapting a standards-based curriculum lesson. The questions are related to the goals and purposes of the lesson, the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson, and possible changes to the lesson. Our findings about the range of PSTs’ responses to the questions contributed to a preliminary curriculum use trajectory and are intended to help researchers further develop the constructs of curriculum use and curricular knowledge.
This work was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 0643497 and 1158860 (Corey Drake, PI). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
We have used lesson and lesson plan interchangeably.
- 3.
Here, we are using “with connections” differently than Stein and Smith (1998). We are referring to PSTs having a procedural and/or conceptual goal with connections across strategies and/or representations.
- 4.
We are using the terms progression and trajectory as synonymous.
References
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(6), 8–14.Beyer, C., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Supporting preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptations of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 517–536.
Brown, M., & Edelson, D. C. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? Evanston: The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York: Routledge.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Drake, C., Cirillo, M., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Using curriculum to build on children’s thinking. Teaching Children Mathematics, 16(1), 49–54.
Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Developing curriculum vision and trust: Changes in teachers’ curriculum strategies. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 321–337). New York: Routledge.
Empson, S. B., & Junk, D. L. (2004). Teacher’s knowledge of children’s mathematics after implementing a student-centered curriculum. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 121–144.
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, A., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47–61.
Jacobs, V. R., & Ambrose, R. C. (2008). Making the most of story problems. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(5), 260–266.
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L., & Philipp, R. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.
Lloyd, G. M., & Behm, S. L. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers’ analysis of mathematics instructional materials. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 48–62.
Morris, A. K., Hiebert, J., & Spitzer, S. M. (2009). Mathematical knowledge for teaching in planning and evaluating instruction: What can pre-service teachers learn? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(5), 491–529.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.
Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 331–355.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–216.
Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388.
Schwarz, C., Reiser, B. J., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Roseman, J. E., Willard, T., & Acher, A. (2008). Designing and testing the MoDeLS learning progression. Paper presented at NARST 2008, Baltimore, MD.
Seago, N. (2007). Fidelity and adaptation of professional development materials: Can they co-exist? NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 9(2), 16–25.
Sherin, M., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Stein, M.K., & Smith, M.S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268–275.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Taylor, M. W. (2010). Replacing the “teacher-proof” curriculum with the “curriculum-proof” teacher: Toward a more systematic way for mathematics teachers to interact with their textbooks (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
TERC. (1998). Investigations in number, data, and space. Glenview: Pearson Scott Foresman.
TERC. (2008). Investigations in number, data, and space (Grade 3, Unit 1): Trading stickers, combining coins. Glenview: Pearson Scott Foresman.
Tyminski, A. M., Land, T. J., & Drake, C. (2013). Elementary preservice teachers’ reading of educative curriculum: Noticing students’ mathematical thinking. Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.
University of Illinois at Chicago. (2008). Math trailblazers (3rd ed.). Grade 1, Unit 17. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716–730.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Land, T., Drake, C. (2014). Understanding Preservice Teachers’ Curricular Knowledge. In: Lo, JJ., Leatham, K., Van Zoest, L. (eds) Research Trends in Mathematics Teacher Education. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02562-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02562-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02561-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02562-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)