Profiles of Elementary Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curriculum Materials and the Influence of Teacher Expertise

Christopher Engledowl; Corey Webel; Sheunghyun Yeo

doi:10.29333/iejme/9702

Full Text (PDF)

Christopher Engledowl ¹ ^* , Corey Webel ², Sheunghyun Yeo ³

More Detail

¹ New Mexico State University, NM, USA² University of Missouri, MO, USA³ University of Alabama, AL, USA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has consistently emphasized the importance of curricular coherence in mathematics education. However, the predominance of the Internet has led to a lack of consistency in the use and quality of curricular materials. We drew on teachers’ self-report of their use of curriculum materials and conducted a Latent Class Analysis to examine patterns in 56 elementary teachers’ selection, use, and perceptions of materials for teaching mathematics, including the role that teacher expertise may play in these patterns. Findings indicated that the most salient difference between classes was at least one digital resource reported—the Blended class—and no digital resources reported—the Non-Digital class. Teacher expertise was not a significant covariate. Future research should examine the role of policies on teachers’ curricular decisions. Implications include how specialist programs may support positive patterns of curriculum selection and use.

Keywords

curriculum selection
elementary mathematics
teacher expertise
latent class analysis

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

INT ELECT J MATH ED, Volume 16, Issue 2, May 2021, Article No: em0626

https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/9702

Publication date: 13 Feb 2021

Article Views: 2878

Article Downloads: 1818

Open Access Disclosures References How to cite this article

Disclosure

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

References

Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J., Jones, D. L., & Park-Rogers, M. (2006). Examining instructional practices in Core-Plus lessons: Implications for professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(6), 517–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-9019-3
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2013). Standards for elementary mathematics specialists: A reference for teacher credentialing and degree programs. San Diego, CA.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME +. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430-454. https://doi.org/10.1086/657654
Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2014). The mathematical knowledge and beliefs of elementary mathematics specialist-coaches. ZDM, 46(2), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0559-6
Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C., & Mitchell, R. N. (2012). Two negatives don’t always make a positive: Exploring how limitations in teacher knowledge and the curriculum contribute to instructional quality. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 489-513. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.716974
Choppin, J., & Borys, Z. (2017). Trends in the design, development, and use of digital curriculum materials. ZDM, 49(5), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0860-x
Choppin, J., Carson, C., Borys, Z., Cerosaletti, C., & Gillis, R. (2014). A typology for analyzing digital curricula in mathematics education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 2(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.95334
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300089479.001.0001
Davis, J., Choppin, J., Roth McDuffie, A., & Drake, C. (2013). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Middle School Teachers’ Perceptions. Rochester, NY: Warner Center for Professional Development and Education Reform.
de Araujo, Z., Webel, C., & Reys, B. B. (2017). Preparing elementary mathematics specialists: Essential knowledge, skills, and experiences. In M. B. McGatha & N. R. Rigelman (Eds.), Elementary Mathematics Specialists (pp. 19-32): Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE).
Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). 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, NY: Routledge.
Drijvers, P., Tacoma, S., Besamusca, A., Doorman, M., & Boon, P. (2013). Digital resources inviting changes in mid-adopting teachers’ practices and orchestrations. ZDM, 45(7), 987-1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0535-1
Dziak, J. J., Lanza, S. T., & Tan, X. (2014). Effect size, statistical power and sample size requirements for the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test in Latent Class Analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(4), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919819
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Fennell, F. S. (2011). We need elementary mathematics specialists now, more than ever: A historical perspective and call to action. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 13(2), 52-59.
Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9159-8
Gutiérrez, R. (2016). Strategies for creative insubordination in mathematics teaching. Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics, 7(1), 52–60.
Hanson, K., & Carlson, B. (2005). Effective access: Teachers’ use of digital resources in STEM teaching. Education Development Center, Inc.
Heck, D. J., Chval, K. B., Weiss, I. R., & Ziebarth, S. W. (Eds.). (2012). Approaches to studying the enacted mathematics curriculum (Vol. 10). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Herbst, P. (2010). Practical rationality and the justification for actions in mathematics teaching. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Hill, H. C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 513-545. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.5.0513
Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition & Instruction, 26(4), 430-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235
Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12437203
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Vahey, P., & Roschelle, J. (2013). Cornerstone mathematics: Designing digital technology for teacher adaptation and scaling. ZDM, 45(7), 1057-1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0540-4
Kasten, S. E., & Sinclair, N. (2009). Using dynamic geometry software in the mathematics classroom: A study of teachers’ choices and rationales. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(4), 133-143.
Linzer, D. A., & Lewis, J. B. (2011). poLCA: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(10), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i10
Lloyd, G. M., & Wilson, M. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher’s conceptions of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 248-274. https://doi.org/10.2307/749790
Lloyd, G. M., Cai, J., & Tarr, J. E. (2017). Issues in Curriculum Studies: Evidence-Based Insights and Future Directions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 244–272). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Manouchehri, A. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers: What are the dilemmas? Journal of Teacher Education, 49(4), 276-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487198049004005
Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge within. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004011522216
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington D.C.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
Pepin, B., Choppin, J., Ruthven, K., & Sinclair, N. (2017). Digital curriculum resources in mathematics education: Foundations for change. ZDM, 49(5), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0879-z
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curriculum. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
Remillard, J. T. (2016). Keeping an Eye on the Teacher in the Digital Curriculum Race. In M. Bates, & Z. Usiskin, (Eds.), Digital Curricula in School Mathematics (pp. 195-204). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., & Gallagher, L. P. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 833-878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210367426
Roth McDuffie, A., & Mather, M. (2009). Middle school mathematics teachers’ use of curricular reasoning in a collaborative professional development project. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 302-320). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schoen, H. L., Cebulla, K. J., Finn, K. F., & Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a Standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(3), 228-259. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034779
Sleep, L., & Eskelson, S. L. (2012). MKT and curriculum materials are only part of the story: Insights from a lesson on fractions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 537-558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.716977
Son, J. W., & Kim, O. K. (2015). Teachers’ selection and enactment of mathematical problems from textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(4), 491–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0148-9
Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663-693. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361210
Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., Carothers, J., & Myers, K. (2018). The preparation experiences of elementary mathematics specialists: Examining influences on beliefs, content knowledge, and teaching practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(2), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-016-9354-y
Tarr, J. E., Grouws, D. A., Chavez, O., & Soria, V. M. (2013). The effects of content organization and curriculum implementation on mathematics learning in secondary high school courses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 683-729. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.4.0683
US Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning, reimagining the role of technology in education: 2016 National Education Technology Plan. Washington, DC.
Usiskin, Z. (2013). Studying textbooks in an information age—A United States perspective. ZDM, 45(5), 713-723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0514-6
Webel, C., Conner, K. A., Sheffel, C., Tarr, J. E., & Austin, C. (2017). Elementary mathematics specialists in “departmentalized” teaching assignments: Affordances and constraints. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 196-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.006
Webel, C., Krupa, E. E., & McManus, J. (2015). Teachers’ evaluations and use of web-based curriculum resources in relation to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(2), 49.
Webel, C., Tarr, J., Austin, C., Yeo, S., Sheffel, C., Dong, N., Reys, B., & Engledowl, C. (2018). Elementary mathematics specialists and their peers: Comparing beliefs, knowledge, and instructional practices. Paper presented at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association.
Webel, C., Tarr, J., Austin, C., Yeo, S., Sheffel, C., Dong, N., Reys, B., & Engledowl, C. (2018). Elementary mathematics specialists and their peers: Comparing beliefs, knowledge, and instructional practices [Paper presentation]. The 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association.
Weis, A. M., & Banilower, E. R. (2014). 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education: Public release datasets user manual. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Yeo, S. (2018). Investigating spatial and temporal reasoning of elementary students through gamified mathematics software. In T. E. Hodges, G. J. Roy, & A. M. Tyminski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.1271-1274). Greenville, SC.

How to cite this article

APA

Engledowl, C., Webel, C., & Yeo, S. (2021). Profiles of Elementary Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curriculum Materials and the Influence of Teacher Expertise. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(2), em0626. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/9702

Vancouver

Engledowl C, Webel C, Yeo S. Profiles of Elementary Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curriculum Materials and the Influence of Teacher Expertise. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(2):em0626. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/9702

AMA

Engledowl C, Webel C, Yeo S. Profiles of Elementary Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curriculum Materials and the Influence of Teacher Expertise. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(2), em0626. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/9702

Chicago

Engledowl, Christopher, Corey Webel, and Sheunghyun Yeo. "Profiles of Elementary Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curriculum Materials and the Influence of Teacher Expertise". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2021 16 no. 2 (2021): em0626. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/9702

Harvard

Engledowl, C., Webel, C., and Yeo, S. (2021). Profiles of Elementary Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curriculum Materials and the Influence of Teacher Expertise. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(2), em0626. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/9702

MLA

Engledowl, Christopher et al. "Profiles of Elementary Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curriculum Materials and the Influence of Teacher Expertise". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 16, no. 2, 2021, em0626. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/9702