Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-09
Putting early algebra in the hands of elementary school teachers: examining fidelity of implementation and its relation to student performance / El álgebra temprana en manos del docente de primaria: un análisis de la fidelidad de ejecución y su relación con el rendimiento de los escolares
Guided by a theoretical framework emphasizing the importance of fidelity of implementation (FOI), this paper explores how teachers of grades 3, 4 and 5 implemented an early algebra intervention, and the relationship between FOI and student learning. The data shared in this paper come from a longitudinal experimental research project in which 3,208 students from 46 schools were followed for three years. Videotaped classroom observations, our primary source of FOI data, were coded to capture teachers’ instructional practices, and an algebra assessment was given to assess student performance in response to the teachers’ implementation of our instructional intervention. Results revealed a significant positive relationship between aspects of teachers’ implementation and their students’ performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlantonM.IslerI.StroudR.StephensA.KnuthE.GardinerA. (press). Growth in children’s understanding of generalizing and representing mathematical structure and relationships. Educational Studies in Mathematics.
2.
BlantonM.StephensA.KnuthE.GardinerA.IslerI.KimJ. (2015). The development of children’s algebraic thinking: The impact of a comprehensive early algebra intervention in third grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46, 39–87.
3.
BlantonM.StephensA.StroudR.KnuthE.StylianouD.GardinerA. (press). Does early algebra matter? The effectiveness of an early algebra intervention in grades 3–5. American Educational Research Journal.
4.
BrizuelaB. M.EarnestD. (2008). Multiple notational systems and algebraic understandings: The case of the “best deal” problem. In KaputJ. J.CarraherD. W.BlantonM. L. (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 273–301). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
CaiJ.KnuthE. (Eds.). (2011). Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer.
6.
CarpenterT. P.FrankeM. L.LeviL. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in the elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
7.
CarraherD. W.SchliemannA. D.BrizuelaB. M.EarnestD. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 87–115.
8.
CarraherD. W.SchliemannA. D.SchwartzJ. L. (2008). Early algebra is not the same as algebra early. In KaputJ. J.CarraherD. W.BlantonM. L. (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 235–272). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
DorlandW. A. (1994). Borland‘s illustrated medical dictionary (28th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunder.
10.
DusenburyL.BranniganR.HansenW. B.WalshJ. (2003). Quality of implementation: developing measures to crucial to understanding the diffusion of preventive interventions. Health Education Research20, 308–313.
11.
FongerN. L.StephensA.BlantonM.IslerI.KnuthE.GardinerA. (2018). Developing a learning progression for curriculum, instruction, and student learning: An example from mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 36, 30–55.
12.
HiebertJ.CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.FusonK. C.WearneD.MurrayH.HumanP. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding (Vol. 361, pp. 3801–3912). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13.
JacobsV. R.LambL. L. C.PhilippR. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 169–202.
14.
KaputJ. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra. In FennemaE.RombergT. A. (Eds.), Mathematical classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 133–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
KaputJ. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In KaputJ.CarraherD.BlantonM. (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 5–17). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
KaputJ. J.CarraherD. W.BlantonM. L. (Eds.). (2008). Algebra in the early grades. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
KlineM. (1972). Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
24.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSO]. 2010. Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
25.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2004). On curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
O’DonnellC. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.
28.
RAND Mathematics Study Panel Report. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: A strategic research and development program in mathematics education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
29.
RaudenbushS. W. (2007). Designing field trials of educational innovations. In SchneiderB.McDonaldS.-K. (Eds.), Scale-up in education: Vol. II. Ideas in practice (pp. 23–40). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefiel.
30.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
31.
SchoenfeldA. (1995). Report of working group 1. In LacampagneC.BlairW.KaputJ. (Eds.), The algebra initiative colloquium (Vol. 2, pp. 11–12). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Working Group papers.
32.
StiglerJ. W.GonzalesP.KawanakaT.KnollS.SerranoA. (1999). The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. (U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics: NCES 99–074). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
33.
SummerfeltW. T.MeltzerH. Y. (1998). Efficacy vs. effectiveness in psychiatric research. Psychiatric Services, 49, 834–835.
34.
SuperfineA. S. (2008). Planning for mathematics instruction: A model of experienced teachers’ planning processes in the context of a reform mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Educator, 18(2), 11–22.
35.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. twelfth-grade mathematics and science achievement in international context: Initial findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (Revised, NCES98–049). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98049.pdf
36.
YapK.AldersebaesI.RailsbackJ.ShaughnessyJ.SpethT. (2000). Evaluating whole-school reform efforts: A guide for district and school staff (2nd ed.). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
