The purpose of this article is to offer teacher training and professional development recommendations in mathematics based on the findings of a federally funded 3–year intervention study that improved the problem solving of middle school students with a focus on students with learning disabilities. Over the 3–year project, 29 seventh and eighth grade teachers implemented a problem–solving intervention based on cognitive strategy instruction. Though the intervention was successful in improving students’ problem–solving performance, several issues related to teaching effectiveness and teacher training came to light. The article will: (1) describe the intervention and its implementation, (2) present the findings of the study, and (3) discuss the issues of effectiveness and possible solutions via teacher education and professional development.
BakerD., KnipeH., CollinsJ., LeonJ., CummingsE., & BlairC., et al. (2010). One hundred years of elementary school mathematics in the United States: A content analysis and cognitive assessment of textbooks from 1900 to 2000. Journal for Resarch in Mathematics Education, 41, 383–423. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/publications/jrme.aspx
3.
BallD. L., & CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practioners: Toward a practice–based theory of professional education. In Darling–HammondL. & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
4.
BlankR. K., AlasN., & SmithC. (2007). Does teacher professional development have effects on teaching and learning? Analysis of evaluation findings from programs for mathematics and science teachers in 14 states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
5.
CarrollC., PattersonM., WoodS., BoothA., RickJ., & BalainS. (2006). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2(40). doi: 10.1186/1748–5908–2–40.
6.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311–329.
7.
CordrayD. S., & PionG. M. (2006). Treatment strength and integrity: Models and methods. In BootzinR.R. & McKnightP.E. (Eds.), Strengthening research methodology: Psychological measurement and evaluation (pp. 103–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
Darling–HammondL., WeiR. C., AndreeA., RichardsonN., & OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Palo Alto, CA: National Staff Development Council.
9.
DoleJ. A., NokesJ. D., & DritsD. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In DuffyG. G. & IsraelS. E. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
10.
GaretM. S., PorterA. C., DesimoneL., BirmanB. F., & YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
11.
HawleyW. D., & ValliL. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In Darling–HammondL. & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
12.
LordB. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In CobbN. (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on national standards in America (pp. 175–204). New York: College Board.
13.
MacArthurC. A. (2012). Strategies instruction. In HarrisK. R., GrahamS., UrdanT., BusA. G., MayerS., & SwansonH. L. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, volume 3 (pp. 379–401). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/13275–015
14.
MilesM. B. (1995). Foreward. In GuskeyT. R. & HubermanM. (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. vii–ix). New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
MirraA. (2009). Focus in grades 6–8: Teaching with curriculum focal points. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
16.
MontagueM. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230–248.
17.
MontagueM. (2003). Solve it! A practical approach to teaching mathematical problem–solving skills. Virginia, VA: Exceptional Innovations, Inc.
18.
MontagueM., & ApplegateB. (1993). Middle school students’ mathematical problem solving: An analysis of think–aloud protocols. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 19–32.
19.
MontagueM., & BosC. (1986). The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 26–33.
20.
MontagueM., ApplegateB., & MarquardK. (1993). Cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem–solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 223–232.
21.
MontagueM., EndersC., & DietzS. (2009). [Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on the math problem solving of middle school students]. Unpublished raw data.
22.
MontagueM., EndersC., & DietzS. (2011). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 262–272.
23.
MontagueM., KrawecJ., EndersC., & DietzS. (2013). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle–school students of varying ability. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advanced online publication.
24.
Moyer–PackenhamP. S., BolyardJ. J., OhH., & CerarN. I. (2011). Common features of professional development activities for mathematics and science teachers. Professional Development in Education, 37, 571–589.
25.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
26.
SowderJ. T. (2007). The mathematical education and development of teachers. In LesterF.K.Jr., (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–223). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
27.
SpillaneJ. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 141–179.
28.
TateW. F., & RousseauC. (2007). Engineering change in mathematics education: Research, policy, and practice. In LesterF.K.Jr., (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–223). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
29.
Van GarderenD. (2008). Middle school special education teachers’ instructional practices for solving mathematical word problems: An exploratory study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 132–144. doi: 10.1177/088840640803100206
30.
Van GarderenD., ScheuermannA., & JacksonC. (2012). Developing representational ability in mathematics for students with learning disabilities: A content analysis of grades 6 and 7 textbooks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 24–38. doi: 10.1177/0731948711429726
