In this article, we draw upon Remillard and Bryans’ (2004) categorization of curriculum use in observations of two middle-grade teachers’ integration of Standards-based curriculum materials (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 2000). Each teacher participated in a two-year professional development program focused on increasing content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, as well as fostering the development of communities of practice within each school site. We introduce the design of the professional development program to explain how the design supported each teacher's use of Standards-based curriculum materials. Results indicated that the existence of site-based communities of practice established during the professional development program afforded one teacher continued opportunities to reflect upon and critique her instructional decisions, whereas the lack of a community of practice at another school site served to limit the integration of Standards-based materials.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallD. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What we think we know and what we need to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 500–508.
2.
BeckmannC., WellsP., GabrosekJ., BillingsE., AboufadelE., CurtissP., DickinsonW., AustinD., & ChampionA. (2004). Enhancing the mathematical understanding of prospective teachers: Using Standards-based, grades K–12 activities. In RubensteinR., & BrightG. (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of mathematics (pp. 151–163). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
3.
BoalerJ., & HumphreysC. (2005). Connecting mathematical ideas: Middle school video cases to support teaching and learning.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
4.
BogdanR., & BiklenS. (1982). Qualitative research for education.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
5.
CadyJ., & ReardenK. (2009). Delivering online professional development in mathematics to rural educators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 18.
6.
ChoppinJ. (2006). Studying a curriculum implementation using a communities of practice perspective. In AlatorreS., CortinaJ. L., SaizM., & MendezA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the Internation Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 689–671). Merida, MX: Universidad Pedagogica Nacional.
7.
CobbP., McClainK., LambergT., & DeanC. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13–24.
8.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
9.
ConfreyJ., & StohlV. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K–12 mathematics evaluations:Atlanta, GA: National Academies Press.
10.
FrankeM. L., & KazemiE. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 102–109.
11.
GabrielR. (2010). The case for differentiated professional support: Toward a phase theory of professional development. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4(1), 86–95.
12.
GehrkeN., KnappM., & SirotnikK. (1992). In search of the school curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 18, 51–110.
13.
GrahamP. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case study of a professional learning community. Research in Middle Level Education, 37(1), 1–17.
14.
HodgesT. E., & CadyJ. A. (2012). Negotiating contexts to construct an identity as a mathematics teacher. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 112–122.
15.
HodgesT. E., & CadyJ. A. (2013). Blended-format professional development and the emergence of communities of practice. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(2), 299–316.
16.
KoseB.W. (2007). One principal's influence on sustained, systemic, and differentiated professional development for social justice. Middle School Journal, 39(2), 34–42.
17.
LeonardJ., & GuhaS. (2001). Education at the crossroads: Online teaching and students’ perspectives on distance learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 51–57.
18.
LewisC. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change.Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.
19.
MersediK. K. (1996). Cases and case methods in education. In SikulaJ. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722–744). New York, NY: Macmillan.
20.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
21.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
22.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
23.
RemillardJ.T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315–342.
24.
RemillardJ.T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211.
25.
RemillardJ. T., & BryansM. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388.
26.
ReysB. J., ReysR. E., BeemJ., & PapickI. (1998). The Missouri middle grades mathematics (M3) project. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(2), 215–222.
27.
RoysterW. C. (1994). Issues in rural education and the rural systemic initiative.Paper presented at the Building the System: Making Science Education Work. Putting the Pieces Together Conference, Washington, DC.
28.
SenkS., & ThompsonD. (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn?Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
SpillaneJ. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: the mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175.
30.
SteinM., RemillardJ., & SmithM. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In LesterF. H. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 319–369). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
31.
SteinM. K., SilverE. A., & SmithM. S. (1998). Mathematics reform and teacher development. In GreenoJ. G., & GoldmanS.V. (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 17–52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
SteinM. K., SmithM. S., HenningsenM. A., & SilverE. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
33.
StephensA. C., & HartmanC. E. (2004). A successful professional development project's failure to promote online discussion about teaching mathematics with technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 57–73.
34.
VescioV., RossD., & AdamsA. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
35.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36.
WilcoxS., & JonesE. (2004). A tool for the teaching principle: Professional development through assessment. In RubensteinR., & BrightG. (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of mathematics (pp. 239–258). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
