Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2013-5
Linking Student Achievement Growth to Professional Development Participation and Changes in Instruction: A Longitudinal Study of Elementary Students and Teachers in Title I Schools
Most reforms in elementary education rely on teacher learning and improved instruction to increase student learning. This study increases our understanding of which types of professional development effectively change teaching practice in ways that boost student achievement.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
Our three-year longitudinal analysis answers two main research questions: (1) To what extent do teachers’ topic coverage, emphasis on memorization and solving novel problems, and time spent on mathematics instruction, predict student mathematics achievement growth? (2) To what extent does teacher participation in content-focused professional development predict the aspects of instruction found in our first analysis to be related to increases in student mathematics achievement growth?
Population/Participants/Subjects
This study uses data collected by the U.S. Department of Education for the Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP) in 1997, 1998, and 1999. The LESCP drew its sample from 71 high-poverty schools in 18 school districts in 7 states. Our student-level analyses include 7,588 observations over three years of 4,803 students assigned to 457 teachers. Teacher-level analyses include the same 457 teachers in 71 schools over three years.
Research Design
This is a quasi-experimental longitudinal study. To answer our first research question, we employ a 4-level cross-classified growth model using MLwiN software, with time points nested within students, students cross-classified by teachers over the three years of the study, and teachers and students nested within schools. To answer our second question, we employ a series of hierarchical linear models (HLM) to test the relationship between instruction and professional development.
Conclusions/Recommendations
We found that (1) when teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grade focused more on advanced mathematics topics (defined as operations with fractions, distance problems, solving equations with one unknown, solving two equations with two unknowns, and statistics) and emphasized solving novel problems, student achievement grew more quickly; (2) when teachers focused more on basic topics (defined as measurement, rounding, multi-digit multiplication, and problem solving) and emphasized memorizing facts, student achievement grew more slowly; and (3) when teachers participated in professional development that focused on math content or instructional strategies in mathematics (in Year 1), they were more likely to teach in ways associated with student achievement growth. Specifically, they were more likely to teach advanced topics and emphasize solving novel problems. Effect sizes ranged from 1% to 15% of a standard deviation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderK. L., EntwisleD. R., & OlsonL. S. (2001). Schools, achievement, and inequality: A seasonal perspective.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 171–191.
2.
AngristJ., & LavyV. (2001). Does teacher training affect pupil learning? Evidence from matched comparisons in Jerusalem public schools.Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2), 343–369.
3.
AquilinoW. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use: A field experiment.Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(2), 210–240.
4.
AquilinoW. S. (1998). Effects of interview mode on measuring depression in younger adults.Journal of Official Statistics, 14(1), 15–29.
5.
BallD. L. (1993). With an eye toward the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching ele-mentary school mathematics.Elementary School Journal, 93, 373–397.
6.
BalfanzR., Mac IverD. J., & ByrnesV. (2006). The implementation and impact of evi-dence-based mathematics reforms in high-poverty middle schools: A multi-site, multi-year study.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 33–64.
7.
BanilowerE., HeckD., & WeissI. (2005). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation's Local Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement Initiative.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375–395.
8.
BanilowerE., & ShimkusE. (2004). Professional development observation study. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
9.
BarrR., & DreebenR., with WiratchaiN. (1983). How schools work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.
BensonC. C., & MalmC. G. (2011). Bring the Pythagorean theorem “full circle.” Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 16(6), 336–344.
11.
BiancarosaG., BrykA. S., & DexterE. R. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student learning.The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7–34.
12.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
13.
BorkoH., & PutnamR. (1995). Expanding a teachers’ knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In GuskeyT. & HubermanM. (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 35–66). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
14.
BormanG. D. (2005). National efforts to bring reform to scale in high-poverty schools: Outcomes and implications.Review of Research in Education, 29, 1–28.
15.
BoscardinC. K., Aquirre-MunozZ., StokerG., KimJ., KimM., & LeeJ. (2005). Relationships between opportunity to learn and student performance on English and algebra assessments.Educational Assessment, 10(4), 307–332.
16.
BressouxP. (1996). The effect of teachers’ training on pupils’ achievement: The case of elementary schools in France.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(3), 252–279.
17.
BriarsD., & SieglerR. S. (1984). A featural analysis of preschoolers’ counting knowledge.Developmental Psychology, 20, 607–618.
18.
BursteinL., McDonnellL. M., Van WinkleJ., OrmsethT., MirochaJ., & GuittonG. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
19.
CaiJ., & WangT. (2010). Conceptions of effective mathematics teaching within a cultural context: Perspectives of teachers from China and the United States.Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 265–287.
20.
CarlisleJ., CorrentiR., PhelpsG., & ZengJ. (2009). Exploration of the contribution of teachers’ knowledge about reading to their students’ improvement in reading.Reading and Writing, 22(4), 457–486.
21.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century.New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
22.
CarpenterT. P., FrankeM. L., JacobsV. R., FennemaE., & EmpsonS. B. (1998). A longitudinal study of invention and understanding in children's multidigit addition and subtraction.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 3–20.
23.
CarpenterT. P., FennemaE., PetersonP. L., ChiangC., & LoefM. (1989). Using knowl-edge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study.American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531.
24.
CarrollJ. B. (1963). A model of school learning.Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.
25.
CatramboneR. (1994). Improving examples to improve transfer to novel problems.Memory & Cognition, 22(5), 606–615.
26.
CauleyK. M. (1988). Construction of logical knowledge: Study of borrowing in subtraction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 202–205.
27.
ClarkeD., & HollingsworthH. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.
28.
CobbP., WoodT., & YackelE. (1991). Analogies from the philosophy and sociology of science for understanding classroom life.Science Education, 75(1), 23–44.
29.
CobbP., WoodT., YackelE., NichollsJ., WheatleyG., TrigattiB., & PerlwitzM. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered 2nd-grade mathematics project.Journal For Research In Mathematics Education, 22(1), 3–29.
30.
CohenD. K., & BallD. (1990). Policy and practice: An overview.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 347–353.
31.
CohenD. K., & HillH. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
CohenD. K., RaudenbushS. W., & BallD. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–143.
33.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1998). A close look at the effects on classroom practice and student performance: A report of the fifth year of the Merck Institute for Science Education (CPRE Evaluation Report).Philadelphia, PA: Author.
34.
CowanR., & RentonM. (1996). Do they know what they are doing? Children's use of economical addition strategies and knowledge of commutativity.Educational Psychology, 16, 409–422.
35.
DesimoneL. M., & Le FlochK. (2004). Probing the ‘trickle down’ effect of standards and assessments: Are we asking the right questions?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 1–22.
36.
DesimoneL. M., PorterA. C., GaretM., YoonK. S., & BirmanB. (2002). Does professional development change teachers’ instruction? Results from a three-year study.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.
37.
DesimoneL. M., SmithT., BakerD., & UenoK. (2005). The distribution of teaching quality in mathematics: Assessing barriers to the reform of United States mathematics instruction from an international perspective.American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 501–535.
38.
DesimoneL., SmithT., & UenoK. (2006). Are teachers who need sustained, content-focused professional development getting it? An administrator's dilemma.Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 179–215.
39.
DesimoneL. M., SmithT. S., & RowleyK. (2007). Does Policy Influence Mathematics and Science Teachers’ Participation in Professional Development?Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1086–1122.
40.
DesimoneL.M, SmithT.S, HayesS., & FrisvoldD. (2005). Beyond accountability and average math scores: relating multiple state education policy attributes to changes in stu-dent achievement in procedural knowledge, conceptual understanding and problem solving in mathematics.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 5–18.
41.
DesimoneL., SmithT., & FrisvoldD. (2007). Is NCLB increasing teacher quality for stu-dents in poverty? In GamoranA. (Ed.), Will standards-based reform in education help close the poverty gap? (pp. 89–119). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
42.
DesimoneL., SmithT., & FrisvoldD. (2010). Survey measures of classroom instruction: Comparing student and teacher reports. Educational Policy, 24(2), 267–329.
43.
DesimoneL. (2006). Consider the source: Response differences among teachers, principals and districts on survey questions about their education policy environment.Educational Policy, 20(4), 640–676.
44.
DesimoneL. (2009). How can we best measure teacher's professional development and its effects on teachers and students?Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
45.
DesimoneL. M., & LongD. (2010). Does conceptual instruction and time spent on math-ematics decrease the student achievement gap in early elementary school?Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS). Teachers College Record, 112(12).
46.
DildyP. (1991). Improving student achievement by appropriate teacher in-service training: Utilizing Program for Effective Teaching (PET).Education, 103(2), 132–38.
47.
DillmanD. A., & TarnaiJ. (1991). Mode effects of cognitively designed recall questions: A comparison of answers to telephone and mail surveys. In BeimerP. N., GrovesR. M., LybergL. E., MathiowetzN. A., & SudmanS. (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 367–393). New York: John Wiley.
48.
ElmoreR. F., & BurneyD. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City.New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416203)
49.
ErnestP. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In ErnestP. (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 249–254). New York: The Flamer Press.
50.
FennemaE., CarpenterT. P., FrankeM. L., LeviL., Jacobs, & EmpsonS. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics instruction.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403–434
51.
FirestoneW., ManginM., MartinezM., & PolovskyT. (2005). Leading coherent professional development: A comparison of three districts.Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 413–448.
52.
FishmanJ. J., MarxR. W., BestS., & TalR. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform.Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643–658.
53.
FowlerF. J.Jr. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation.Applied social research methods series (Vol. 38). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
FrankeM. L., CarpenterT. P., & LeviL. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics.American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653–689.
55.
FusonK.C (1990). Conceptual structures for multiunit numbers: Implications for learning and teaching multidigit addition, subtraction, and place value.Cognition and Instruction, 7, 343–403.
56.
GamoranA. (1986). Instructional and institutional effects of ability grouping.Sociology of Education, 59(4), 185–198.
57.
GamoranA., PorterA. C., SmithsonJ., & WhiteP. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325–338.
58.
GaretM. S., CronenS., EatonM., KurkiA., LudwigM., JonesW., & SilverbergM. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
59.
GaretM. S., PorterA. C., DesimoneL. M., BirmanB., & YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers.American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 915–945.
60.
GearyD. C. (2001). A Darwinian perspective on mathematics and instruction. In LovelessT. (Ed.), The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? (pp. 85–107). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
61.
GeijselF. P., SleegersP. J. C., StoelR. D., & KrugerM. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools.Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406–427.
62.
GerstenR., DiminoJ., JayanthiM., KimJ. S., & SantoroL. E. (2010). Teacher study group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms.American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 694–739.
63.
GlazermanS., DolfinS., BleekerM., JohnsonA., IsenbergE., Lugo-GilJ., … AliM. (2008). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Results from the first year of a randomized controlled study.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
64.
GoldschmidtP., & PhelpsG. (2010). Does teacher professional development affect con-tent and pedagogical knowledge: How much and for how long?Economics of Education Review, 29(3), 432–439.
65.
GoodT., & BrophyJ. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.
66.
GuarinoC. M., HamiltonL. S., LockwoodJ. R., RathbunA. H., & HauskenE. G. (2006). Teacher qualifications, instructional practices, and reading and mathematics gains of kindergart-ners.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
67.
HamiltonL. S., McCaffreyD. F., StecherB. M., KleinS. P., RobynA., & BugliariD. (2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practice: An example from mathe-matics and science.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 1–29.
68.
HeckD. J., BanilowerE. R., WeissI. R., & RosenbergS. L. (2008). Studying the effects of professional development: The case of the NSF's local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(2), 113–152.
69.
HiebertJ., & WearneD. (1996). Instruction, understanding, and skill in multidigit addition and subtraction. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 251–283.
70.
HiebertJ., & WearneD. (1986). Procedures over concepts: The acquisition of decimal number knowledge. In HiebertJ. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 199–224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
71.
HiebertJ. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM Standards.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 3–19.
72.
HiebertJ., CarpenterT. P., FennemaE., FusonK., HumanP., MurrayH., … WearneD. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics.Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.
73.
HillH. C., BallD. L., & SchillingS. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.
74.
HirschE. D. (2001). The roots of the Education Wars. In LovelessT. (Ed.), The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? (pp. 13–24). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
75.
HochbergE., & DesimoneL. (2010). Professional development in the accountability con-text: Building capacity to achieve standards, Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 89–106.
76.
JacobB., & LefgrenL. (2004). The impact of teacher training on student achievement: Quasi-experimental evidence from school reform efforts in Chicago.Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), 50–79.
77.
KanterD., & KonstantopoulosS. (2010). The impact of a project-based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices.Science Education, 94(5), 855–887. Retrieved from ERIC database.
78.
KazemiE., & StipekD. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms.The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80.
79.
KennedyM. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13).Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
80.
KilpatrickJ., SwaffordJ., & FindellB. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn Mathematics.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
81.
KoubaV. L., CarpenterT. P., & SwaffordJ. O. (1989). Number and operations. In LindquistM. M. (Ed.), Results from the 4th Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 64–93). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
82.
KnappM. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
83.
LampertM. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching.American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.
84.
LeckieG. (2009) The complexity of school and neighbourhood effects and movements of pupils on school differences in models of educational achievement. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 172, 537–554.
85.
LeFevreJ., & DixonP. (1986). Do written instructions need examples?Cognition and Instruction, 3(1), 1–30.
86.
LiY. (2008). What do students need to learn about division of fractions?Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13(9), 546–552.
87.
LittleJ. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
88.
Loucks-HorsleyS., HewsonP. W., LoveN., & StilesK. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
89.
LovelessT. (Ed.). (2001). The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math?Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
90.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ knowledge of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
91.
MayerD. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.
92.
MullensJ. E. (1995). Classroom instructional processes: A review of existing measurement approaches and their applicability for the Teacher Followup Survey (Working Paper No. NCES-WP-95-15).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics.
93.
MullensJ. E., & GaylerK. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study fieldtest results to improve item construction (Working Paper No. 1999–08).Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics.
94.
MullensJ. E., GaylerK., GoldsteinD., HildrethJ., RubensteinM., SpiggleT., … WelshM. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study fieldtest results to improve item construction.Working Paper series. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
95.
MullensJ. E., & KasprzykD. (1996). Using qualitative methods to validate quantitative survey instruments. Proceedings of the section on survey research methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA.
96.
MullensJ., & KasprzykD. (1999). Validating item responses on self-report teacher surveys.Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education.
97.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future.New York: Author.
98.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: Author.
99.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
100.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
101.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekinder-garten through Grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
102.
O'SullivanO., & McGonigleS. (2010). Transforming readers: Teachers and children in the Centre for Literacy in Primary Education Power of Reading Project.Literacy, 44(2), 51–59.
103.
PaasF. G. W., & van MerrienboerJ. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133.
104.
PariseL., & SpillaneJ. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice.Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323–346. Retrieved from ERIC database.
105.
PellegrinoJ., BaxterG., & GlaserR. (1999). Addressing the “Two Disciplines” problem: Linking theories of cognition and learning with assessment and instructional practice.Review of Research in Education, 24, 307–353.
106.
PenuelW. R., FishmanB., YamaguchiR., & GallagherL. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
107.
PerryM. (1991). Learning and transfer: Instructional conditions and conceptual change.Cognitive Development, 6, 449–468.
108.
PhelpsG., & SchillingS. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading.Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 31–48.
109.
PorterA. (1995). The uses and misuses of opportunity-to-learn standards.Educational Researcher, 24(1), 21–27.
110.
PorterA. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice.Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.
111.
PorterA. C., KirstM. W., OsthoffE. J., SmithsonJ. L., & SchneiderS. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms.New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
112.
RasbashJ., LeckieG., PillingerR., & JenkinsJ. (2010) Children's educational progress: Partitioning family, school and area effects.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 173, 657–682.
113.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
114.
RaudenbushS. W., HongG., & RowanB. (2003). Studying the causal effects of instruction with application to primary-school mathematics. Paper prepared for Research Seminar II, Instructional and Performance Consequences of High-poverty Schooling.Washington, DC: The Charles Sumner School Museum and Archives.
115.
Rittle-JohnsonB., SieglerR. S., & AlibaliM. W. (2001). Developing conceptual under-standing and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.
116.
Rittle-JohnsonB., & StarJ. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate concep-tual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations.Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 561–574.
117.
RombergT. A. (2000). Changing the teaching and learning of mathematics.Australian Mathematics Teacher, 56(4), 6–9.
118.
RosenholtzS. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs.Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 421–439.
119.
RowanB., HarrisonD. M., & HayesA. (2004). Using instructional logs to study mathematics curriculum and teaching in the early grades.The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 112–127.
120.
PhilipsK., DesimoneL., & SmithT. (2011). Teacher participation in content-focused professional development and the role of state policy.Teachers College Record, 113(11). http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16145.
121.
SaxeG. B., GearhartM., & NasirN. S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support.Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 55–79.
122.
SchmidtW. H., McKnightC. C., & RaizenS. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
123.
ShavelsonR. J., WebbN. M., & BursteinL. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.), pp. 50–91. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
124.
SchoenfeldA. (1985). Mathematical problem solving.New York, NY: Academic Press.
125.
ShoenfeldA.H (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of ‘well-taught’ mathematics courses.Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.
126.
SieglerR. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
127.
SilverE. A. (Ed.) (1985). Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
128.
SilverE. A., GhousseiniH., GosenD., CharalambousC., & StrawhunB. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 287–301.
129.
SingleyM. K., & AndersonJ. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
130.
SlavinR. E., MaddenN. A., KarweitN. L., LivermonB. J., & DolanL. (1990). Success for all: First-year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education.American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 255–78.
131.
SmithsonJ. L., & PorterA. C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum—the Reform Up Close Study. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University.
132.
SpillaneJ. P., & ZeuliJ. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1–27.
133.
Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (SAT-9).
134.
StarJ., & SeifertC. (2006). The development of flexibility in equation solving.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(3), 280–300.
135.
SteinM. K., & LaneS. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project.Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.
136.
StiglerJ. W., & HiebertJ. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.
137.
SupovitzJ., & TurnerH. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.
138.
United States Department of Education. (2008). Foundations for Success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008.Washington, DC: Author.
139.
von SeckerC. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity.Journal of Educational Research, 95, 151–160.
140.
WayneA., YoonK. S., ZhuP., CronenS., & GaretM. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods.Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469–479.
141.
WenglinskyH. (2004). Closing the racial achievement gap: The role of reforming instructional practices.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(64). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n64/
142.
Westat and Policy Studies Associates. (2001a). The longitudinal evaluation of school change and performance in Title I schools, Volume 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service.
143.
Westat and Policy Studies Associates. (2001b). The longitudinal evaluation of school change and performance in Title I schools: Volume 2, Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service.
144.
WileyD., & YoonB. (1995). Teacher reports on opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993 California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 355–370.
145.
WilsonS., & BallD. (1991). Changing visions and changing practices: Patchworks in learning to teach mathematics for understanding. Research report 91-2.East Lansing, MI: The National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
146.
WongK. K, MeyerS. J., & ShenF. X. (2003). Educational resources and achievement gaps in high poverty schools: Findings from the Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance (LESCP) in Title I schools.Unpublished manuscript.
