In recent years, scholars have problematized terms used to describe instruction on teacher survey instruments. When scholars, observers, and teachers employ terms like discuss and investigate, they often mean to describe quite different events. This article problematizes another set of terms often found on survey instruments, those describing mathematical content. To do so, it examines terms such as geometry, number patterns, and ordering fractions for rates of agreement and disagreement between teachers and observers participating in a field pilot of an elementary mathematics daily log. Using interviews, written observations, and reflections on disagreements, this article also asks why disagreements occurred. Sources of disagreement included problems with instrument design, memory/perception, and, notably, differences in the way subject matter terms are used in different communities—university mathematicians, elementary teachers, and mathematics educators. Finally, implications of these sources of disagreement are explored.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
2.
Bass, H. (2003). Computational fluency, algorithms, and mathematical proficiency: One mathematical perspective. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9, 322-327.
3.
Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T. H., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
4.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 296-345.
5.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing new understandings of teaching. Teacher & Teacher Education, 9, 485-497.
7.
Freeman, D. (1996). “To take them at their word”: Language data in the study of teachers’ knowledge. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 732-761.
8.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Lessons from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.
9.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
10.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
11.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
12.
Hanushek, E. A., & Jackson, J. E. (1977). Statistical methods for social scientists. New York: Academic Press.
13.
Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289-320.
14.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
15.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 27-63.
16.
Lampert, M. (1998). Studying thinking as a thinking practice. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 53-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Mayer, D. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29-46.
18.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
19.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.(2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
20.
National Research Council.(2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
22.
Porter, A. C., Floden, R. E., Freeman, D. J., Schmidt, W. H., & Schwille, J. (1986). Content determinants (with research instrumentation appendices) (Institute for Research on Teaching Research Series No. 179). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
23.
Roitman, J. (1998). A mathematician looks at national standards. Teachers College Record, 100, 22-44.
24.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer(Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research/Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development yearbook (pp. 83-103). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
25.
Sherin, M. G. (1996). The nature and dynamics of teachers’ content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California–Berkeley.
26.
Smith, F. (2002). The glass wall: Why mathematics can seem difficult. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
Smithson, J. L., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum—the Reform Up Close study (Consortium for Policy Research in Education Research Report Series Report No. 31). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
28.
Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 21, 1-27.
29.
Stecher, B. M., Chun, T., Barron, S., & Ross, K. (2000). The effects of the Washington state education reform on schools and classrooms: Initial findings (File No. DB-309-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
30.
Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P. A., Kawanka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
31.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963-980.
