We examined the impact of a state-mandated K-12 mathematics professional development course on knowledge, self-efficacy, and beliefs of nearly 4,000 teachers and administrators. Participants completed the Mathematical Thinking for Instruction course, emphasizing student thinking, problem-solving, and content knowledge specific to mathematics instruction. Inventories utilizing items from the Learning Mathematics for Teaching project measured changes in participants’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) and an end-of-course self-evaluation enabled analysis of changes self-efficacy and beliefs. Statistically significant changes were found in all three variables. This study adds to our understanding of the potential usefulness of mandating large-scale professional development as a policy vehicle for influencing educators’ mathematics knowledge and beliefs.
AdlerJ.BallD. L.KrainerK.LinF.-L.NovotnaJ. (2005). Reflections on an emerging field: Researching mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 359-381.
2.
ArmorD. J.SumnerG. C.ThompsonV. M. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Prepared for the Los AngelesUnifiedSchool District). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
3.
AvalosB. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10-20.
4.
BallD. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What we think we know and what we need to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 500-508.
5.
BallD. L.HillH. C.BassH. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching. American Educator, 29, 14-17.
6.
BallD. L.LubienskiS. T.MewbornD. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4, 433-456.
7.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. C. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389-407.
8.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
9.
BellC. A.WilsonS. M.HigginsT.McCoachD. B. (2010). Measuring the effects of professional development on teacher knowledge: The case of developing mathematical ideas. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 479-512.
10.
Ben-PeretzM. (2011). Teacher knowledge: What is it? How do we uncover it? What are its implications for schooling?Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 3-9.
11.
BorasiR. (1987). Exploring mathematics through the analysis of errors. For the Learning of Mathematics, 7(3), 2-8.
12.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the Terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
13.
BostonM. D.SmithM. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 119-156.
14.
BrayW. S. (2011). A collective case study of the influence of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge on error-handling practices during class discussion of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 2-38.
15.
BrendefurJ. L. (2008). Developing Mathematical Thinking: Year 1 Technical Report. In Center for School Improvement and Policy Studies. Boise State University. Boise, Idaho.
16.
BrendefurJ. L.CarneyM. B.HughesG.StrotherS. (forthcoming). Framing Professional Development that Promotes Mathematical Thinking. In OstlerE. (Ed.), Emerging Trends and Perspectives in STEM Learning.
17.
BrendefurJ. L.CarneyM. B.StrotherS.HughesG. (2011). Mathematical Thinking for Instruction Workbook: 4-8. Boise State University.
18.
BrendefurJ. L.StrotherS.PeckD. (2013). Developing Mathematical Thinking: Annual Evaluation Report: Final Report. Boise, Idaho: Boise State University.
19.
BurkhardtH.SchoenfeldA.AbediJ.HessK.ThurlowM. (2012). Content specifications for the summative assessment of the Common CoreState Standards for Mathematics. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. Retrieved April 15, 2012 from http://www.smarterbalanced.org.
CarpenterT. P.LehrerR. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In FennemaE.RombergT. A. (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding, (pp. 19-32).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, American Mathematical Society. Retrieved September 11, 2012 from http://www.cbmsweb.org/MET2/index.htm.
23.
CharalambousC. Y. (2010). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and task unfolding: An exploratory study. Elementary School Journal, 110, 247-278.
24.
ClarkeD.HollingsworthH. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947-967.
25.
Clements, & SaramaJ. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 81-89.
26.
CohenD. K.HillH. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294-343.
27.
DesimoneL. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68-71.
28.
DesimoneL. M. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?Review of Educational Research, 72, 433-479.
29.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181-199.
30.
DesimoneL. M.SmithT. A.BakerD.UenoK. (2005). Assessing barriers to the reform of U.S. mathematics instruction from an international perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 501-535.
31.
DesimoneL. M.SmithT. M.PhillipsK. J. R. (2007). Does policy influence mathematics and science teachers’ participation in professional development?Teachers College Record, 109, 1086-1122.
32.
ErnestP. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching International Research and Pedagogy, 15, 13-33.
33.
FennemaE.CarpenterT. P.FrankeM. L.LeviL.JacobsV. R.EmpsonS. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403-434.
34.
FennemaE.FrankeM. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 147-164. New York: Macmillan,
35.
Ferrini-MundyJ.BurrillG.SchmidtW. H. (2007). Building teacher capacity for implementing curricular coherence: Mathematics teacher professional development tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 311-324. doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9053-9
36.
FlintA. S.ZisookK.FisherT. R. (2011). Not a one-shot deal: Generative professional development among experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1163-1169.
37.
FosnotC. T.DolkM. L. A. M. (2002). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing fractions, decimals, and percents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
38.
FreudenthalH. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
39.
FreudenthalH. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
40.
GabrieleA. J.JoramE. (2007). Teachers’ reflections on their reform-based teaching in mathematics: Implications for the development of teacher self-efficacy. Action in Teacher Education, 29(3), 60-74.
41.
GibsonS.DemboM. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
42.
GoddardR. D.HoyW. K.HoyA. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-507.
43.
GoldsmithL.DoerrH.LewisC. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ learning: A conceptual framework and synthesis of research. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 5-36. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9245-4
44.
GravemeijerK. (2004). Local instruction theories as means of support for teachers in reform mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 105-128.
45.
GravemeijerK.van GalenF. (2003). Facts and algorithms as products of students’ own mathematical activity. In KilpatrickJ.MartinW. G.SchifterD. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 114-122). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
46.
GuskeyT. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.
47.
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, 113-152.
48.
HiebertJ. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
49.
HiebertJ.StiglerJ. W. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons from the TIMSS video study. Elementary School Journal, 101, 3-20.
50.
HillH. C. (2011). The nature and effects of middle school mathematics teacher learning experiences. Teachers College Record, 113, 205-234.
51.
HillH. C.BallD. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 330-351.
52.
HillH. C.BallD. L.BlunkM.GoffneyI. M.RowanB. (2007). Validating the ecological assumption: The relationship of measure scores to classroom teaching and student learning. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 5, 107-118.
53.
HillH. C.BlunkM. L.CharalambousC. Y.LewisJ. M.PhelpsG. C.SleepL.BallD. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430-511.
54.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371-406.
55.
JacobsV. R.FrankeM. L.CarpenterT. P.LeviL.BatteyD. (2007). Professional development focused on children’s algebraic reasoning in elementary school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 258-288.
56.
KennedyM. M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available from http://www.nise.org
57.
KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.
58.
LamT. C.BengoP. (2003). A comparison of three retrospective self-reporting methods of measuring change in instructional practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 65-80.
59.
Learning Mathematics for Teaching. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching items: Number, operations, and algebraic knowledge of students and content. [http://sitemaker.umich.edu/lmt/home].
60.
LeinwandS. (January, 2009). Moving mathematics out of mediocrity. Education Week, 28(16), 32-33.
61.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62.
MartinM. O.MullisI. V. S.ChrostowskiS. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 technical report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLSInternationalStudyCenter, Lynch School of Education, BostonCollege.
63.
Measures of Effective Teaching Project. (2010). Learning about teaching initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA.
64.
Moyer-PackenhamP. S.WestenskowA. (2012). Processes and pathways: How do mathematics and science partnerships measure and promote growth in teacher content knowledge?School Science and Mathematics, 112, 133-146.
65.
National Commission on Excellence in Education, U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education. (Supt. of Docs., U.S. Government Printing Office, distributor).
66.
National Math Panel, U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
67.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.§6319 (2008).
68.
National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Common core state standards for mathematics, 2010. Available from http://www.corestandards.org.
69.
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA learning mathematics for life: A perspective from PISA. [http://www.oecd.org/].
70.
PajaresF. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
71.
PalardyG. J.RumbergerR. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 111-140.
72.
PhelpsG.JonesN.KisaZ.LiuS. (April, 2013). Using measures of MKT to study and evaluate professional development. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Presession, Denver, CO.
73.
PhillippR. A. (Ed.). (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.
74.
PrawatR. S.JenningsN. (1997). Students as context in mathematics reform: The story of two upper-elementary teachers. Elementary School Journal, 97, 251-270.
75.
RichardsonV. (2001). Teacher change. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905-947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
76.
SchmidtW. H. (2007). The preparation gap: Teacher education for middle school mathematics in six countries. East Lansing: Mathematics Teaching in the 21st Century, Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, MichiganStateUniversity.
77.
SchmidtW. H. (2012). At the precipice: The story of mathematics education in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 133-156. doi:10.1080/0161956x.2012.642280
78.
SchorrR. Y.FirestoneW. A.MonfilsL. (2003). State testing and mathematics teaching in New Jersey: The effects of a test without other supports. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 373-405.
79.
SchwilleJ.PorterA.AlfordL.FlodenR.FreemanD.IrwinS.SchmidtW. (1988). State policy and the control of curriculum decisions. Educational Policy, 2, 29-50.
80.
ShermanH. (1995). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs and practices related to teaching mathematics with manipulatives. Educational Research Quarterly, 18(4), 27-36.
81.
SimonM. A.TzurR. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 91-104.
82.
StaubF. C.SternE. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 344-355.
83.
StiglerJ. W.HiebertJ. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Free Press.
84.
StipekD. J.GivvinK. B.SalmonJ. M.MacGyversV. I. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213-226.
85.
SwaffordJ. O.JonesG. A.ThorntonC. A. (1997). Increased knowledge in geometry and instructional practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 467-483.
86.
SwanM. (2006). Designing and using research instruments to describe the beliefs and practices of mathematics teachers. Research in Education, 75, 58-70.
87.
SwanM.SwainJ. (2010). The impact of a professional development programme on the practices and beliefs of numeracy teachers. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34, 165-177.
88.
SwansonC. B.StevensonD. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 1-27.
89.
TreffersA. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction (The Wiskobas Project). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
90.
Tschannen-MoranM.HoyA. W.HoyW. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
91.
TurnerJ. C.WarzonK. B.ChristensenA. (2011). Motivating mathematics learning: Changes in teachers’ practices and beliefs during a nine-month collaboration. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 718-762.
WilkinsJ. L. M. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 139-164. doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9068-2
94.
YoonK. S.DuncanT.Wen-Yu LeeS.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
