This study investigated preservice teachers from two teacher education programs, elementary generalists and bilingual generalists (who will teach all subjects in both English and Spanish), about their instructional design abilities via examination of their ability to integrate interdisciplinary-themed activities into mathematics lessons. The findings illustrate the value provided by differentiating teacher preparation for preservice bilingual teachers—especially for challenging STEM-related (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects such as mathematics—based on their distinctive pedagogical, cognitive, and linguistic requirements.
AnS. A.MaT.CapraroM. M. (2011). Preservice teachers’ beliefs and attitude about teaching and learning mathematics through music: An intervention study. School Science and Mathematics, 111(5), 236-248.
2.
AnS. A.TillmanD. (2015). Music activities as a meaningful context for teaching elementary students mathematics: A quasi-experiment time series design with random assigned control group. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(1), 45-60.
3.
AnS. A.TillmanD.ShaheenA.BorenR. (2014). Preservice teachers’ perception about teaching mathematics through music. Journal of Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning, 4(3), 150-171.
4.
AnS. A.TillmanD.BorenR.WangJ.. (2014). Fostering elementary students’ mathematics disposition through music-mathematics integrated lessons. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 15(3), 1-18.
5.
AndersonD.ClarkM. (2012). Development of syntactic subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge for science by a generalist elementary teacher. Teachers and Teaching, 18, 315-330.
6.
BalfanzR.ByrnesV. (2006). Closing the mathematics achievement gap in high-poverty middle schools: Enablers and constraints. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11, 143-159.
7.
BarabS. A.LuehmannA. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454-467.
8.
BaumertJ.SchümerG. (2001). PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich [PISA 2000. An international comparison of basic competences in school students]. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.
9.
BernsteinD. J. (2008). Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(2), 48-51.
10.
BeyerC. J.DavisE. A. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96(1), 130-157.
11.
BlömekeS.PaineL.HouangR. T.HsiehF.SchmidtW. H.TattoM. T.. . .SchwilleJ. (2008). Future teachers’ competence to plan a lesson: First results of a six-country study on the efficiency of teacher education. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 749-762.
12.
BrownM. (2009). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher–tool relationship. In RemillardJ.Herbel-EisenmanB.LloydG. (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-37). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
BuchananM. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers for religious education: A peer review approach. Journal of Religious Education, 60(2), 4-12.
14.
BuchananM. T.SternJ. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of peer review. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38, 37-49.
15.
Cahnmann-TaylorM.Souto-ManningM.WootenJ.DiceJ. (2009). The art and science of educational inquiry: Analysis of performance-based focus groups with novice bilingual teachers. Teachers College Record, 111, 2535-2559.
16.
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.
17.
CatterallJ. (2005). Conversation and silence: Transfer of learning through the arts. Journal for Learning Through the Arts, 1, 1-12.
CooperB.HarrisT. (2005). Making sense of realistic word problems: Portraying working class “failure” in a division with a remainder problem. International Journal of Research & Methods in Education, 22, 449-463.
20.
CooperJ. A.SchleserR. (2006). Closing the achievement gap: Examining the role of cognitive developmental level in academic achievement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 301-306.
21.
CornettC. (2007). Creating meaning through literature and the arts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
22.
CowanK.AlbersP. (2006). Semiotic representations: Building complex literacy practices through the arts. The Reading Teacher, 60, 124-137.
23.
DaviesP. (2006). Peer assessment: Judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather than marks. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43, 69-82.
24.
DehaeneS.MolkoN.CohenL.WilsonA. J. (2004). Arithmetic and the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 218-224.
25.
DingM.CarlsonM. A. (2013). Elementary teachers’ learning to construct high-quality mathematics lesson plans. The Elementary School Journal, 113, 359-385.
26.
DomahsF. R. A. N. K.DelazerM. (2005). Some assumptions and facts about arithmetic facts. Psychology Science, 47(1), 96-111.
27.
The Education Alliance. (2006). Closing the achievement gap: Best practices in teaching mathematics. Charleston, WV: Author.
28.
FallowsS.ChandramohanB. (2001). Multiple approaches to assessment: Reflections on use of tutor, peer and self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 229-246.
29.
ForbesC. T.DavisE. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 820-839.
30.
GlaserB. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
31.
GreshamG. (2008). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics teacher efficacy in elementary pre-service teachers. Teaching Education, 19, 171-184.
32.
GrossmanP.ThompsonC. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 281-301.
33.
HensonK. T. (2015). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and education reform. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
34.
HoganT.RabinowitzM.CravenJ. A.III. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38, 235-247.
35.
IngramD.SeashoreK. (2003). Arts for academic achievement: Summative evaluation report (Unpublished report). Center for Applied Research and Education Improvement, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
36.
KaganD. M.TippinsD. J. (1992). The evolution of functional lesson plans among twelve elementary and secondary student teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 477-489.
37.
KeenV. L. (2003). Using children’s literature to support early childhood mathematics education. In McGrawS. A. (Ed.), Integrated mathematics: Choices and challenges (pp. 189-202). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
38.
KennedyK. J.ChanJ. K. S.FokP. K.YuW. M. (2008). Forms of assessment and their potential for enhancing learning: Conceptual and cultural issues. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(3), 197-207.
39.
KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
KnoblauchD.HoyA. W. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166-179.
41.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
42.
LiY.ChenX.KulmG. (2009). Mathematics teachers’ practices and thinking in lesson plan development: A case of teaching fraction division. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 717-731.
43.
LiuE. Z.LinS. S.YuanS. M. (2002). Alternatives to instructor assessment: A case study of comparing self and peer assessment with instructor assessment under a networked innovative assessment procedures. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29, 395-404.
44.
LloydG. M.BehmS. L. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers’ analysis of mathematics instructional materials. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 48-62.
45.
MarianV.FauseyC. M. (2006). Language-dependent memory in bilingual learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1025-1047.
46.
MarrongelleK.BlackK.MeredithD. (2003). Studio calculus and physics: Interdisciplinary mathematics with active learning. In McGrawS. A. (Ed.), Integrated mathematics: Choices and challenges (pp. 103-116). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
47.
NicolC. C.CrespoS. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 331-355.
48.
OzcinarZ. (2009). The topic of instructional design in research journals: A citation analysis for the years 1980-2008. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 559-580.
49.
RobertsonW.LesserL. M. (2013). Scientific skateboarding and mathematical music: Edutainment that actively engages middle school students. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 60-68.
50.
SaalbachH.EcksteinD.AndriN.HobiR.GrabnerR. H. (2013). When language of instruction and language of application differ: Cognitive costs of bilingual mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 26, 36-44.
51.
ShepardL. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
52.
SinghamM. (2003). A special section on the achievement gap: The achievement gap: Myths and reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 586-591.
53.
SluijsmansD. M.Brand-GruwelS.van MerriënboerJ. J.BastiaensT. J. (2002). The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 23-42.
54.
ToppingK. J.SmithE. F.SwansonI.ElliotA. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 149-169.
55.
TsaiC. C.LiangJ. C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37, 293-310.
56.
van den BergI.AdmiraalW.PilotA. (2006). Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 341-356.
57.
VinsonB. M. (2001). A comparison of preservice teachers’ mathematics anxiety before and after a methods class emphasizing manipulatives. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 89-94.
58.
WenM. L.TsaiC. C. (2008). Online peer assessment in an inservice science and mathematics teacher education course. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 55-67.
59.
ZhouG.KimJ. (2010). Impact of an integrated methods course on preservice teachers’ perspectives of curriculum integration and faculty instructors’ professional growth. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10, 123-138.
