Understanding the Nature of Teachers’ Implementation of Intensified Algebra I

• In Event: Intensified Algebra: A Design-Based Research and Development Project for Double-Period High School Algebra

Abstract

The design rationale discussed above describes an innovative curriculum that integrates effective approaches for teaching mathematics with advances in language development and literacy, motivation and assessment. As with other innovative mathematics curricula, however, teachers face a number of instructional challenges in implementing such programs (e.g., Cohen, 1990). In this paper, we present an analysis of the classroom observations from the intensive research classrooms. Our analysis highlights the extent of teachers’ implementation and the role of the teacher materials in mediating teachers’ implementation of Intensified Algebra.

Because curriculum materials are a primary tool – a curriculum development artifact that mediates teachers’ actions and helps them to accomplish a goal(s) - for teachers as they implement a curriculum, they are a critical component to consider in understanding teachers’ implementation (Rogoff, 2003). The nature of the instructional information provided for teachers in curricula is particularly important to consider when examining the degree to which a program is implemented as intended. As research has consistently illustrated, teachers play an integral role in implementing curricula, and often struggle to create a learning environment that adequately reflects the intended curriculum (e.g., Spillane & Zeuli, 1999). Thus, the ways in which the curriculum materials, or the literal curriculum, communicate the intended curriculum in order to support teachers in implementing the materials as intended can be a particularly revealing element.

We analyzed 38 classroom observations from the intensive research classrooms. Building on Brown, et al. (2009), we first determined which steps of the literal lesson were considered significant, that is if it impacted subsequent lesson steps or if its removal was considered to be a substantial modification to the lesson. We then determined an overall rating of the level of fidelity to the literal lesson using the following ratings: High, Moderate, Low. A lesson enactment was considered high fidelity to the literal lesson if all of the significant lesson steps were implemented; moderate fidelity to the literal lesson if there were omissions or modifications to significant lesson steps, but most of the lesson steps/activities were observed in the enacted lesson; and low fidelity to the literal lesson if there were several omissions or modifications to significant lesson steps.

Our ratings indicated that teachers implemented certain lesson segments - openers - with high fidelity, but consistently implemented other lesson segments – core activity and consolidation - with low and moderate fidelity to the literal lesson. It is in these two latter lesson segments where primary instruction of the lesson occurs. We then developed a framework for analyzing the curriculum materials themselves in order to determine the extent to which the materials support teachers in implementing the curriculum in ways that reflect the intended curriculum. The framework dimensions generally include the following: (1) evidence of the intended curriculum; (2) specificity of the language; and (3) presence of instructional supports. Further analysis of the teacher materials indicate varying degrees of instructional support provided for teachers in these lessons. The paper will discuss the results of our analysis in more detail.

Authors

• Alison Castro Superfine, University of Illinois at Chicago

• Amanda Fisher, University of Illinois at Chicago

• Ariana Christine Crowther, The University of Texas - Austin