Modes of Address: How and What Do Mathematics Curriculum Materials Communicate to Teachers?

• In Event: Developing and Studying Educative Science and Mathematics Curriculum Materials

Abstract

Purpose
This paper presents findings from a comparative analysis of teacher’s guides of curricula for elementary mathematics. The specific focus of the analysis is how curriculum authors communicate with teachers. Questions guiding the analysis are: a) How do curriculum programs communicate with teachers? b) What do they communicate about? c) What do these modes of address imply about teaching and the role of curriculum resources? Examining these questions is critical to studying the means by which curriculum materials are educative for teachers.

Theoretical Perspective
In her book, Teaching Positions, Ellsworth (1997) draws on film studies, arguing that whenever two or more people engage in an interaction, be it spoken or otherwise, the speaker makes assumptions about the audience. This concept, known in film studies as mode of address, involves positioning the audience in ways that are the necessary starting place for interaction. This starting place is where the viewer (or hearer, or reader) enters a relationship with the story in the text. In our analysis, we use Ellsworth’s concept to examine how curriculum materials interact with teachers and how they position teachers in this process. We aim to add nuance to the field’s understanding educative curriculum materials.

Methods and Data Sources
Five programs were analyzed that collectively offered variety in terms of reform-based, traditional, and international curricula: Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (INV); Mathematics Trailblazers (TB); Everyday Mathematics (EM); Singapore Primary Mathematics (SM); and Scott Foresman (SF). Teachers' guides were reviewed, coded, and compared along the key dimensions. Codes identified the way the guide communicated with the teacher, the types of guidance it provided, and what its placement suggests about teaching and curriculum use.

Results
The analysis revealed substantial variation in how the materials communicated with the teacher and what they communicate about. Comparative analysis of the number of sentences in each lesson, revealed that SM and SF provide the teacher with notably less guidance than EM, TB and INV. Further, these two groups varied in the type of guidance provided. Categorical analysis of the guidance in each lesson indicated that SM and SF focused on directing teachers’ actions. In contrast, EM, TB and INV provide more guidance designed to be educative for the teacher and support the teacher when enacting the lesson (Ball & Cohen, 1996). These programs were more likely to provide guidance that included a rationale for design decisions, attended to student thinking, explained underlying mathematical concepts, and supported teacher decision making.

The materials also varied in how they framed the teacher’s role with respect to mathematics learning in the classroom. SM and TB focused the teacher on telling, showing, and directing. The others tended to position the teacher in a guiding or facilitative role.

Significance
The variations in how the curriculum materials communicate with teachers reveal different assumptions about what teachers know and need to know to use them, what teaching involves, and what the teacher’s role is. Understanding these implicit messages lays the groundwork for examining how teachers read and engage with these resources.

Authors

• Janine Remillard, University of Pennsylvania

• Luke T. Reinke, University of Pennsylvania