Case Studies of Teachers' Perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and Use of Curriculum Materials

• In Event: 49.078 - Exploring Middle School Teachers' Use of Curriculum Materials in the Context of the Common Core

Abstract

Purpose
We studied 11 middle school mathematics teachers’ perceptions of CCSSM and use of curriculum materials. The research questions guiding our study of these teachers were:
1. How do teachers perceive CCSSM relative to their practice?
2. How do teachers perceive their designated curriculum materials relative to goals and foci of CCSSM?
3. How does CCSSM influence teachers’ operational curriculum?

Theoretical Perspectives
Drawing on perspectives presented earlier, this study focused on examining the case teachers’ operational curriculum (Remillard & Heck, 2014). We view teaching as a cultural activity and students’ engagement in rich mathematics as important for learning (c.f., Stein et al., 2007; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).

Methods
Using a qualitative case study design (Stake 1995), we studied five teachers using Glencoe Mathematics (Carter et al., 2013) and six teachers using Connected Mathematics Project 3 (CMP3, Lappan et al., 2014). After conducting two coding cycles for all data sources as described above (Table 1), we investigated patterns and differences to generate profiles for teachers’ operational curriculum (Remillard & Heck, 2014). We then examined relationships between teachers’ intended curriculum and enacted curriculum and factors that influenced operational curriculum.

Results
Although most teachers viewed CCSSM as more rigorous and more focused on concepts than their previous standards, teachers’ interpretations of these shifts varied. Teachers using CMP3 viewed CMP3 as problem-based and indicated that CMP3 supports students to learn concepts and develop mathematical practices, as emphasized in CCSSM. In planning and teaching, these teachers consistently focused on engaging students, asking questions to push students’ reasoning, and providing opportunities for students to communicate understandings. Teachers using Glencoe stated that Glencoe provided opportunities for students to build conceptual understandings through a “hands-on” approach. Yet, in planning and teaching these teachers focused on mastering procedures and practicing skills, and students’ communication usually consisted of brief answers with little explanation. Glencoe teachers seemed to equate developing conceptual understandings with using manipulatives and/or applying procedures to problems set in a real-world context.

Most teachers did not perceive their materials as fully aligned with CCSSM. While teachers primarily used their designated curriculum (Remillard & Heck, 2014), teachers analyzed, adapted, and/or supplemented lessons with other materials to implement CCSSM. Teachers did not simply follow a textbook, as was common in the past (Grouws et al., 2004). CCSSM seemed to push teachers to critically analyze curriculum materials; however, teachers were doing so in different ways, drawing on a range of interpretations of CCSSM and prior curriculum experiences.

Conclusion and Significance
This variation in teachers’ interpretations and enactments of their curriculum materials and CCSSM suggests that teachers need more support to analyze their materials relative to CCSSM, to strategically adapt and supplement their materials, and to develop a deeper understanding of the CCSSM. Without improved understanding of CCSSM, resources in curriculum materials, and instructional approaches that support students’ learning, enactments could work against a primary goal and potential benefit of the CCSSM, a nationally coherent and consistent set of standards to improve learning (Schmidt & Houang, 2012).

Authors

• Amy M. Roth McDuffie, Washington State University - Tri-Cities

• Margarita Vidrio, Washington State University - Tri-Cities