Disrupting Deficit-Oriented Perspectives of African American Students' Mathematical Ability

• In Event: Formative Intervention Research to Enhance Equitable Mathematics Teaching: Lesson Learned From Multiple Data Sources

Abstract

Objective. A key goal of the first year of collaboration with teachers was to disrupt deficit-oriented perspectives and support the development of more productive explanations of students’ struggle. With this analysis, we investigated whether that goal was met with this guiding question: to what extent and in what ways are mathematics teachers' (a) explanations for differences in students' mathematics achievement scores and (b) descriptions of their challenges as mathematics teachers different after participating in professional development intended to disrupt deficit views?
Theoretical Framework. One conjecture underlying the design for professional learning at the project’s outset was that teachers who have productive views of students as capable learners and who view themselves as change agents tasked with empowering students mathematically would be more likely to enact forms of instruction that contribute to reducing opportunity gaps. Our analysis follows NCTM’s (2014) framing of teachers’ beliefs as either “productive” or “unproductive,” with the latter potentially acting as “obstacles” to innovations being taken up in instructional practice.
To assess the productivity of teachers’ explanations for students’ struggle, we conducted semi-structured interviews, in which we asked about perceived challenges of teaching mathematics, and explanations for why racial achievement differences exist. We employed Jackson and Gibbons’s (2014) rubrics to characterize teachers’ explanations as either productive (i.e., framing problems as locating within instruction and aspects of the school institution), unproductive (i.e., framing problems as locating within students’ inherent deficiencies, lack of motivation, or unsupportive family or community), or mixed (i.e., including instances of both productive and unproductive explanations).
Method. For this analysis, we focused on interviews conducted with 13 teachers, roughly split evenly between middle and high school, in both 2014 and 2015 (before and after the first summer of the partnership). Interviews were transcribed and coded independently by two research assistants, who discussed discrepancies to reach consensus.
Results. Results point to a shift toward more productive explanations of achievement differences (i.e., locating more responsibility within classrooms and schools). Four teachers’ explanations were more productive in year two, and none became less productive. However, almost all of those teachers still attributed challenges they encounter to the diversity and/or perceived deficiencies among students. While potentially productive shifts were detected in two cases (dropping a cultural deficit argument; adding a sense of racial awareness), identified challenges remained fairly consistent, with students’ lack of prerequisite knowledge and/or motivation the most frequently identified.
Scholarly Significance. Although it is generally believed that changing teachers’ views on the sources of students’ struggle is difficult (Battey & Franke, 2013), findings from this study suggest that DEbT-M’s current approach shows promise. The shift in the nature of explanations for differences in achievement suggests that Year 1 DEbT-M efforts to introduce new frameworks and perspectives may have had some positive impact. However, the lack of change in how teachers frame their professional challenges suggests that teachers may not yet be using new frameworks to reframe old problems, which points to the need for refining our design, possibly drawing on more “practice-forward” (Thompson, Windschitl, & Braaten, 2013, p. 605) arguments for supporting teachers’ learning.

Authors

• Charles Munter, University of Pittsburgh

• Calli Shekell, University of Pittsburgh

• Cara Haines, University of Pittsburgh