Teachers' Use of Teacher Resources and Common Core State Standards for Mathematics in Lesson Planning

• In Event: 32.073 - Studying the Alignment Among the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, Teachers' Perceptions, Lesson Design, and the Enacted Curriculum

Abstract

Objective:
We studied 20 teachers’ uses of teacher resources (TR) in published curriculum programs and teachers’ interpretations of alignment between TR and CCSSM.

Perspectives:
We investigated teachers’ use of TR (a form of designated curriculum) and the CCSSM (a form of official curriculum) (Remillard & Heck, 2014). Applying Jacobs and colleagues’ noticing framework to curriculum, we examined teachers’ noticing practices (i.e., attending, interpreting, and deciding to respond) as they planned with TR and CCSSM (Jacobs et al., 2010, 2011). We also applied Munter et al.’s (2015) contrasting models of dialogic instruction and direct instruction in characterizing teachers’ orientations (Remillard & Bryans, 2004) during lesson planning.

Methods:
We applied qualitative methods of analytic induction and constant comparison (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). We focused on data coded as “teacher resources” and “planning.” From our larger data set, we purposefully selected 20 teachers using four different curriculum programs, with two TD programs and two DM programs. Data sources included 129 interviews: pre- and post-lesson interviews that focused on teachers’ planning with their designated TR, and interviews as teachers planned a lesson with materials that were different from their designated curriculum.

Results:
As teachers planned, they used their orientations of either direct instruction or dialogic instruction (Munter et al., 2015) in noticing TR. We found patterns in each of the four combinations of teacher orientation and curriculum type. As an example, Table 1 summarizes noticing patterns found relative to aspects of CCSSM alignment. In three of the four combinations, teachers interpreted the TR as aligning with CCSSM, and yet their decisions in lesson planning varied.

Table 1: Noticing Patterns in Lesson Planning by Teacher Orientation and Curriculum Type
Teacher Orientation/ Curriculum Type Thinking Device Materials Delivery Mechanism Materials
Dialogic Teachers Interpreted materials as aligned with CCSSM.
Attended to mathematical practices in CCSSM and decided to feature these through open problems and investigations.
Interpreted materials as not aligned with CCSSM.
Attended to lack of focus on mathematical practices, interpreted as limiting students’ opportunity to learn, and decided to not use TR problems or to substantially adapt.

Direct Teachers Interpreted materials as aligned with CCSSM.
Attended to mathematical practices, interpreted as different from designated materials, decided not to use the TR approaches related to mathematical practices due to perceived time needed and/or needing to cover “basics” first.
Interpreted materials as aligned with CCSSM.
If CSSM was attended to at all, attended to content standards in CCSSM, interpreted standards as topics to be covered, and decided to cover standards by following structure in TR (showing procedures and then providing time for student practice).


Significance:
A growing body of evidence indicates that characteristics of curriculum impact teaching and learning (e.g., Stein, Remillard, & Smith, 2007; Tarr et al., 2008). This study is a next step in understanding specific ways teachers notice and interact with different types of TR and with CCSSM. This can inform both curriculum developers in designing curriculum and teacher educators in preparing teachers to help enact ambitious practices.

Authors

• Amy M. Roth McDuffie, Washington State University

• Jennifer Rae Brown, Washington State University - Vancouver