Examining Elementary Teachers’ Instructional Visions for Mathematics and ELA in Context

• In Event: Insights from Examining and Comparing Elementary Teachers’ Visions Across Content Areas

Abstract

Objectives
To make instructional changes, teachers need opportunities to make sense of what it looks like to enact a new instructional practice and how that practice might work in their classrooms (Spillane et al., 2002). I examined how two elementary teachers developed their understanding of classroom discussion in mathematics and ELA over three years of PL. I explored shifts in their instructional visions and how their context shaped the implementation of discussions. The guiding research questions are:
How do changes in elementary teachers’ instructional visions for mathematics and ELA compare over time?
How do they make sense of classroom discussions within their context over time?

Perspectives
Teacher sensemaking refers to how teachers make meaning of instructional practices in their situated contexts (Allen & Penuel, 2015). Sensemaking is influenced by teachers’ images of ideal classroom activity which shape what they strive for in practice, or instructional vision (Hammerness, 2001; Munter, 2014). However, contextual factors, like school norms and structures, affect whether teachers feel their visions are attainable (Coburn, 2001; Hammerness, 2006).

Data and Methods
I studied two Rivers Elementary School teachers, Frances (fourth-grade) and Leah (first-grade), in a comparative case study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Data sources included yearly interviews, capturing teachers’ visions of high-quality instruction (Munter, 2014) and how they used discussions. To analyze instructional vision, I coded for roles of the teacher and students, classroom discourse, and instructional activity (task or text), adapted from Munter’s (2014) rubrics. Next, based on relevant literature, I coded aspects of sensemaking to explore how each teacher made sense of implementing classroom discussions (e.g., Spillane et al., 2002). I compared prominent themes from each year to identify shifts over time.

Findings
Frances’ instructional visions shifted notably in mathematics and ELA over the three years of PL. The first year, she described minimal opportunities for student talk, as the teacher asked questions to check student understanding and maintain engagement. In the following years, her vision incorporated new forms of student participation to let kids lead discussions—by calling on each other, adding on, and agreeing or disagreeing with others’ contributions. In practice, her most salient challenge each year was struggling to support all students to participate and make meaningful contributions. Student participation was her primary explanation for differences in classroom discussions across content areas.
Comparatively, Leah envisioned mathematics and ELA instruction featuring student-to-student talk and a supporting teacher role in the first year; she maintained this vision over time. However, this conflicted with district-level curricular expectations. As she recognized the benefits of whole-class discussions among her students over time, she adjusted her instruction to better align with her vision. She felt discussions could be embedded in the mathematics curriculum but struggled with adapting the curricular read-aloud books for rich discussions.

Significance
Instructional vision afforded sensitivity to the subtle, nuanced shifts over time as each teacher developed images of ideal classroom discussion (Munter, 2014). This has implications for teacher educators to help bridge the gap between teachers’ visions and contextual realities while making sense of PL (Hammerness, 2006).

Author

• Rebecca Memmolo, University of Delaware