EMSs' Use of Curricular Resources

• In Event: The Work of Elementary Mathematics Specialists: Findings From the STEAM Project

Abstract

Purpose. In this poster, we investigate 1) how elementary teachers report their use of, and satisfaction with, digital and textbook resources for teaching mathematics, 2) the characteristics of profiles that distinguish between patterns in how elementary teachers select, use, and rate such resources, and 3) the ways EMS-certified teachers may differ from their peers in resource selection and use.

Framework. NCTM (2000) has emphasized the importance of curricular coherence in mathematics education. However, reports show mathematics teachers are increasingly searching the Internet to find instructional materials (Davis, et al., 2013). Finding, recognizing, and using effective materials requires knowledge about the sequencing and delivery of mathematical content, and the ability to navigate constraints and demands placed on the teacher from their position and context. Such knowledge may be more prevalent among teachers who have specialized training, such as those who complete programs leading to certification as Elementary Mathematics Specialists (EMSs) (Fennell, 2011).

Methods. Participants included 25 grades 3–5 EMS teachers, and 31 teachers working at the same or nearby schools at the same grade level. The data are from survey items asking teachers to list up to five resources they used for mathematics teaching and to report the percentage of their overall instructional time the resource was used, the extent to which they modified the resource, and their satisfaction with the resource. We also included items from Banilower et al. (2013) about the extent to which teachers perceived having control over their curricula. To identify groups of teachers that exhibited common patterns of curriculum use (RQ2), we used Latent Class Analysis (LCA), and included the EMS grouping variable as a covariate (RQ3). Analysis also included descriptive statistics (all RQs) and Welch’s t-test (RQ3).

Results. We found digital materials were 1) reported less frequently than non-digital, 2) rarely required by schools/districts, infrequently modified, and not used for any substantial proportion of instructional time. The LCA indicated two classes, which we describe as Non-Digital and Blended. Teachers in the Blended class (n=35) all reported using at least one digital resource, were unlikely to use a single resource at least 75% of the time (probability = .39), and unlikely to modify materials at least sometimes (probability = .28). Teachers in the Non-Digital class (n=21) did not use any digital materials, were likely to use a single resource at least 75% of the time (probability = .70), and were likely to modify at least sometimes (probability = .60). Finally, the EMS covariate indicated that EMS teachers were not significantly more likely to be in one class over another. However, EMSs reported a significantly higher perception of curriculum control than teachers who were not EMSs (t = 2.5345, df = 42.341, p = 0.01501).

Significance. Because EMSs perceived more control over their curriculum but were evenly distributed among classes, EMS programs may need to include experiences around how to make decisions on using digital materials. This is in line with AMTE’s (2013) EMS standards, as well as an expectation of schools and districts who hire EMSs.

Author

• Christopher Engledowl, New Mexico State University