Advertisement

Authors Retrospective Reflections on Designing Opportunities for Student Learning

  • Ok-Kyeong Kim
  • Janine T. RemillardEmail author
Chapter
  • 25 Downloads
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)

Abstract

This volume presents our analysis of five elementary mathematics curriculum programs from three perspectives that have implications for teachers’ use of them: mathematical emphasis, pedagogical approaches, and how authors communicate with teachers. In this chapter, we offer perspectives on these design features from the vantage point of three teams of curriculum authors. Drawing on extensive conversations with the author teams, we describe their reflections on several major design decisions, including mathematical goals and sequencing, pedagogical approach, and communicating intentions to teachers. Our aim is to highlight the relationship between curriculum authors’ intention, their subsequent design decisions, and the resulting curriculum resource. By using the curriculum authors’ voices, we attempt to highlight their intentions, positions, and reflections. We also describe the ongoing process of curriculum development and the evolving nature of curriculum, along with challenges the curriculum authors faced. In doing so, we seek to juxtapose our analysis of the designed curriculum materials with the authors’ intentions.

Keywords

Curriculum analysis Mathematics curriculum materials Everyday Mathematics Investigations in Number, Data, and Space Math in Focus Math Trailblazers Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Mathematics Curriculum development Curriculum author Communication with teachers Authors’ intentions Design decisions 

References

  1. Charles, R. I., Crown, W., Fennell, F., et al. (2008). Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Mathematics. Glenview, IL: Pearson.Google Scholar
  2. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Marulis, L. M., & Iwashyna, A. K. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Marshall Cavendish International. (2010). Math in focus: The Singapore approach by Marshall Cavendish. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  5. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  6. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  7. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  8. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  9. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (Eds.). (2003). Standards based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. TERC. (2008). Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (2nd edition). Glenview, IL: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  12. TERC. (2008a). Investigations in number, data, and space: Implementing investigations in grade 3 (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  13. TERC. (2008b). Investigations in number, data, and space: Implementing investigations in grade 4 (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  14. TERC. (2008c). Investigations in number, data, and space: Implementing investigations in grade 5 (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  15. TIMS Project (2008). Math Trailblazers (3rd Edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. TIMS Project. (2008a). Math trailblazers teacher implementation guide grade 3. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  17. TIMS Project. (2008b). Math trailblazers teacher implementation guide grade 4. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  18. TIMS Project. (2008c). Math trailblazers teacher implementation guide grade 5. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  19. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2008). Everyday Mathematics (3rd Edition). Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2008a). Third grade everyday mathematics assessment handbook. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2008b). Fourth grade everyday mathematics assessment handbook. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2008c). Fifth grade everyday mathematics assessment handbook. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA
  2. 2.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations