Integrating Curriculum and Community Spaces

  • Julie M. AmadorEmail author
  • Darrell Earnest


Curriculum is a key resource that the vast majority of teachers utilize, yet authentic connections to children’s everyday experiences are not necessarily straightforward with curriculum materials. Because curriculum materials have a direct influence on teachers’ instruction, we must prepare teachers to analyze curriculum in ways that enable integration of connections to children’s everyday experiences and knowledge. In this chapter, we present a case study of a trio of prospective teachers who used a curriculum analysis tool to analyze curriculum materials. In using this resource, they considered how materials might be drawing on children’s everyday mathematical experiences and knowledge. We examine how this tool supported prospective teachers’ curricular noticing, meaning how prospective teachers attended to particular curricular features, interpreted those features, and then made decisions to draw upon such features to design instruction. The prospective teachers recognized opportunities for connections in the materials to the extent that they often seemed to foreground the focus on communities with the mathematics in the background. Additionally, they recognized instances when more could have been included in the materials to form connections between the mathematics and students’ lives and experiences. Finally, the prospective teachers made adaptations based on the materials in ways they considered would improve the lesson. Given the outcomes of this case, we argue for opportunities for prospective teachers to analyze curriculum materials with an eye toward mathematical community resources.


Curriculum analysis Resources Community connections Everyday life Curriculum adaptation Teacher education Case study Mathematics education 


  1. Aguirre, J. M., Turner, E. E., Bartell, T., Kalinec-Craig, C., Foote, M. Q., Roth McDuffie, A., et al. (2013). Making connections in practice: How prospective elementary teachers connect children’s mathematics thinking and community funds of knowledge in mathematics instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 178–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amador, J., & Earnest, D. (2016). Lesson plan-imation: Transforming preservice mathematics teachers’ lesson design experiences with animation. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollerbrands (Eds.), Handbook of research on transforming mathematics teacher education in the digital age (pp. 241–271). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amador, J., Males, L., Earnest, D., & Dietiker, L. (2017). Curricular noticing: Theory on and practice of teachers’ curricular use. In E. Schack, M. Fisher, & J. Wilhelm (Eds.), Building perspectives of teacher noticing (pp. 427–444). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? (Design Brief). Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.Google Scholar
  6. Charles, R. I., Fennell, F., Caldwell, J. H., Schielack, J. F., Copley, J. V., Crown, W. D., et al. (2015). enVisionMATH Common Core, Realize Edition. Glenview, IL: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Dietiker, L., Males, L., Amador, J., & Earnest, D. (2018). Curricular noticing: A comprehensive framework to describe teachers’ interactions with curriculum materials. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(5), 521–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drake, C., Land, T. J., Bartell, T. G., Aguirre, J. M., Foote, M. Q., Roth McDuffie, A., et al. (2015). Three strategies for opening curriculum spaces. Teaching Children Mathematics, 21(6), 346–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earnest, D., & Amador, J. (2017, online first). Lesson planimation: Preservice elementary teachers’ interactions with mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  10. Goldsmith, L., Mark, J., & Kantrov, I. (2000). Choosing a standards-based mathematics curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Hirsch, C. R. (2007). Curriculum materials matter. In C. R. Hirsch (Ed.), Perspectives on the design and development of school mathematics curricula (pp. 1–5). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  12. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.Google Scholar
  13. Kazemi, E., Franke, M., & Lampert, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to support novice teachers’ ability to enact ambitious instruction. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Wellington, New Zealand. (Vol. 1, pp. 12–30).Google Scholar
  14. Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical frame- work for research. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 629–668). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  15. Males, L., Earnest, D., Dietiker, L., & Amador, J. (2015). Examining K-12 prospective teachers’ curricular noticing. In T. G. Bartell, K. N. Bieda, R. T. Putnam, K. Bradfield, & H. Dominguez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 88–95). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  16. Philipp, R. (2014, April). Using representations of practice in survey research with mathematics teachers. In Symposium conducted at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Conference. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  17. Remillard, J. T. (2012). Modes of engagement: Understanding teachers’ transactions with mathematics curriculum resources. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 105–122). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Turner, E., Foote, M., Stoehr, K., Roth McDuffie, A., Aguirre, J., Bartell, T., et al. (2016). Learning to leverage children’s multiple mathematical knowledge bases in mathematics instruction. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 9(1), 48–78.Google Scholar
  19. Turner, E. E., Drake, C., Roth McDuffie, A., Aguirre, J. M., Bartell, T. G., & Foote, M. Q. (2012). Promoting equity in mathematics teacher preparation: A framework for advancing teacher learning of children’s multiple mathematics knowledge bases. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of IdahoCoeur d’AleneUSA
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations