Abstract
The chapter reprinted in this part of the book outlines an analytical approach for documenting school and district settings in which teachers develop and revise their instructional practices. The institutional setting of mathematics teaching as we conceptualize it encompasses district and school policies for mathematics instruction. It therefore includes both the adoption of curriculum materials and guidelines for using those materials (e.g., pacing guides that specify a timeline for completing instructional units) (Ferrini-Mundy & Floden, 2007; Remillard, 2005; Stein & Kim, 2006). The institutional setting also includes the people to whom teachers are accountable and what they are held accountable for (e.g., expectations for the structure of lessons, the nature of students’ engagement, as well as assessments of students’ learning) (Elmore, 2004). In addition, the institutional setting includes supports that give teachers access to new tools and forms of knowledge together with incentives to take advantage of these supports (e.g., opportunities to participate in formal professional development activities and in informal professional networks, assistance from a school-based mathematics coach, or a principal who is an effective instructional leader) (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Coburn, 2001; Cohen & Hill, 2000; Horn, 2005; Nelson & Sassi, 2005). The findings of a substantial and growing number of studies document that teachers’ instructional practices are partially constituted by the instructional materials and resources that they use in their classrooms, the institutional constraints that they attempt to satisfy, and the formal and informal sources of assistance on which they draw (Cobb, McClain, Lamberg, & Dean, 2003; Coburn, 2005; Spillane, 2005; Stein & Spillane, 2005).
Teruni Lamberg worked on the project described in this introduction as a post-doctoral researcher for 3 years. She is a member of the mathematics education faculty at the University of Nevada at Reno. Chrystal Dean, Jana Visnovska, and Qing Zhao all worked on the project as graduate research assistants. Dean is a member of the mathematics education faculty at Appalachian State University. Visnovska is a member of the mathematics education faculty at the University of Queensland in Australia. Zhao is completing her dissertation study at Vanderbilt University.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As background for non-US readers, we should clarify that each US state is divided into a number of independent school districts. In rural areas, districts might serve less than 1,000 students whereas a number of urban districts serve more than 100,000 students. Larger districts typically have a central office whose staff are responsible for selecting curricula and for providing teacher professional development in various subject matter areas including mathematics. In the US, the district is an important administrative unit whose policies can have a significant influence on teachers’ instructional practices.
- 2.
These teachers worked in the rural/suburban district referred to in the introductions to several previous parts of this book.
- 3.
A teacher development experiment is a design experiment that aims to support and understand the learning of a group of teachers.
- 4.
This experiment was conducted by Paul Cobb, Kay McClain, Chrystal Dean, Teruni Lamberg, Melissa Gresalfi, Lori Tyler, Jana Visnovska, and Qing Zhao.
- 5.
As background for non-US readers, the US Congress passed a national policy called No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 with the overwhelming support of both Republicans and Democrats. The intent of NCLB is to enable all students to meet high performance standards in language arts and mathematics. The legislation provides financial incentives for States to design and enact the three central components of NCLB policy: content standards, tests aligned with the standards, and mechanisms for holding schools accountable for increasing test scores. The resulting state accountability policies constitute key aspects of the settings within which district and school leaders formulate local policies for mathematics instruction. The resulting local policies as they are actually enacted in schools in turn constitute key aspects of what we have termed the institutional setting of mathematics teaching.
- 6.
Heilig and Darling-Hammond (2008) document some of the strategies that districts use to increase test scores by exploiting loopholes in State accountability systems. As Cohen, Moffitt, and Goldin (2007) and Elmore (2004) observe, this gaming of the accountability system is to be expected when school and district leaders are held accountable of boosting test scores but do not know how to improve the quality of instruction.
References
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2001). An approach for supporting teachers’ learning in social context. In F. L. Lin & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 207–232). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Cobb, P., McClain, K., Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and school district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13–24.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19, 476–509.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294–343.
Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113, 515–548.
Confrey, J., Bell, K., & Carrejo, D. (2001, April). Systemic crossfire: What implementation research reveals about urban reform in mathematics. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Seattle.
Dean, C. O. (2005). An analysis of the emergence and concurrent learning of a professional teaching community (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Dillon, D. R. (1993). The wider social context of innovation in mathematics education. In T. Wood, P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & D. Dillon (Eds.), Rethinking elementary school mathematics: Insights and issues (pp. 71–96). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph No. 6. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Elmore, R. F. (2006, June). Leadership as the practice of improvement. Paper presented at the OECD international conference on perspectives on leadership for systemic improvement, London.
Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Floden, R. E. (2007). Educational policy research and mathematics education. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 1247–1279). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Heilig, J. V., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 75–100.
Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 207–236.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Nelson, B. S., & Sassi, A. (2005). The effective principal: Instructional leadership for high-quality learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Newman, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Remillard, J. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93, 352–388.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teacher’s workplace. New York: Longman.
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of Educational Research (Vol. 16, pp. 353–389). Washington, DC: American Educational Research.
Simon, M. A. (1993). Context for change: Themes related to mathematical education reform. In T. Wood, P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & D. Dillon (Eds.), Rethinking elementary school mathematics: Insights and issues (pp. 109–114). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education monograph No. 6. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Simon, M. A. (2000). Research on the development of mathematics teachers: The teacher development experiment. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 335–359). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Stein, M. K., & Kim, G. (2006, April). The role of mathematics curriculum in large-scale urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Stein, M. K., & Spillane, J. P. (2005). Research on teaching and research on educational administration: Building a bridge. In B. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), Developing an agenda for research on educational leadership (pp. 28–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ueno, N. (2000). Ecologies of inscription: Technologies of making the social organization of work and the mass production of machine parts visible in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7, 59–80.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cobb, P., Dean, C., Lamberg, T., Visnovska, J., Zhao, Q. (2010). Introduction. In: Sfard, A., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E. (eds) A Journey in Mathematics Education Research. Mathematics Education Library, vol 48. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9729-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9729-3_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9728-6
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9729-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)