Transforming Secondary Mathematics Teaching: Increasing the Cognitive Demands of Instructional Tasks Used in Teachers' Classrooms

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 119-156

  Boston, Melissa D ^a   Smith, Margaret S ^b  

^a DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Higher order thinking; Professional development; Secondary mathematics; Teacher knowledge; Teaching practice

Indexed keywords

EID: 62749174602     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Arbaugh, F. (2000). Time on tasks: Influences of a study group on secondary mathematics teachers' knowledge, thmking, and teaching. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Retrieved November 10. 2008. from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 9993602).
2. Arbaugh, F. (2003). Study groups as a form of professional development for secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 139-163.
3. Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. A. (2002, April). Influences of the mathematical tasks framework on high school mathematics teachers' knowledge, thinking, and teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
4. Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J., Jones, D. L., & Park-Rogers, M. (2006). Examining instructional practices in Core-plus lessons: Implications for professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 517-550.
5. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook ofpolicy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Barnett, C. (1998). Mathematics teaching cases as a catalyst for informed strategic inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 81-93.
7. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110, 608-645.
8. Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. (2002). Engaging in scaffolded instructional innovation. Foundations: Professional development that supports school reform (pp. 83-98). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
9. Borko, H. & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teacher's knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Borko, H., Stecher, B. M., Alonzo, A., Moncure, S., & McClam, S. (2005). Artifact packages for characterizing classroom practice: A pilot study. Educational Assessment, 10, 73-104.
11. Boston, M. D. (2006). Developing secondary mathematics teachers 'knowledge of and capacity to implement instructional tasks with high-level cognitive demands (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Dissertation Abstracts International (Publication No. AAT 3223943).
12. Boston, M. D., & Wolf, M. K. (2006). Assessing academic rigor in mathematics instruction: The development of the instructional quality assessment toolkit: CSE technical report 672. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
13. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499-531.
14. Carpenter, T. P. & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In E. Fennema and T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (p. 19-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Clare, L. (2000). Using teachers' assignments as an indicator of classroom practice: CSE technical report 532. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
16. Clare, L., & Aschbacher, P. R. (2001). Exploring the technical quality of using assignments and student work as indicators of classroom practice. Educational Assessment, 7, 39-59.
17. Clarke, D. M. (1997). The changing role of the mathematics teacher. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 278-308.
18. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1991). Curriculum and teacher development: Psychological and anthropological perspectives. In E. Fennema, T. P. Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
19. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199.
21. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167-180.
22. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., & Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403-434.
23. Fernandez, C. (2005). Lesson study: A means for elementary teachers to develop the knowledge of mathematics needed for reform-minded teaching? Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 7, 265-289.
24. Frykholm, J. (2005). Innovative curricula: Catalysts for reform in mathematics teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 20-36.
25. Ginsburg, A., Cooke, G., Leinwand, S., Noell, J., & Pollock, E. (2005). Reassessing U. S. international mathematics peiformance: New findingsfrom the 2003 TIMSS and PISA. Washington, D. C: American Institutes for Research.
26. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524-549.
27. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
28. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students' learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393-425.
29. Hughes, E. K., Smith, M. S., Hogel, M., & Boston, M. D. (in press). Case stories: Supporting teacher reflection and collaboration on the implementation of cognitively challenging mathematical tasks. In F. Arbaugh & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Inquiry into mathematics teacher education. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE) Monograph Series, Volume 5.
30. Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2004). Supporting teacher learning: Mathematical thinking: Helping prospective and practicing teachers focus. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11, 194-201.
31. Janesick, V. J. (2000). Choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 379-399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
32. Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 203-235.
33. Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahike, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., et al. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: Pisa 2003 results from the U. S. perspective. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
34. Little, J. W. (2004). Looking at student work in the United States: Countervailing impulses in professional development. In C. Day and J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 94-118). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
35. Lloyd, G. M. (1999). Two teachers' conceptions of a reform-oriented curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 227-252.
36. Lloyd, G.M., & Wilson, M. L. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher's conception of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 248-274.
37. Matsumura, L. C. (2003). Teachers' assignments and student work: Opening a window on classroom practice: CSE technical report 602. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
38. Matsumura, L. C., Gamier, H., Pascal, J., & Valdes, R. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 207-229.
39. Matsumura, L. C., Gamier, H. E., Slater, S. C., & Boston, M. D. (2008). Toward measuring instructional interactions "at-scale." Educational Assessment, 13(4), 267-300.
40. Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S.C., Junker, B., Peterson, M., Boston, M., Steele, M., et al. (2006). Reading comprehension and mathematics instruction in urban middle schools: A pilot study of the instructional quality assessment toolkit: CSE technical report 681. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CR.ESST).
41. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. 0., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
42. National Academy of Education. (1999). Recommendations regarding research priorities: An advisory report to the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.naeducation.org/Research-Priorities-Publication.pdf
43. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS video study. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
44. National Council of Teachers ofMathematics. (2000). Principles and standardsfor school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
45. RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiencyfor all students. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
46. Remillard, J. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29, 315-342.
47. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientation toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 352-388.
48. Romagnano, L. (1994). Wrestling with change: The dilemmas of teaching real mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
49. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Correnti, R. (2004). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum in large-scale surveys: A study of literacy teaching in 3rd grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 105, 75-102.
50. Rowan, B., Harrison, D., & Hayes, A. (2004). Using instructional logs to study elementaxy school mathematics: A close look at curriculum and teaching in the early grades. Elementary School Journal, 105, 103-127.
51. Schoen, H. L., Cebulla, K. J., Finn, K. F., & Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 228-259.
52. Simon, M. A., & Shifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309-331.
53. Smith, M. S. (2000). Balancing the old and new: An experienced middle school teacher's learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 351-375.
54. Smith, M. S. (2001). Practice-based professional developmentfor teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
55. Smith, M. S., Bill, V., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Thinking through a lesson: Successfully implementing high-level tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14, 132-138.
56. Smith, M. S., Boston, M., & Steele, M. (2006, January). Focusing on challenging mathematical tasks: A strategy for improving teaching and learning. Paper presented at the 10th annual meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, Tampa, FL.
57. Smith, M. S., Stein, M. K., Arbaugh, F., Brown, C., & Mossgrove, J. (2004). Characterizing the cognitive demands of mathematical tasks: A task sorting activity. In G. Bright and R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Professional development guidebook for perspectives on teaching of mathematics: Companion to the sixty-sixth yearbook (pp. 45-72). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
58. Stein, M. K., Baxter, J. & Leinhardt, G. (1990). Subject matter knowledge and elementary instruction: A case from functions and graphing. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 639-663.
59. Stein, M. K., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455-488.
60. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 50-80.
61. Stein, M. K., Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematics reform and teacher development: A community of practice perspective. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 17-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
62. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
63. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12-16.
64. Swafford, I. 0., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1997). Increased knowledge in geometry and instructional practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 467-483.
65. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, 0., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middles- grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247-280.
66. Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook ofpolicy and practice (pp. 341-375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
67. United States Department of Education. (1999). Exemplary and promising mathematics programs. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content-storage-0l/0000019b/ 80/l5/de/fi.pdf.
68. Wallen, S. B., & Williams, S. R. (2000). Validating classroom issues: Case methods in support of teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 3-26.
69. Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. P. (2004). What is high quality instruction? Educational Leadership, 61(5), 24-28.
70. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-I 2 mathematics and science education in the United States (Highlights report). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.