Teaching mathematics for understanding: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 501-531

  Silver, Edward A ^a   Mesa, Vilma M ^a   Morris, Katherine A ^b   Star, Jon R ^c   Benken, Babette M ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

^d CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Mathematical understanding; Mathematics teaching; Middle school teachers; NBPTS; Teacher assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 67949105199     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831208326559     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Longman.
2. Artigue, M. (1994). Didactical engineering as a framework for the conception of teaching products. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Strässer & B. Winkelman (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 27-39). Dordrect, Netherlands: Kluwer.
3. Balfanz, R., Mac Iver, D., & Byrnes, V. (2006). The implementation and impact of evidence-based mathematics reforms in high-poverty middle schools: A multi-site, multi-year study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 33-64.
4. Beaton, A. E., Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability (One hundred third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II; pp. 20-50). Chicago: University of Chicago Pres.
6. Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 41-62.
7. Bond, L., Smith, T. W., Baker, W., & Hattie, J. (2000). The certification system of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and consequential validity study. Greensboro, NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation.
8. Borko, H., Stecher, B., Alonzo, A., Moncure, S., & McClam, S. (2005). Artifact packages for measuring instructional practice: A pilot study. Educational Assessment, 10, 73-104.
9. Borko, H., Stecher, B., & Kuffner, K. (2007). Using artifacts to characterize reformoriented instruction: The scoop notebook and rating guide (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 707). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R707.pdf
10. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactic situations in mathematics (N. Balacheff, Trans.). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
12. Brownell, W. A., & Moser, H. E. (1949). Meaningful vs. mechanical learning: A study in Grade III subtraction (Duke University Research Studies in Education, No. 8). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
13. Brownell, W. A., & Sims, V. M. (1946). The nature of understanding. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), The measurement of understanding (Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I; pp. 27-43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3-20.
15. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematical thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499-531.
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. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 327-345.
18. Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119-142.
20. Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof: A description and evaluation of certain procedures used in a senior high school to develop an understanding of the nature of proof. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
21. Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.). (1999). Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Schram, T. (Eds.). (1997). The Recognizing and Recording Reform in Mathematics Education project: Insights, issues, and implications (JRME Monograph No. 8). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
24. Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach for first- and second-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 180-206.
25. Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York: Longman.
26. Grouws, D. A., Smith, M. S., & Sztajn, P. (2004). The preparation and teaching practices of United States mathematics teachers: Grades 4 and 8. In P. Kloosterman & F. K. Lester (Eds.), Results and interpretations of the 1990-2000 mathematics assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 221-267). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
27. Hakel, M. D., Koenig, J. A., & Elliott, S. W. (2008). Assessing accomplished teaching: Advanced-level certification programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. 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, 29, 514-549.
29. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.
30. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P, Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21.
31. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students' learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
32. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J., Jacobs, J., Givvin, K., Garnier, H., Smith, M., et al. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 111-132.
33. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students' learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393-425.
34. Jacobs, J. K., Hiebert, J., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D. (2006). Does eighth-grade mathematics teaching in the United States align with the NCTM standards? Results from the TIMSS 1995 and 1999 video studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 5-32.
35. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Pascal, J., & Valde ́s, R. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 207-229.
37. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1988). Mathematics objectives: 1990 Assessment (Rep. No. 21-M-10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service and Author.
38. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
40. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
41. Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
42. Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9-15.
43. Schifter, D. (Ed.). (1996). What's happening in math class? (Vol. 1). New York: Teachers College Press.
44. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Metacognitive and epistemological issues in mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 361-379). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45. Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
46. Silver, E. A. (2003). Lessons learned from examining mathematics teaching around the world. Education Statistics Quarterly, 5(1). Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/Vol_5/5_1/q2_3.asp
47. Silver, E. A., & Kenney, P. A. (Eds.). (2000). Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the National Assessment Educational Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
48. Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana: University of Illinois.
49. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455-488.
50. 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(1), 50-80.
51. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.
52. Stigler, J. W., Gonzalez, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States (NCES 1999-074). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
53. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.
54. Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activities in math and social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago.
55. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.