Teacher Learning Opportunities Provided by Implementing Formative Assessment Lessons: Becoming Responsive to Student Mathematical Thinking

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2019, Pages 341-363

  Kim, Hee jeong ^a  

^a Hong Ik University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Curriculum use; Formative assessment practice; Responsive teaching; Teacher change; Teacher learning opportunity

Indexed keywords

EID: 85034658659     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-017-9866-7     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
2. Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401–423
3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74
5. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge
6. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. C. (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? Evanston, IL: The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools
7. Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction: Building on the knowledge of students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 17(5), 457–470
8. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3–20
9. Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, Grades K-6 (second ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications
10. Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 331–353
11. Christou, C., Menon, E. M., & Philippou, G. (2009). Beginning teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of new mathematics curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 223–244). New York, NY: Routledge
12. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 287–311
13. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153–187
14. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Developing curriculum vision and trust. In J. T. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 321–337). New York, NY: Routledge
15. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 653–689
16. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2007). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction
17. Heaton, R. M. (2000). Teaching mathematics to the new standards: Relearning the dance. New York, NY: Teachers College Press
18. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169
19. 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
20. Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80
21. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
22. Kim, H. (2012). Pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and content knowledge for teaching mathematics: How do they shape a proficient teachers’ practice when teaching new content? Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Seoul, Korea. 4828–4836
23. Kim, H. (2014). Teacher change in teaching practices towards developing students' reasoning in mathematics. Research in Mathematical Education, 18(3), 223–234
24. Kim, H., Han, C, Bae, M. & Kwon, O. (2017). The relationship between mathematics teachers’ noticing and responsive teaching: In the context of teaching for all students’ mathematical thinking. Journal of Korean Society of Mathematics Education Series A: The Mathematical Education, 56(3), 341–363
25. 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
26. Mathematics Assessment Project (2011). Formative Assessment Lesson. Retrieved from http://map.mathshell.org/lessons.php
27. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
28. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Olson, J. F., Preuschoff, C., Erberber, E., et al. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College
29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM
30. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
31. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
32. National Research Council (2005). How students learn mathematics in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003). Learning for tomorrow’s world—First results from PISA. Paris, France: OECD
34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Education at a glance 2006: Briefing note for the United States. Paris, France: OECD
35. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15
36. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350
37. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246
38. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 35(5), 352–388
39. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York, NY: Routledge
40. Shepard, L. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://datause.cse.ucla.edu/DOCS/las_rol_2000.pdf
41. Sherin, M. G. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119–150
42. Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500
43. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
44. Smylie, M. A. (1989). Teachers’ views of the effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 543–558
45. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & 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(2), 455–488
46. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In J. Frank & K. Lester (Eds.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 319–369). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
47. Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–127
48. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York, NY: Macmillan