A Student Teacher's Curriculum

Gwen Lloyd, Ph.D., is a former faculty member at my alma mater, Virginia Tech. She was my advisor when I initially transferred into the Mathematics Education program here. Her article explores one student teacher's interaction with materials used in a kindergarten mathematics curriculum. Anne, the student teacher participant, had used two different approaches to her use of curriculum, but in both cases, each use was adaptive (p. 63).

I had used this article as one of my resources for my Curriculum Principle Project. The most relevant sections of the article were not those of Lloyd's methods and results, but of the background research. Lloyd talks about the history of views of teachers' curriculum use. Over time, researchers have had a great contrast of views, ranging from the view that teachers see the textbook as a fixed source of any and all information that is to be delivered to the students in a linear manner; to the polar opposite view that teachers are interpreters of information, changing the curriculum to suit their own classes' needs. Further, two specific, independent studies had analogous findings: they each demonstrated that these contrasting views are extremes of a linear spectrum, with any kind of teacher interaction with curriculum falling on any point on the spectrum.

The motive for Lloyd's study was reasonable. As I've stated in my Curriculum project, I think it's important to learn more about how teachers interact with their curriculum because we can use that information, cross-referenced with data about students' responses, to see what works and what doesn't. Knowing this, we can change and develop, and know how to change and develop, a curriculum that fits students' needs.

After reading the research questions, I found out that Anne was using two different sets of materials (abbreviated EM and MTW (p. 71)) in her kindergarten mathematics instruction. What I wanted to know was whether she used these different sets in the same class, or across different class. If the latter is true, I wonder how big of an effect differential Anne will have on her students' lives at such a young age. If she is using different methods on different classes would there be a butterfly effect? This question applies all the time, when we consider different teachers of the same course. I found out later in the Data Collection section that she, and another teacher, were using both of these materials on the same class, with alternate chunks of time (2 to 4 consecutive days) devoted to each set. It turns out that Anne's class is receiving instruction from both material sets.

Another data collection discussion I found interesting was that among the four kindergarten teachers in this class, each teacher saw one-fourth of students each day, and rotated stations. That way each teacher would have to teach the same lesson each day for 4 days in a row, to a different group of students. Lloyd also pointed out that in this system, the students got to participate with each of the teachers, but none of the teachers were able to observe each other.

I think the Findings section was very in-depth and complete. Lloyd covered Anne's use of each set of materials and the Curriculum Design and Curriculum Construction in each set.

The Discussion talked about how Anne fell on the spectrum from the two studies. She initially lay on the middle of the spectrum but her alterations were leaning her to the right (towards the more deviant extreme). The rest of the Discussion was about what factors could have been an influence in Anne's curriculum use. I think this is a major subject to talk about for any kind of data collection. There are so many variables that we must account for when collecting data, and we need to consider how much and what kind of an effect they have on the data. This also helps contribute to suggestions for future research: to conduct a wider, less in-depth, study and to minimize the variables.

Lloyd suggests that future research examine teachers at different levels of experience and us[e] different types of mathematics curriculum materials and textbooks (p. 91). Basically, she suggests that future researchers broaden the scope to get a better understanding of how Anne's case can be generalized. After all, the findings from Anne's class are particular and specific to her class only. Teachers who are reading this study must be careful when interpreting its results.

References

• Lloyd, G. M. (2008). Curriculum use while learning to teach: One student teacher's appropriation of mathematics curriculum materials. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(1), 63–94.
• Vennebush, G. P., Marquez, E., & Larsen, J. (2005). Embedding algebraic thinking throughout the mathematics curriculum. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 11(2), 86–93.

NCTM Principles Overview

After reading NCTM's six Principles for School Mathematics, I obtained a better understanding of the features required to produce a high-quality educational environment for mathematics students. NCTM emphasizes that the Principles are not mutually exclusive, i.e. they address overlapping themes. I believe the Principles are also collectively exhaustive, i.e. they try to encompass all of the features necessary in the math classroom.

I agree that all students are capable of learning mathematics. However I believe some students are more advanced than others. Like sports, some athletes are good at baseball while others are good at hockey. In the academic setting, there are going to be students ahead of the learning curve and behind the learning curve, and these students will vary from math to English. Teachers should be able to accommodate for this aspect of diversity (among others) while keeping expectations high.

Mathematics is a subject that well exhibits the Curriculum Principle. Math itself is cumulative, so I find it easy to make connections between content areas within the subject. As the NCTM says, the strands are highly interconnected (2000, p. 15). The more easily students can see and realize this, the more connections they will make. The NCTM recommendations for curriculum will help narrow in on the tasks I will need to accomplish while constructing lesson plans.

I never realized the impact teachers make on their students until I heard it. One school year might not seem like a long time, but in the minds of the students it can make all the difference. Looking back on my own experiences in high school and reading about the effects of a single teacher on an entire class enforces this view. Realizing that one can change the lives of children forever may be a scary thought but it can also be a good one if teaching is done effectively. I think an effective teacher has a good balance of content knowledge (knowledge about what the students know and what they need to learn) and pedagogical knowledge (knowledge about how to teach). Teachers also need to continually seek improvement on their own part. As a teacher I plan to continue my exposure to research on mathematics and education so that my teaching practices will be continually improving. This is furthermore in the best interest of the students because as generations change, pedagogical methods (along with content) will change.

I believe the best way to learn is to be in one's Zone of Proximal Development. Students need to be challenged and supported. When a task is challenging enough to overcome boredom, but not too challenging as to promote anxiety, the student is in the ZPD and will learn with understanding. Students need to be able to build on previous knowledge, elaborate on new concepts, and organize concepts in a way that helps them remember them the easiest.

New opinions about assessment open up doors that I had not realized existed in the past. Assessment is foremost used as a tool to detect what students learned and how well they learned it, but it is also used as feedback for the students. Students should easily distinguish their place in the curriculum so they know exactly what their strengths and weaknesses are. Assessment should be used as an intermediary to help students learn, not as the end to a unit where students will never have to use that information again. On the other side, assessment can be used to aid teachers. For example, teachers will know which students are excelling or falling behind in certain areas, and will be able to make decisions for future instruction.

The aid of technology helps level the playing field. This goes back to the Equity Principle. Technology helps students focus on the bigger problems at hand, such as those involving decision-making and problem solving. The increase in technology yields changes in curriculum and changes in views on which concepts are essential in the classroom. Technology shifts the students’ attention from thoughtless algorithms to more complex thinking.

There are a few Principles that stand out when regarding mathematics: the Curriculum and Technology Principles. I favorite these two Principles because I believe they are crucial in the mathematics classroom. As I’ve stated above, math is one of the subjects that is a continuous field with overlapping grey areas rather than a collection of discrete facts or figures. There are more connections that can be made in math than any other subject in secondary school (in my opinion), so building on these connections is essential for students to learn effectively. Technology is the other Principle that sticks out to me. It is true that technology can be used in other courses, but I believe it can be most appreciated in a math course. Not only does technology act as a tool that enhances the learning of math, it is also determines the behavior of students and teachers with regards to content. The more (and better) technology is available, the more students will be able to make decisions, think critically, and focus on meaning.

References

• The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.