curriculum use as situated in large-scale implementations considerations for teacher learning and...

Curriculum Use as Situated in Large-Scale Implementations

Considerations for Teacher Learning and Curriculum Design

Mary Kay Stein

University of Pittsburgh

Teacher-Curriculum Interaction Shift

FROM: TO:

Teachers-as-embedded in social & institutional

arrangements

Curriculum

Teacher

Curriculum

Conceptual Shifts

Teachers Schools and districts as organizations Curriculum

New Ways to Examine Teacher Interaction with Curriculum

Dependent less on teachers as individuals Teachers make meaning of district reform within

micro-communities of practice Teacher learning is the negotiation of meaning

through the interplay of reification and participation Dependent less on conventional ways of

conceptualizing teacher knowledge

New Ways to Examine Organizations

Human Capital Transience of faculty; ability to recruit faculty Amount and kind of professional development

Social Capital Characteristics of micro-communities

Structure Depth and congruence of their practice Existence and placement of expertise

Districts as Learning Organizations Trust among faculty Districts as overlapping communities of practice

Districts as Multiple, Overlapping Communities

District leadership community

Coach community

Teacher communities

New Ways to Examine Curriculum

Requirements for teacher learning Degree of teacher learning Kind of teacher learning

Opportunities for teacher learning Requirements for coordination (modular vs.

scripted) Features of curriculum as a boundary object

Example 1: Curriculum as Boundary Object

Districts as Multiple, Overlapping Communities


Coach community Teacher

communityBoundary practices

Boundary practices

Boundary objects

Boundary objects

Brokers Brokers

District Mathematics Leadership Team

Regional Instructional Specialists

Coaches

Teachers

Monthly RIS meetings

Summer coach training

Biweekly coach training

• coaching in schools• providing PD

Region X:

Boundary Practices

District leaders

Coaches Principals

Teachers

• ongoing PD• monthly meetings• modeling visits to schls• working on district tasks

Monthly principal mtgs.

Leadership team training

Leadership team• coaching in schls• teaching in schls• providing PD• planning with teacher teams• math lab

Greene: Boundary Practices

Contrasts in Boundary Practices: Different Opportunities for Teacher Learning

GREENE Designed for participation

around materials Individuals have the

freedom and the responsibility to make sense of the mandated curriculum

Boundary practices aimed at joint meaning making

REGION X Designed around use

of materials Individuals expected

to comply with the mandated curriculum & district pacing guide

Boundary practices aimed at coordination

Possible Explanations

Size History Interface between administration and

mathematics department District architecture for learning

Nature of Boundary Practices Nature of Boundary Objects

Nature of Boundary Objects

Features of curriculum (kind and nature of specificity) influence how they are used

Region X Boundary Objects: Everyday Mathematics and Pacing Guide

Routes through the material were heavily constrained for students and teachers

Opportunities for teachers to re-design or adjust instruction were limited

A smaller portion of tasks produced divergent or rich enough student responses to be useful for teacher learning about student thinking

GREENE Boundary Objects: Investigations, pacing guide & QMAs

Routes through the material were not heavily pre-specified for students or teachers

Tasks were rich enough to serve as foci for teacher learning of mathematics

Tasks produced rich student work that could serve as focal point for meaning making among adults

Curriculum as Boundary Objects: Different Affordances for Participation and Meaning Making

REGION X: Heavy reliance on the Pacing Guide and Everyday Mathematics to align instruction across the district; little room for the negotiation of meaning between or within communities of practice

GREENE: Enough reliance on Investigations to obtain coordination across the district; enough room for participation and authentic meaning making around Investigations

Implications for District Leaders: Designing Architectures for Learning

District-wide reform entails learning within and between multiple communities of practice Identify boundaries that have to be crossed Be attentive to the learning that will be required to cross those

boundaries Learning entails the negotiation of meaning through the

interplay of participation and the nature of the boundary objects Design boundary practices that allow for participation Select and design boundary objects that have openings for

negotiation

REGION X


Coach community

Teacher community

CAPITAL CITY


Coach community

Teacher community

Example 2: Teacher Capacity to Interact with Curriculum Materials Productively

Quality of ImplementationQuality of ImplementationMaintenance of High-Level DemandMaintenance of High-Level Demand

25

EM Investigations

PWC Tasks that were Maintained

33%(46/141)

79%(61/87)

DM Tasks that were Maintained

25%(6/24)

48%(64/134)

Quality of ImplementationQuality of ImplementationAttention to Student ThinkingAttention to Student Thinking

26

EM(n=231)

Investigations(n=249)

No work to uncover student thinking

51%(118)

16%(40)

Some work to uncover; public sharing

43%(100)

62%(155)

Purposefully selected students to share

0% 16% (40)

Sequenced and/or connected students’ responses

0% 5% (13)

Mean*** .55 1.1

Quality of ImplementationQuality of ImplementationLocation of Intellectual AuthorityLocation of Intellectual Authority

27

Judgments of correctness derived from . . .

EM(n=231)


Teacher or text 61% (142)

19%(41)

Teacher or text but some appeals to math reasoning

34% (78) 52% (113)

From mathematical reasoning

5%(11)

44% (95)

Mean*** 0.43 1.22

Teacher KMT and quality of Teacher KMT and quality of implementationimplementation

28

EM Investigations

Maintenance of high level demands

-.11 .09

Student Thinking -.33** .04

Intellectual Authority

-.28** .19*

How teachers used the curriculumHow teachers used the curriculum

29

EM(n=62)


Non-mathematical details

23% 29%

Materials needed 68% 75%

Big mathematical ideas

23% 66%

Use of curriculum and quality of Use of curriculum and quality of implementationimplementation

30

EM Investigations

StudentThinking

IntellectualAuthority

Cognitive Demand

StudentThinking

IntellectualAuthority

CognitiveDemand

Non-math details

-.08 -.26* -.40** -.19 -.02 .02

Materials -.23 -.11 -.31* -.03 -.07 -.01

Big Ideas .27* .30* .21 .25* .24* .04

SummarySummary

Quality of Implementation was associated with how teachers used the curriculum materials, not with measures of their MK

Teacher knowledge as capacity to use curricular resources (Pedagogical Design Capacity)

31

Example 2: Use-Profiles

Teacher Student

curricular tasks

Everyday Mathematics

Two Models for Curriculum Use

Students learn from well-designed materials; teachersupports implementation of text-based activities

Students learn through interactions with the teacher and other students; materials are a resource

Teacher Student

curricular tasks

Investigations

student

Everyday Mathematics Teachers

Grade Years teaching

Years with EM

MKT score

Implementa-tion level

Ms. Telford

2nd 11+ 1 4 High

(all lessons)

Ms. Truman

2nd 6-10 2 2 Low

(all lessons)

Ms. Telford-high implementer

Follows curricular activities When asked how she prepares for lessons: “I just look in the book to see what

they give you, the activities you’re going to do; what you’re going to need to do in each lesson . . . Pretty much I go by that.” (Spring 05 pre-interview)

Lesson observations show faithful following of most features of the lessons. Refers to book during the lesson.

Making adaptations “I did pretty much what it said in the book because I understood it that

way.” (Spring 05 post interview)

Changes involve letting students work in pairs, using lower numbers, not doing Part 3 of the lessons (Options for Individualizing)

Perceptions of connectedness: “I always do the mental math because it’s quick and it’s just like a quick warm up

just to get them into the lesson. Then I always do this (the math message) because this is always connected to whatever I am going to teach . . . the math concept” (of the lesson). That is the follow up (pointing to two additional activities in part one of the lesson). When asked why she did those activities: “Because this (the activity) reinforces the math concept.” (Fall 04 post interview)

Willing to try activities that may be challenging to students “There was a lesson I was thinking it would be a little--not hard, but it would be

like a little---, and I read it again. And the second time, it’s like, okay, okay, I got this . . . “ (spring 05 pre interview)

Asked what she noticed during an observation that focused on assessing students, she said: “Today, she (a student) surprised me, something she did (she goes on to explain how the student was working on a table of numbers with the “plus five” rule; once the student “got the pattern” she no longer needed to go through all the numbers to figure out what an input of 30 should produce .” (Fall 04 interview)

Ms. Truman-low implementer

Does not follow curricular activities: Follows self and students first; book second

When asked how she prepares for lessons: “I think of just sort of first of all trusting yourself . . . So, I think just trusting yourself in what you think is best for your students. Like that’s what I have to keep in mind . . . So, I think just look at your students and think what you think that they need and kind of --if anyone says anything to me, . . . . I’ll just have to say ‘This is what my kids need.’” (Fall 04 pre interview)

Lesson observations show that Ms. Truman regularly omits parts 2 and 3 from the lessons, and often adapts part 1 to such an extent that it is not recognizable; she consistently assigns the journal pages as seatwork.

Making adaptations: “Yes, I do. I pull a lot of things out of it. Even one time I completely skipped the math message and

some of our math routine at the beginning because I felt like it was so much for them and I was afraid I was going to lose them. . . . I definitely adjust. I definitely take a lot out . . . I never follow it (the book) exactly. It does not work for me that way.” (Fall 04 post interview)

Perceptions of unconnectedness: “You have to do mental math, then you have to do math message, then you have the lesson, then you have

reinforcement or games that the kids play to kind of review and build up stamina with certain things. It is constantly going back and forth and it’s so much at one time that there is not even a clear focus.” (Fall 04 post interview)

When asked why she perceives mathematics to not be going well: “ A lot of the children here are not functioning on level, so I don’t know if it’s just the fact that they are very disruptive children or if it’s the fact of the program. I personally feel like the whole jumping around and doing so many things, you know with all the different workbooks and stuff. It gets confusing.” (Fall 04 pre interview)

Deletes activities perceived as too difficult for her students Speaking about her practice of excluding lessons not labeled as representing a ‘secure goal: “ . . . If it’s not a secure goal,

I feel, ‘why should I freak my children out?’ . . . . So, I try to keep myself sane and keep them sane by saying what do you need . . What are your basic secure goals that you need to know in order to get through. Like, what should you know by now? That really is my focus, and if I have to switch something, I switch it.” (Spring 05 pre interview)

The only problem with the teacher’s edition, is that sometimes they expect my children to know things. It’s sort of like they said ‘Review a fraction.’ . . . The kids were like, ‘what?’ They had no clue. So, again, I just tried to teach them the basics and let them know that it’s just an introduction. Just be aware of the vocabulary, what a fraction looks like and simple things like that. So sometimes the book it’s sort of above and beyond really what our kids are supposed to know. It’s like you have to just kind of take it down a couple of notches.” (Spring 05 pre interview)

Everyday Mathematics

Students learn from well-designed materials; teachersupports implementation of text-based activities as an interwoven whole

Teacher Student

curricular tasks

Students learn from heavily filtered materials; teacher supports implementation of teacher-adapted orartificially “yanked” pieces of EM

Teacher Student

Curricular Tasks

Ms. Tilman Ms. Truman

Teacher Student

curricular tasks

Investigations Teachers

Grade Years teaching

Years using Investigations

Human capital score

Implementation level

Ms. Hernandez

K 6-10 2 2 High (all lessons)

Ms. Sanders

K 11+ 2 5 Low (4 out of 6 lessons)

Ms. Hernandez-high implementer Follows curricular activities and students

Reads curriculum materials thoroughly “I read a lot of the notes that the book has and a lot of things to look for . . . I read

it and see what they tell us to look for and how to question the kids so that it’s their own thinking and not us feeding it to them.”

Taking students into account “I will see where (the students) are and then I will say, ‘This would be the next

logical step for them to go to make that even better.’” Has differentiated goals for students. When asked about her goals for upcoming

lesson that involved Choice Time: “I want the students to be able to make a (2-step) pattern of their own . . . That’s the minimum . . . I am hoping for other students to be able to do maybe a 3-step pattern . . . I am hoping that some of them to go further and with the cubes, to be building things in a pattern to where if they build a flower, to have the petals go around in a pattern . . If I can push them to that point.” Asked if she came up with these goals from Investigations: “Actually, it’s what I saw the kids do on their own the very first day (that they did patterns) we were doing it . . . .” (Fall 04 pre interview)

Using curriculum activities and students The district tells us specifically what Investigation we should be teaching. So

from reading that Investigation, that gives me part of it. Then, just from observing and assisting students I know what my students are lacking so I can supplement from previous activities I have done.” (Fall 04 post interview)

During lessons, does not look at book

Adaptations Adaptations geared toward context and student needs

Example #1: Added two additional Choice Time activities to assured uncrowded stations

Example #2: Changed number of sticks in the Counting Jar activity to accommodate different children’s levels

Example #3: Pairs students differently depending on the complexity of the task

Preparing for lessons “How I prepare myself is I read the book and I read the preparation and I really

try to work it through in my mind and see how the kids are going to do in the classroom . . . But with the counting bags, I had to really decide how high my numbers were going to go because I’m going to have some kids that are gonna’ have difficulty with the concept of ‘there’s 8 of this and 12 of that and all together we have 20’” (spring 05 pre interview)

Learning by watching students On noticing (during a measurement lesson) that

students perseverated on lining up sticks after the tape ended: “They would just keep adding and adding and adding until they didn’t have any more. It showed me that they really didn’t have the concept of measurement” (spring 05 post interview)

“What I used to find happening to me is, I would be all over the place in the classroom, and then I wouldn’t know who can do what because I’d be so busy helping kids, and then I would lapse into teaching rather than monitoring--see who can do what.” (spring 05 post interview)

Ms. Sanders-Low implementer

Follows curricular activities to “the letter” When asked why she was using a pocket chart to teach patterns: “That’s what it

says to use in the book. It shows us how to use it . . . I usually go with exactly what they tell you to do.” (Fall 04 pre interview)

“This (the Investigations book) is what I go by. . . . I go by actually what is here because in our writing (of the lesson plans) we only have so much room. So maybe I didn’t put everything . . . so I just go by what is says on the actual lesson.”

Expresses disagreement with district’s new policy of jumping around between the Investigations modules: “I liked doing just one book because that way, you know, okay, we are going from beginning to end and we are finished with the book and we go onto the next book. (Fall 04 pre interview)

During actual lessons, Ms. Sanders refers to her book often, especially in the introductory parts of the lesson. She appears to be checking for questions to ask and the overall procedure for introducing the lesson.

Adaptations: Inadvertantly taking over the thinking Example #1: during a pattern task she made students stop and watch her do the

task before letting them do it at their seats: “They were supposed to wait and follow directions and do it with me” (Fall 04 post interview)

Example #2: during a shapes task with 6 tiles, students copied her arrangements rather than making their own; although recording was an important part of the activity, students were not asked to do this.

Preparing for lessons: Focus on materials When asked how she prepared: “In the beginning of an investigation, it lists a

whole section of what to plan ahead of time. So we (the K teachers) just

checked to see that we have these things (pointing to a list of materials) (Fall 04 pre-interview)

Interviewer tries to steer her away from talking about materials, but she goes back to them. Finally, interview says, “what kind of things have you guys discussed other than materials?” “Each person took on of these (investigations) to write up. Then say like we got to one, we would see that somebody was writing up one where we needed certain materials and we tried to get those materials before it was time to teach the lesson. There were just a couple of times when we had to go buy the little cups just a couple of times.” (Fall 04 pre interview)

Ms. Hernandez

Investigations

Students learn from curriculartasks that are filtered through theteacher who adjusts them based on her beliefs regarding what students are capable of

Students learn thru interactions with the teacher, other students in the context ofcurricular tasks; materials are a resource

Ms. Sanders

Teacher student

curricular tasks

student

Teacher Student

curricular tasks

Teacher Student

curricular tasks

student

Enacting at a high level EM: Following the book Investigations: Using book as a resource

Slipping into procedural enactments EM: Using book as a resource Investigations: Following the book

Relationship between level of enactment and use-profileSummary

Propositions worth pursuing

Curricula differ with respect to their ideal “use profile” Procedure-centric vs. Resource-centric

curricula (Brown, in press) Teachers who use curricula in a manner

that aligns with the curriculum’s “use profile” will provide better opportunities for student learning

If findings hold up . . . Curricula’s “use-profiles” need to be made explicit

How students should use the materials with little or no alteration with alterations based on students’ previous exposure to the

curriculum (EM) or based on teacher assessment of student needs (Investigations)

with alterations based on how building colleagues are using the materials (EM)

How teachers should use the materials As a roadmap As a resource to combine with knowledge of students and

other materials

Relationship between teacher KMT and curricular adoption

Can use procedure- or resource-centric curriculum with teachers at all levels of MKT if aligned expectations and support are provided

Teachers’ desires to have more vs. less autonomy and responsibility for guiding instruction may be as or more important than MKT.

Relationship to Policy Current policy decisions driven by

evaluations of “what works” (“fidelity as reproducibility”) Dependent on randomly distributed variation Based on policy levers that can be imagined

Could be driven by richer understandings of “fidelity as faithful implementation” Faithful to intention and ideas, but with new

attention to large-scale implementation issues Would lead to new, more appropriate policy

levers

The Superintendent’s Question: What curriculum should I buy?

Current Policymaker Answer In terms of “reproducibility” view of fidelity X works better than Y

New Answer That I Would Like Our Community to be Able to Give Depends

Base state of the organization Goals for student learning and time frame Resources the district is willing to invest

curriculum use as situated in large-scale implementations considerations for teacher learning and...

Documents

teacher learningrequirements

teacher interaction

teacher learninggreenedesigned

boundary objectnew ways

teacher teams math labgreene

scriptedfeatures of

curriculum use

boundary practicescontrasts