Ej841570 PDF
Ej841570 PDF
Ej841570 PDF
Planning is an important phase of teaching, during which teachers make decisions about various aspects of
instruction that ultimately shape students’ opportunities to learn. Prior research on teacher planning, however,
fails to adequately describe experienced teachers’ planning decisions, and is unclear about the extent to which
teachers use curriculum materials to inform their decisions. Using data from 6th grade mathematics teachers’
use of curriculum materials, this study presents a discipline-specific model of experienced mathematics
teachers’ planning. The proposed model provides a lens for understanding the nature of teachers’ planning
decisions, and the conditions under which such decisions change over time.
Planning is an important and often generally considered when planning their lessons
underappreciated aspect of teaching practice, when (Popham & Baker, 1970; Taylor, 1970; Tyler, 1950).
teachers make decisions that ultimately impact Under this model, teachers first consider the learning
students’ opportunities to learn (Clark & Peterson, activities that take into account students’ interests and
1986; Floden, Porter, Schmidt, Freeman, & Schwille, abilities, then the learning goals and objectives of the
1980; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Planning commonly lesson, and finally the evaluation procedures to be used
refers to the time teachers spend preparing and during the lesson. Some researchers later argued that
designing activities for students. From tasks and linear models of teacher planning do not adequately
activities to instructional practices employed during describe experienced teachers’ planning processes and
lessons, teachers need to consider a variety of aspects do not account for the complexities inherent in
of their instruction before students even enter the mathematics teaching. Rather, a variety of additional
classroom. Teachers need to pay careful attention to factors, such as teachers’ experiences and conceptions
designing their lessons; “effective teachers understand of mathematics teaching and learning, also influence
that teaching requires a considerable effort at design. the ways in which teachers plan their lessons
Such design is often termed planning, which many (Kilpatrick et al., 2001; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986;
teachers think of as a core routine of teaching.” Yinger, 1980).
(Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001, p. 337). More recent research on teachers’ planning does
Reviews of teacher planning and decision-making not clearly indicate the extent to which teachers draw
further emphasize the centrality of planning processes from curricular resources when making planning
in teachers’ practice (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Clark & decisions. Moreover, there is even less research that
Yinger, 1977; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). Despite this focuses explicitly on teachers’ planning in the context
general agreement about the importance of planning, of the reform mathematics curricula that provide much
few researchers have explicitly examined the precise of the instructional design for teachers (Kilpatrick et
ways in which teachers plan for mathematics al., 2001; Trafton et al., 2001). Such reform curricula
instruction. are increasingly prevalent in classrooms in the United
Prior research related to teacher planning presented States, embodying new modes of instruction (Reys,
a “linear” or “rational” model of teacher planning by 2002). The challenges of planning lessons using such
delineating the various lesson elements teachers curricula may be somewhat different from the
challenges of planning lessons with more conventional
Alison Castro Superfine is Assistant Professor of Mathematics mathematics curricula. Thus, exploring how teachers
Education and Learning Sciences at the University of Illinois at
Chicago. Her current work focuses on teacher-curriculum
plan in the particular context of reform curricula is
interactions and elementary preservice teacher education.. critical if mathematics educators want to understand
this important phase of teaching.
The research reported in this article is based upon the author’s In order to explore the theoretical considerations
doctoral dissertation under the direction of Dr. Edward A. Silver presented in this article, the author has selected
at the University of Michigan.
12 Teacher Planning
applying these conceptions in the classroom. Teachers’ need to be able to resist the urge to tell students how to
conceptions of mathematics content are also important work on the content so that they provide students with
for understanding how teachers engage with the adequate time to think through what they are asked to
curriculum (Lloyd, 1999; Remillard, 1999; Remillard do (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 2000).
& Bryans, 2004). Moreover, it is important to Anticipating student responses and having an
understand the extent to which teachers’ conceptions of awareness of common errors can also help teachers
mathematics teaching and learning align with the ideas effectively respond to and redirect students’
about teaching and learning underlying the curriculum discussions (Chazan & Ball, 1999; Fennema, Franke,
(Manouchehri & Goodman, 1998; Remillard & Carpenter, & Carey, 1993). In addition, modifying
Bryans, 2004). tasks based on students’ current knowledge and
While linear models are useful for capturing abilities may help teachers to be mindful of the
certain basic elements of teacher planning, these cognitive activity in which students should be engaged
models fail to account for an array of factors that have (Stein et al., 2000). Employing such instructional
been identified as influencing teachers’ planning practices to facilitate student learning in accordance
processes, such as curriculum materials, teaching with the principles of reform mathematics, however,
experience, and the various conceptions teachers have requires extensive and demanding work on the part of
about teaching and learning. Although teachers have a teachers. Therefore, teachers face several challenges
variety of conceptions, this article will focus on supporting students at such a high level of
teachers’ conceptions of mathematics teaching, mathematical activity.
learning, and curricula for the purposes of this study. These challenges to teachers’ work are considered
the “problems” in mathematics teaching (Lampert,
The Work of Reform-Oriented Mathematics
1992, 2001). “Problems” in mathematics teaching refer
Teaching
to the work teachers do to further students’
Although the various factors highlighted by understanding of mathematics. This includes
researchers as influencing teachers’ planning are facilitating students’ discussion around the content,
essential to consider when developing a new planning continuously pressing students to explain their ideas
model, it is also important to consider the demands and and to communicate with each other, posing questions,
characteristics of the particular discipline in which and selecting solution strategies to present to the class.
such planning occurs. Most of the research discussed Teachers need to make important and often
previously does not explicitly focus on planning or simultaneous decisions in ways that do not undermine
instruction in the context of a specific discipline. students’ thinking or the mathematical opportunities
Mathematics teaching, specifically in the context of afforded by the content in reform curricula. Hereafter,
reform mathematics curricula, involves particular “problems” will be used to refer to the challenges and
demands and challenges that may shape teachers’ decisions teachers face during mathematics teaching,
planning processes. as described in Lampert (1992, 2001).
The model developed in this study is grounded in a Teaching includes not only the physical act of
specific conception of mathematics teaching, drawing teaching, during which teachers interact with students,
from the works of Stein, Smith, Henningsen, and Silver but also includes the time teachers spend preparing for
(2000), Lampert (1992, 2001), Clark and Elmore these interactions (Jackson, 1966, 1968). Planning for
(1981), and Lampert and Ball (1998). These the demands and challenges of mathematics instruction
researchers describe in detail the nuances and requires teachers to engage in a planning process that
complexities of mathematics teaching in a way involves the development of skeletal frameworks
typically embodied in reform curricula. Teachers need rather than detailed scripts for teaching lessons
to consider the mathematical content and ways to (Rosebery, 2005). In particular, teachers must identify
engage students in discussion about the content, while a particular mathematical topic to discuss and the
simultaneously guiding students towards a particular means necessary to cover that topic, without
goal. For example, during planning and instruction necessarily delineating the precise steps needed to
teachers modify tasks and ask high-level questions in teach that topic. Therefore, planning for reform-
order to promote students’ understanding of the oriented instruction requires teachers to select specific
underlying ideas and concepts. topics or concepts and to identify particular activities,
To support students’ understanding, teachers need instructional strategies, and suitable materials for
a variety of pedagogical skills. For example, teachers discussing and engaging students with the topics or
14 Teacher Planning
Figure 1. Planning for Mathematics Instruction Model.
As teachers’ conceptions help to frame the years; Susan has been teaching 6 years, using CMP for
planning problems they encounter, their various 3 years. These teachers were observed planning and
conceptions also serve as a resource for managing enacting the same unit, Bits and Pieces III, which
planning problems that arise in the course of their focuses on operations with rational numbers (Lappan et
planning. When confronted with planning problems, al., 2006). The data collected includes interviews with
teachers draw upon their previous experiences with the teachers prior to and immediately following classroom
task and their ideas about what it means to learn and observations to understand teachers’ lesson plans and
teach mathematics in order to make decisions about their reflections on their lesson enactments. Although
ways of managing these different planning problems. post-hoc examinations of teachers’ planning were
In some cases, teachers may also draw from the conducted, teachers were interviewed the same day of
information and support provided within the actual the observation in order to increase the accuracy of
mathematics curriculum materials. Notably, the CMP teachers’ responses. Field notes from classroom
teacher guide provides the means for teachers to observations and artifacts from teachers’ lesson
manage certain planning problems, such as anticipating planning are additional data sources.
solution methods students may generate, questions to Prior to using CMP, Alicia used a more
ask students, and errors and misconceptions students conventional mathematics curriculum for 13 years and
may have in relation to a task. Though, the extent to claims to strongly believe that CMP does not provide
which teachers use curriculum materials to inform their students with sufficient opportunities to practice skills
planning decisions is largely dependent on the nature and procedures. She views her role as a teacher as that
of their conception of the curriculum. of an intervener, providing direct guidance and explicit
instructions for students, which is evident in her
Teachers’ Planning Practices
planning decisions. Alicia first reads through the entire
The following teacher examples illustrate the lesson in the student book and solves the task: “And I
various ways in which experienced teachers, with do the whole [lesson] myself, you know without
distinct conceptions towards the CMP curriculum, can looking at the teacher’s guide or anything…And then I
engage with reform curriculum materials in the course have an idea about what might be tricky and what
of their planning and demonstrate how the PMI Model might not be.” Alicia says she then looks through the
applies to actual teaching practices. Alicia, Richard, accompanying teacher’s guide and decides the most
and Susan were selected for the present study because appropriate course of action, taking into consideration
their planning decisions and considerations captured both who her students are as learners and the
the range of variation in planning routines and constraints of class time. “And I kind of pick and
problems encountered.1 All three teachers were choose what I think will work best with my students…
teaching sixth grade at the same middle school at the And most times I won’t use all of it.” In general, Alicia
time the study took place. As this study uses teaching claims to regularly modify the suggested content of the
and curricular experience to define experience, Alicia lesson and the suggestions for how students should
has been teaching 16 years, using CMP for 3 years; engage with the content during the lesson. Her view of
Richard has been teaching 17 years, using CMP for 10 CMP, and ultimately her conception of what students
16 Teacher Planning
Table 1
Summary of planning problems teachers encountered during unit
Planning Problem Alicia Richard Susan
Anticipating students’ work on Recalled previous experience Read student book, solved task Planned for more teacher-
task with lesson himself direction of task
Treatment of content in Read teacher guide to clarify Read teacher guide to clarify Read teacher guide to clarify
curriculum content, but focused only on content, but focused only on content, and planned to follow
“important” aspects “important” aspects lesson suggestions
Susan also says the teacher’s guide provides her modifies the lesson suggestions as needed when
with an image of how students will engage with the planning. In fact, all three teachers held varied
task: “…it gets me ready for what they might say. conceptions of the curriculum – curriculum as a guide
What’s the book going to be after? You know, what’s to varying extents (Alicia and Richard) and curriculum
sort of the big idea that they want to come away with.” as a script (Susan). As these examples illustrate,
She states that her purpose for using the student book teachers’ various conceptions influence the types of
is to understand the task for herself. She uses the planning problems these teachers encounter and the
teacher’s guide, on the other hand, to understand how ways in which teachers manage these problems as they
students may approach and solve the task, including arise during planning for the unit.
potential misconceptions students may have in relation
Planning Problems
to the task.
In contrast to Alicia, Susan appears to agree with As discussed previously, planning problems
the principles underlying CMP, and accordingly plans constitute a fundamental structural component of the
for enacting lessons in the unit largely as described in PMI Model because they highlight the relationships
the materials. Moreover, unlike Richard, Susan uses between teachers’ experience, conceptions of
the curriculum not only for the content features of the mathematics teaching and learning, and the actual
lesson, but also she uses the suggestions for how to curriculum program used by teachers. Applying this
engage students with the content during the lesson. model to teachers’ practices requires close analysis of
Thus, Susan, the teacher with less teaching experience the planning problems experienced by these teachers
as compared to Alicia and Richard, draws heavily from and the factors underlying the emergence of these
the suggestions in the curriculum when planning, and planning problems. The teachers in this study primarily
plans to enact the lesson largely as described in the encountered two different planning problems – (1)
materials. By adhering to the lesson suggestions in an anticipating potential errors and misconceptions
almost prescriptive fashion, Susan leaves little room students may have in relation to a task and (2)
for her own interpretation of the lesson. treatment of content in the curriculum. Although
As these examples illustrate, the nature of teachers’ teachers encountered several planning problems
engagement with curriculum materials during planning throughout the unit, these two problems were selected
is determined by a variety of factors. Although Richard for analysis because they illustrate how the PMI Model
agrees with CMP’s overall approach to teaching and depicts teachers’ planning practices. Though the two
learning, he largely relies on the curriculum materials types of planning problems teachers primarily
solely for its content. It appears that he does not require encountered during their planning were quite similar,
much pedagogical support when planning; instead, he teachers varied considerably in the ways in which they
typically limits himself to reading and working through managed these two planning problems. Table 1
the student book. Susan, on the other hand, seems to summarizes the planning problems these three teachers
rely on the materials for both content and pedagogical encountered during their planning for the unit, and
purposes during her planning for the unit, closely briefly describes the ways in which the teachers
following the lesson suggestions. In contrast to Richard managed these different problems. Table 1 does not
and Susan, Alicia does not seem to believe that CMP reflect the frequency in which participating teachers
provides students with sufficient opportunities to encountered planning problems during the unit.
practice basic skills and procedures, and therefore
Alison Castro Superfine 17
Anticipating Students’ Work on Tasks would struggle. This was also the case in Susan’s
A specific planning problem all three teachers planning for a lesson involving computing discounts.
encountered during their planning for the unit was In both situations, Susan’s previous experience, her
anticipating how students would work on the content view of how struggling students should learn, and her
of the lesson. Alicia, for example, relied on her proclivity to follow the curriculum suggestions closely,
experience from previous classes to anticipate how influenced how she managed the problem of
students would engage with the content of several anticipating how students would work on the lesson.
lessons in the unit. Based on experiences with classes She often reduced the complexity of the tasks by
in previous years, Alicia anticipated that students telling students how to solve them, taking away
would struggle with lining up the decimal points when students’ opportunities to wrestle with the central
adding and subtracting decimals in a certain lesson. ideas, but still enacted the lesson largely as written.
She therefore planned to enact the entire lesson as a Treatment of Content in Curriculum
whole-class activity to help students through the
The treatment of the content within two lessons
lesson, as opposed to providing opportunities for
dealing with long division also emerged as a planning
students to work collaboratively in groups during the
problem for these teachers. All three teachers
lesson, as was the suggested organization. Similarly,
considered long division as a particularly important
she anticipated students would struggle with another
concept for students to know and to be able to do.
task involving computing discounts by drawing upon
However, the long division algorithm was not
her previous experience with that lesson, and again
explicitly presented in the unit; it was presented as a
planned the lesson as a whole class activity. As she
set of two interrelated lessons in order for students to
described in her planning, Alicia believed that by
understand the underlying rationale of the algorithm
implementing lessons as either whole-class or
and the role of place value when dividing decimals. All
individual activities, she was better able to address
three teachers had to consider how to enact these two
student difficulties and “guide them in the right
lessons in light of their conceptions towards the
direction.” Richard regularly encountered this same
content and the curriculum. Alicia and Richard
planning problem but managed it quite differently than
modified the lesson to focus on the procedural aspects
Alicia. Rather than relying on his previous experiences,
of decimal division in these two lessons. This
Richard anticipated how students would work on the
modification reflected their conceptions about what
different tasks by working through the lessons himself
they considered to be the most important aspects of the
in the unit – he read the student book and solved the
content. Moreover, this modification comported with
task while thinking about how students would
their conceptions of the curriculum as a guide rather
approach the task and what potential aspects might
than a script for their lesson planning. This particular
confuse students. In doing so, Richard attempted to
conception of the curriculum left room for the
forecast the various ways in which students could
teachers’ conceptions toward the content to dictate how
engage with the content, which reflected his more non-
teachers planned to enact the lessons.
conventional conception of mathematics learning.
While Susan also encountered this planning
Susan also anticipated how students would work
problem, she planned to enact the lesson largely as
on the task, primarily drawing upon what she knew of
written in the curriculum despite her reluctance to do
her students’ previous work throughout the unit, but
so. Her conceptions toward both the curriculum and the
also the information included in the teacher’s guide.
content influenced how she framed and managed this
She became aware of this planning problem by not
problem. Susan felt inclined to change the treatment of
only reading the teacher’s guide, but also from her
the content because her conception of the content
previous experience with a particular lesson involving
clashed with the treatment of the content in the
decimal division in which students seemed to struggle
curriculum. However, her desire to plan her lessons
with long division. Although the materials alerted her
largely in accordance with the lesson suggestions
to this potential source of confusion for students, she
provided a push in the opposite direction to teach the
did not seem to use the suggestions in the teacher’s
content as written: “I don’t know about this lesson
guide to support students’ understanding of long
because students have always struggled with
division. Instead, she used her view of how students
division….Though [the lesson] helps students
should learn in order to address students’ difficulty
understand, so I just have to be patient.” Susan had to
with the content and planned to enact the lesson in
consider what content to enact with students in light of
particular ways to lessen the likelihood that students
18 Teacher Planning
these conflicting conceptions. Her conception to plan colleagues, experienced teachers have to consider how
for lessons in accordance with the lesson suggestions to make use of their prior knowledge and experience.
ultimately outweighed her conception of the content. With regard to teachers’ various conceptions, the
The shape of Susan’s planning problem contrasts with “experience problem” consists of how to utilize
that of Alicia’s and Richard’s in that they did not experienced teachers’ assumptions about and prior
negotiate conflicting conceptions. In summary, the knowledge of mathematics curricula, and their ideas
three teachers in this study encountered different about what it means to learn and teach mathematics.
problems in the course of their planning for the unit. The planning routines of Alicia, Richard, and
Despite the fact that the CMP materials provided the Susan reflect how the experience problem plays out in
means to manage some potential planning problems, actual teaching practice. Experienced teachers do not
teachers seemed to rely largely on their previous face significantly fewer or different planning problems
experiences and particular conceptions to manage their as compared to less experienced teachers. On the
planning problems. Therefore, in the case of all three contrary, all three teachers anticipated that a group of
teachers, the PMI Model highlights how teachers with students would struggle with a particular aspect of a
diverse conceptions and experiences frame and manage lesson, or even struggled themselves with certain
particular planning problems. aspects of the mathematics content. Yet, these teachers
encountered these planning problems differently. The
Discussion and Conclusion
differences among these teachers seem to be in their
The previous discussion highlights the conceptions of the curriculum and content, the
interrelationship among curriculum materials, teachers’ prevalence of their conceptions in their planning
various conceptions, and the types of and ways in decisions, and ultimately their instructional decisions.
which teachers frame and manage planning problems Regardless of their conceptions, teachers’
that arise in the course of their work. During planning, conceptions of curriculum and mathematics teaching
teachers often use curriculum materials as a starting and learning can become calcified over time
point for their lesson planning. The nature and extent (Leinhardt, 1983; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986). As a
of teachers’ engagement with the curriculum materials, result, teachers may become inattentive to how their
however, is determined primarily by their various planning decisions influence students’ opportunities to
conceptions. Teachers’ various conceptions then learn and they may become resistant to external
influence the type of planning problems they influences such as new curriculum programs or
encounter, and also how teachers manage these professional development experiences. Consider
planning problems. Alicia, who seemed to adhere to a more conventional
Teachers’ lesson enactment also contributes to the conception of mathematics teaching and learning
pool of knowledge and information they have to draw during her planning. Because Alicia has quite
from in subsequent years, thereby influencing their extensive teaching and curricular experience in using
conceptions. As Figure 1 illustrates, the PMI Model more conventional mathematics curricula, she planned
represents an iterative process that is continuously to focus students’ work on practicing computations and
shaped by teachers’ experiences over the course of procedures and planned to modify lessons as whole-
their careers. With every lesson, teachers potentially class discussions rather than collaborative work
encounter unanticipated questions or new strategies groups. It appears that Alicia’s conceptions of teaching
that contribute to the knowledge they can draw from and learning have become somewhat cemented
when planning the same or related lessons in throughout her teaching career and seemed to have
subsequent years. The ways in which teachers’ enact hindered her from planning for enacting CMP lessons
lessons with students over time can also inform how in this unit in accordance with the curriculum’s
teachers conceive of what it means to teach and learn underlying principles. The PMI Model also captures
school mathematics. The proposed model provides a this common aspect of teachers’ practice – as this
way to understand how teachers’ planning practices model represents an iterative process, allowing for
change, or fail to change, over the course of their teachers’ conceptions to become reinforced as teachers
careers. amass an increasing amount of knowledge and
The PMI model suggests a possible cause for the experience.
“experience problem,” perhaps one of the most The PMI Model has the potential for even broader
significant problems teachers face as they advance utility because the planning problems and teacher
through their careers. Unlike their less experienced conceptions discussed here constitute only a handful of
20 Teacher Planning
Clark, C., & Elmore, J. L. (1981). Transforming curriculum in Leinhardt, G. (1983, April). Routines in expert math teachers'
mathematics, science, and writing: A case study of teacher thoughts and actions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
yearly planning (Research Series No. 99). East Lansing, MI: the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,
Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED205500). ED234980).
Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of
M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 75–95.
ed.) (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan. Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in
Clark, C., & Yinger, R. (1981). The hidden world of teaching: teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher
Implications of research on teacher planning (Research Series education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 36–42.
No. 77). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1990). High school mathematics
Institute for Research on Teaching. (ERIC Document review lesson: Expert-novice distinctions. Journal for
Reproduction Service No. ED191844). Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 372–387.
Cohen, D. K., Peterson, P. L., Wilson, S., Ball, D. L., Putnam, R. Lloyd, G. (1999). Two teachers' conceptions of a reform-oriented
T., Prawat, R., et al. (1990). The effects of state-level reform of curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher
elementary mathematics curriculum on classroom practice development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2,
(Final Report to OERI - Elementary Subjects Center Series 227–252.
No. 25). East Lansing, MI: Center for Learning and Teaching
of Elementary Subjects. (ERIC Document Reproduction Maher, C. A., & Martino, A. M. (1992). Teachers building on
Service No. ED323098). students' thinking. The Arithmetic Teacher, 39(7), 32–37.
Donovan, M., Bransford, J., & Pellegrino, J. (2000). How people Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (1998). Mathematics curriculum
learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. reform and teachers: Understanding the connections. The
Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 27–41.
Fennema, E., Franke, M., Carpenter, T., & Carey, D. (1993). Using
McCutcheon, G. (1981). Elementary school teachers' planning for
children's mathematical knowledge in instruction. American
Educational Research Journal, 30, 555–583. social studies and other subjects. Theory and Research in
Social Education, 9, 45–66.
Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Schmidt, W. H., Freeman, D. J., &
Schwille, J. R. (1980). Responses to curriculum pressures: A Moyer, P., & Milewicz, E. (2002). Learning to question: Categories
policy-capturing study of teacher decisions about content. of questioning used by preservice teachers during diagnostic
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 129–141. mathematics interviews. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 5, 293–315.
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum
discourse, and students' learning in second-grade arithmetic.
American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425. and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston,
VA: Author.
Jackson, P. W. (1966). The way teaching is. Washington D.C.:
National Education Association. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional
standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston. Preston, R., & Lambdin, D. (1995, October). Mathematics for all
students! Mathematics for all teachers? Paper presented at the
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it Annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the
up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington D.C.: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
National Academy Press. Education, Columbus, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Kilpatrick, J. (2003). What works? In S. Senk & D. Thompson Service No. ED389604).
(Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What Popham, W., & Baker, E. (1970). Systematic instruction.
are they? What do students learn? (pp. 471–488). Mahwah, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Remillard, J. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.) (2001). Adding it education reform: A framework for examining teachers'
up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 23, 315–342.
National Research Council.
Remillard, J., & Bryans, M. (2004). Teachers' conceptions toward
Lampert, M. (1992). Practices and problems in teaching authentic mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher
mathematics. In F. Oser, A. Dick & J. L. Patry (Eds.), learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35,
Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 352–388.
295–314). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reys, B. (2002). Show-Me Center Newsletter, 1.
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of
teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rosebery, A. (2005). What are we going to do next? Lesson
planning as a resource for teaching. In R. Nemirovsky, A.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia and Rosebery, J. Solomon & B. Warren (Eds.), Everyday matters
mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press. in science and mathematics (pp. 299–327). Mahwah, NJ:
Lappan, G., Fey, J., Fitzgerald, W., Friel, S., & Phillips, E. (2006). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bits and pieces III. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall. Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’
pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior.
Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.
22 Teacher Planning