Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How early career elementary teachers vary in planning mathematics instruction

  • Published:
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given that early career elementary teachers face pressure to plan pedagogy that provides equitable opportunities to learn mathematics for understanding, it is important to consider their mathematics lesson planning practices. This study uses interview data to compare the planning practices of four early career teachers (ECTs) who consistently rated highly on an observational measure of high-quality mathematics instruction with those of three ECTs who consistently rated lower. ECTs who scored highly addressed planning challenges in interconnected ways that were responsive to students’ needs, demonstrated more agency in representing mathematics content in their planning, and were more likely to maintain curricular rigor when differentiating. We consider implications for efforts to help ECTs plan lessons that are likely to result in high-quality instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. When we refer to curriculum subsequently in this paper, we are referring to the content from various types of resources that guide the teacher in deciding what to teach, such as curriculum standards, pacing guides, and instructional materials such as textbooks, unless otherwise noted.

  2. Eureka Math (Great Minds, 2015) is a free, digital textbook series for grades PK-12. The website (https://greatminds.org/eurekamath?hsLang=en-us) claims it is the most widely-used mathematics curriculum in the U.S.

  3. Everyday Mathematics (UCSMP, 2007) is a K-6 grades mathematics textbook developed by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. The publisher’s website indicates that it is currently used in approximately 220,000 U.S. classrooms.

  4. A “hundreds chart” is a 10 × 10 grid that displays the natural numbers from 1–100.

  5. The Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) developed computerized adaptive assessments for grades K-8 in mathematics. Schools or districts may opt to have students take these assessments multiple times per year to track proficiency.

References

  • Amador, J., & Lamberg, T. (2013). Learning trajectories, lesson planning, affordances, and constraints in the design and enactment of mathematics teaching. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15(2), 146–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulos, D., Cavanna, J., & Charles-Harris, S. (2020). Managing to teach ambitiously in the first year? Elementary School Journal, 120(4), 667–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artzt, A. F. (1999). A structure to enable preservice teachers of mathematics to reflect on their teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(2), 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, D., & Hiebert, J. (2009). Improving the mathematics preparation of elementary teachers, one lesson at a time. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(3), 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, R., Youngs, P., & Cohen, J. (2021). How elementary teaching candidates’ learning opportunities are associated with their knowledge, self-efficacy, and beliefs. Teachers College Record, 123(7), 1–30.

  • Bieda, K. N., Lane, J., Evert, K., Hu, S., Opperman, A., & Ellefson, N. (2020). A large-scale study of how districts’ curriculum policies and practices shape teachers’ mathematics lesson planning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(6), 770–799.

  • Bobis, J., Clarke, B., Clarke, D., Thomas, G., Wright, B., Young-Loveridge, J., & Gould, P. (2005). Supporting teachers in the development of young children’s mathematical thinking: Three large scale cases. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dack, H., O’Reilly, N., Youngs, P., & Hopper, E. (2019). Visions of differentiation: A longitudinal multicase study of preservice and beginning elementary teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 120(1), 132–175.

  • Desimone, L. M., Hochberg, E. D., Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Schwartz, R., & Johnson, L. J. (2014). Formal and informal mentoring: Complementary, compensatory, or consistent? Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 88–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, M., & Carlson, M. A. (2013). Elementary teachers’ learning to construct high-quality mathematics lesson plans: A use of the IES Recommendations. Elementary School Journal, 113(3), 359–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Great Minds. (2015). Eureka Math: A story of ratios. Author.

  • Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2012). On the instructional triangle and sources of justification for actions in mathematics teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44(5), 601–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 196–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., Blunk, M., Goffney, I. M., & Rowan, B. (2007). Validating the ecological assumption: The relationship of measure scores to classroom teaching and student learning. Measurement, 5(2–3), 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Battey, D. (2007). Professional development focused on children’s algebraic reasoning in elementary school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 258–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, A., Berk, D., & Meikle, E. (2017). Investigating alignment between elementary mathematics teacher education and graduates’ teaching of mathematics for conceptual understanding. Harvard Educational Review, 87(2), 225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, A., Gallivan, H. R., & Miller, E. (2020). Early-career teachers’ instructional visions for mathematics teaching: Impact of elementary teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(2), 183–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. (2016). Parsing the practice of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 6–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • König, J., Bremerich-Vos, A., Buchholtz, C., Fladung, I., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Planning competence of pre-service German language teachers. In O. Zlatkin-Troitchanskaia, H. A. Pant, M. Toepper, & C. Lautenbach (Eds.), Student learning in German higher education (pp. 53–74). Springer VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberg, T., Gillette-Koyen, L., & Moss, D. (2020). Supporting teachers to use formative assessment for adaptive decision making. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 8(2), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W., Son, J. W., & Kim, D. J. (2018). Understanding preservice teacher skills to construct lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 519–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. M. (2020). Qualitative .data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutton, T., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 17(4), 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, M., Croll, P., Broadfoot, P., Pollard, A., McNess, E., & Triggs, P. (1997). Policy into practice and practice into policy: Creative mediation in the primary classroom. In G. Helsby & G. McCullough (Eds.), Teachers and the national curriculum (pp. 52–65). Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priestley, M., Biesta, G., Philippou, S., & Robinson, S. (2015). The teacher and the curriculum: Exploring teacher agency. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 187–201). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM, 46(5), 705–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H., Floden, R. E., & the Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project. (2014). The TRU Math scoring rubric. Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley & College of Education, Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://ats.berkeley.edu/tools.html.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. S., & Mignano, A. (2006). Elementary classroom management: Lessons from research and practice. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngs, P., Elreda, L. M., Anagnostopoulos, D., Cohen, J., Drake, C., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2022). The development of ambitious instruction: How beginning elementary teachers’ preparation experiences are associated with their mathematics and English language arts instructional practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 103576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources [Award #1420532] and William T. Grant Foundation [Award # 182764]. Any opinions, conclusions, or recommendations contained herein are those of the presenters and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF or W.T. Grant Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curriculum, Instruction & Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Sarah Lilly & Peter A. Youngs

  2. Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Kristen N. Bieda

Authors
  1. Sarah Lilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristen N. Bieda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter A. Youngs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Lilly.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Tables 1, 2 and Fig. 1.

Table 1 Information about study participants’ teaching assignments, timing of observations, and school district demographics
Full size table
Table 2 Codebook
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

TRU Math Dimensions

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lilly, S., Bieda, K.N. & Youngs, P.A. How early career elementary teachers vary in planning mathematics instruction. J Math Teacher Educ 27, 85–110 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-022-09551-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-022-09551-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation