Research in Brief - May 2007 - Volume 107 (5)

Curriculum Research to Improve Teaching and Learning

Yeping Li
Texas A&M University

School curriculum and its impact on teaching and learning have received more and more research attention both in the United States and in the international context (e.g., Schmidt, McKnight, Valverde, Houang, & Wiley, 1997; Senk & Thompson, 2003). For example, the Third International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) took curriculum and its different forms in the process of curriculum transformation as a guideline to conceptualize the relationship between curriculum analysis and students' learning (e.g., Schmidt et al., 1997; Schmidt et al., 2001). While students' performance was taken as the achieved curriculum, what is taught in classroom was treated as the enacted (or implemented) curriculum. In particular, TIMSS was, for the first time in the history of large-scale international studies, conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), to include the analysis of textbooks and other curriculum documents from more than 40 participating education systems as a major part of the study (Schmidt et al., 1997).

As an outline of school educational activities, curriculum also has been the focus of educational reforms in the United States in the past several decades (see NCTM, 1980, 1989, 2000, 2006; Senk & Thompson, 2003). Because curriculum materials have been a mainstay in mathematics classrooms (e.g., McKnight et al., 1987; ; Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1997; Tyson-Bernstein & Woodward, 1991), it is often assumed that the quality of curriculum materials matters. Thus, efforts to reform curricula in the past often focused on developing or revising curriculum materials for classroom instruction.

Existing studies of curriculum materials have mainly derived from two concerns: (1) possible contributions of curriculum materials to students' mathematics performance, and (2) instructional features and performance expectations embedded in curriculum materials. Examining possible contributions of curriculum materials to students' achievement was once undertaken in a direct and quantitative way in the 1950s and 1960s without specific control of initial conditions and variables (Walker & Schaffarzick, 1974). Related methodology has evolved in large-scale international studies through measuring students' Opportunity-To-Learn (OTL) since the First International Mathematics Studies (Floden, 2002). Accumulated findings from previous cross-national studies suggest that curriculum materials are one of the key contributing factors to students' achievement (Schmidt et al., 2001; Stigler, Lee, Lucker & Stevenson, 1982; Westbury, 1992). Results from the Third International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) further indicated that American curriculum materials presented a “splintered vision” of what content students at grades 4 and 8 were expected to learn (Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1997). As students' achievement cannot solely be explained by the differences in curriculum materials, much more about curriculum materials need to be examined besides measuring students' OTL. In particular, the instructional features and performance expectations of curriculum materials are the aspects that have recently received more research attention. Relevant studies have shown the importance of examining instructional features and performance expectations embedded in curriculum materials in the U.S. (e.g., AAAS, 2000) and from different education systems (e.g., Cai, Lo & Watanabe, 2002; Li, 2000, 2007, in press; Mayer, Sims, & Tajika, 1995; Zhu & Fan, 2006).

Although curricular materials are a mainstay in mathematics classrooms in many education systems, the curriculum enacted in classrooms is also determined by teachers' own thinking and planning (e.g., Doyle, 1993; Remillard, 1999). Examining the interactions between curriculum materials and the teacher is a relatively newer endeavor in curriculum studies. A number of studies have examined teachers' use of textbooks for teaching in the U.S. (e.g., Freeman & Porter, 1989; Remillard & Bryans, 2004; Ross,McDougall, Houghaboam-Gray & LeSage, 2003; Stodolsky, 1989), and other countries (e.g., Wang & Paine, 2003). Although few would disagree that there is a discrepancy between curriculum materials in print and what is enacted in classrooms, remarkable differences can be found from existing studies with regard to the aspects and extent curriculum materials affect teaching and learning mathematics in U.S. classrooms. Remillard (1999) pointed out that such a focus on the relationship between “teacher-and-textbook” simplifies what we may want to learn about teachers' curricular decisions. Rather she suggested an alternative approach to study the role of textbooks in teaching and learning mathematics. In particular, similar to Doyle's (1993) research on “curriculum process,” researchers can examine the role of textbooks within a broad picture of teachers' curriculum planning and enactment.

Prior efforts to change curriculum materials in the U.S. were not as successful as educators might expect (e.g., Kline, 1974; McKnight et al., 1987). In fact, previous efforts and results in reforming curriculum suggest the importance of developing research on mathematics curriculum and its transformations in school education. Recently developed K-12 Standards-based curriculum materials have shown some promise for improving students' learning of mathematics (e.g., Senk & Thompson, 2003), but many more studies are needed. On-going research efforts include systematic and in-depth examinations of curriculum impact on students and teachers (e.g. AAAS IERI project, 2001-2006; Grossman & Thompson, 2004; Remillard, 2000; Smith & Star, 2007), what we need to consider in the whole process of curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation (e.g., NSF-funded CSMC, 2004-2008; Williams, 2007), and learning from curriculum reform efforts in other education systems (e.g. Usiskin & Willmore, in press). Clearly, curriculum research is growing and the development of curriculum materials has been advocated as a research-based endeavor (Clements, 2007). At the same time, more research attention needs to be placed on the role of teachers in planning and transforming curriculum for classroom instruction. Because the teacher is the agent who eventually decides and structures what is to be taught and how to teach it in classrooms, research on teachers' thinking and competence needed in curriculum planning and subsequent enactment will be critical for the success of curriculum reform.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (2000). Middle grades mathematics textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS IERI]. Improving mathematics teacher practice and student learning through professional development. Unpublished major project, Texas A&M University.

Cai, J., Lo, J. J. & Watanabe, T. (2002). Intended treatment of arithmetic average in U.S. and Asian school mathematics textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 391-404.

Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for “research-based curricula.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 35-70.

Doyle, W. (1993). Constructing curriculum in the classroom. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick & J. Party (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching. (pp. 66-79). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Floden, R. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A. C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement. (pp. 231-266). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Freeman, D. J. & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26, 403-421.

Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2004). Curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teacher learning? Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Kline, M. (1974). Why Johnny can't add: The failure of the new math. New York:Vintage Books.

Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 234-241.

Li, Y. (2007). Curriculum and culture: An exploratory examination of mathematics curriculum materials in their system and cultural contexts. The Mathematics Educator, 10(1), 21-38.

Li, Y. (in press). Curriculum & cognition: A study on math problems. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 11(2). Summer 2007.

Mayer, R. E., Sims, V. & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks teach mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 443-460.

McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J. O., Travers, K. J., & Cooney, T. J. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U. S. school mathematics from an international perspective Champaign, IL: Stipes.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2000). Principles and standards of school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.

National Science Foundation funded Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum. Unpublished major project, University of Missouri.

Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29, 315-342.

Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal,100, 331-350.

Remillard, J. T. & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 352-388.

Ross, J. A., McDougall, D., Hougaboam-Gray, A., & LeSage, A. (2003). A survey measuring elementary teachers' implementation of Standards-based mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 344-363.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S. & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C. & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U. S. science and mathematics education Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. E., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T. & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims (Vol. 1): A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Senk, S. L. & Thompson, D. R. (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, J. P. & Star, J. R. (2007). Expanding the notion of impact of K-12 Standards-based mathematics and reform calculus programs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 3-34.

Stigler, J. W., Lee, S.-Y., Lucker, G. W. & Stevenson, H. W. (1982). Curriculum and achievement in mathematics: A study of elementary school children in Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. Child Development, 74, 315-322.

Stodolsky, S. (1989). Is teaching really by the book? In P. Jackson & S. Haroutunina-Gordon (Eds.), From Socrates to software: The teacher as text and the text as teacher. (pp. 159-184). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tyson-Bernstein, H. & Woodward, A. (1991). Nineteenth century policies for twenty-first century practice: The textbook reform dilemma. In P. G. Altbach, G. P. Kelly, H. G. Petrie & L. Weis (Eds.). Textbooks in American society. (pp. 91-104). New York: State University of New York Press.

Usiskin, Z. & Willmore, E. (in press) (Eds.). School mathematics curriculum in Pacific Rim countries: China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Walker, D. F. & Schaffarzick, J. (1974). Comparing curricula. Review of Educational Research, 44(1), 83-111.

Wang, J. & Paine, L. W. (2003). Learning to teach with mandated curriculum and public examination of teaching as contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 75-94.

Westbury, I. (1992). Comparing American and Japanese achievement: Is the United States really an underachiever? Educational Researcher, 21(5), 18-24.

Williams, S. (2007). A focus on curriculum (editorial). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 2.

Zhu, Y. & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 609-626.