Processes and priorities in planning mathematics teaching

Abstract

Insights into teachers' planning of mathematics reported here were gathered as part of a broader project examining aspects of the implementation of the Australian curriculum in mathematics (and English). In particular, the responses of primary and secondary teachers to a survey of various aspects of decisions that inform their use of curriculum documents and assessment processes to plan their teaching are discussed. Teachers appear to have a clear idea of the overall topic as the focus of their planning, but they are less clear when asked to articulate the important ideas in that topic. While there is considerable diversity in the processes that teachers use for planning and in the ways that assessment information informs that planning, a consistent theme was that teachers make active decisions at all stages in the planning process. Teachers use a variety of assessment data in various ways, but these are not typically data extracted from external assessments. This research has important Math Ed Res J (2013) 25:457-480

How do Educators of Students With Disabilities in Specialist Settings Understand and Apply the Australian Curriculum Framework?

“…Interpretation and application of a complex national initiative such as the AC by teachers requires complex decision-making in practice (Sullivan et al, 2013), particularly when accessibility and relevancy are questioned by a substantial minority of special educators. Educators described varied and inconsistent practices when planning and programming personalised learning for SWD, relying upon state-recommended, familiar, or dated practices rather than embracing the inclusive intentions of the AC.…”

“…Through surveys and focus groups, researchers found considerable diversity in mathematics teachers’ practices of selecting content and designing learning and assessment tasks. They noted that curriculum planning was a complex decision-making process incorporating multiple resources and sources of information (Sullivan, Clarke, Clarke, Farrell, & Gerrard, 2013). The surveys included a small number of items that enabled teachers to indicate their use of assessment data to plan differentiated learning experiences.…”

Teacher planning in a learning outcome perspective: A multiple case study of mathematics and L1 Danish teachers

“…Teachers use instructional materials as planning resources, both in relation to the choice of activities in a lesson and to the selection and sequencing of content in a unit plan (Bellon, Bellon, & Blank, 1992;Boroko & Niles, 1987;McCutchon, 1980;Sanchez & Valcarcel, 1999;Sardo-Brown, 1990). The importance and impact of instructional materials is confirmed by several more recent studies (Haggarty & Pepin, 2002;Ozturk, 2012;Sullivan et al, 2012;Superfine, 2008) and by studies specifically addressing a Nordic context (Alseth, 2004;Bachmann, 2005;Christophersen, 2004;Hodgson et al, 2010).…”

Curriculum Alignment: Performance Types in the Intended, Enacted, and Assessed Curriculum in Primary Mathematics and Science Classrooms

“…Acknowledging this chain of interpretation and reconstruction and its impact on the enacted and assessed curriculum results in the "curriculum" being defined by much more than what is mandated at the national or state levels (Ziebell, Ong, & Clarke, 2017). The idea of "authorship" and "curricular authority" was first reported in a study focusing on teachers' planning in mathematics (Sullivan, Clarke, Clarke, Farrell, & Garrard, 2013). That study sought to determine the processes undertaken when planning a mathematics curriculum.…”