"Transitioning to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics:
A Mixed Methods Study of Elementary Teachers’ Experiences and
Perspectives
Susan Lee Swars

Cliff Chestnutt

Georgia State University

Georgia State University

This mixed methods study explored elementary teachers’ (n 5 73) experiences with and perspectives on the recently
implemented Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-Mathematics) at a high-needs, urban school.
Analysis of the survey, questionnaire, and interview data reveals the ﬁndings cluster around: familiarity with and
preparation to use the standards; implementation of the standards, including incorporation and teacher change; and
tensions associated with enactment of the standards. Notably, the teachers believed in the merit of the standards but were
constrained by their inadequate content knowledge, limited aligned curricular resources, lack of student readiness, and a
perceived mismatch with ELLs. The results illuminate the professional needs of teachers during this critical time of
transition to the standards and also add to the scant research on this national-scale reform in mathematics education.

As a means of improving the mathematics education of
students in the United States, teachers in 43 states are now
expected to utilize the academic standards of the Common
Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-Mathematics)
(CCSS, 2015). The CCSS-Mathematics is intended to
provide more rigor and depth of the mathematics for
students, while potentially requiring increased specialized
content knowledge and fundamental changes in instructional
practices of teachers (Schmidt, 2012). The difﬁculty of
transitioning to the CCSS-Mathematics lies in putting the
standards into classroom practice, with teachers as major
forces on how this plays out (Dacey & Polly, 2012).
Given their widespread adoption, careful scrutiny of the
new standards is warranted. And, as teachers are key
participants in how these standards are implemented in
classrooms, a close study of their perspectives is needed,
particularly in light of the scant research on this nationalscale reform. Accordingly, this study used mixed methods
to explore elementary teachers’ experiences with and views
on the newly implemented CCSS-Mathematics.
Literature Review
CCSS-Mathematics Deﬁned and Related Research
The CCSS-Mathematics represents a major overhaul of
most states’ preceding standards. Porter, McMaken,
Hwang, and Yang (2011) determined the overlap between
the CCSS-Mathematics and states’ previous standards is
only 20–35%. The new standards include 11 critical areas
of mathematics for grades K-8 in order to provide a
coherent, rigorous, and focused curriculum built around big
ideas (CCSS, 2010). The standards go beyond specifying
mathematical content and also include eight Standards for
212

Mathematical Practice, with an emphasis on applying
mathematical concepts and skills in the context of authentic
problems and understanding concepts rather than merely
following a sequence of procedures. The standards were
created with strong consideration for the research base
about the development of students’ understandings of
mathematics over time (Cobb & Jackson, 2011). As such,
the topics at particular grade levels are different, with this
re-sequencing reﬂecting research on learning trajectories
(Sztajn, Confrey, Wilson, & Edgington, 2012). In addition,
summative assessments have been created that align with
the more rigorous and in-depth expectations (e.g., those of
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers and the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium). Given these signiﬁcant shifts proposed by the
CCSS-Mathematics, its implementation will require a
signiﬁcant revamping of mathematics education in many
schools, including changes in instructional practices,
extensive professional development, and adoption of new
curricula (Cobb & Jackson, 2011; Lee, 2011; Schmidt &
Houang, 2012).
The CCSS-Mathematics is guided by Standards for
Mathematical Practice describing the “expertise that
mathematics educators at all levels should seek to develop
in their students” (CCSS-Mathematics, 2010, p. 6) that are
founded upon “processes and proﬁciencies” critical to
mathematics education. There are eight mathematical
practices, including that students should: (a) make sense of
problems and persevere in solving them, (b) reason
abstractly and quantitatively, (c) construct viable arguments
and critique the reasoning of others, (d) model with
mathematics, (e) use appropriate tools strategically, (f)
Volume 116 (4)

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

attend to precision, (g) look for and make use of structure,
and (h) look for and express regularity in repeated
reasoning (CCSS, 2010). Teachers are to look for and
provide instruction that includes points of intersection
between the mathematical practices and content, requiring a
shift in pedagogy for many (CCSS, 2010).
There is limited inquiry speciﬁcally on the CCSS as it
relates to mathematics and elementary teachers, with few
studies having a related focus (Cogan, Schmidt, & Houang,
2013; EPE Research Center, 2013; McDufﬁe et al., 2015).
For example, a survey of 599 K–12 educators focusing on
the CCSS in general revealed they agreed the standards
would improve their teaching but in order to better
implement the standards, they needed “more planning time,
better access to aligned curriculum and assessments,
additional collaboration with colleagues, and a clearer
understanding of the new expectations for students” (EPE
Research Center, 2013, p. 3). Another related study focused
on the CCSS-Mathematics with middle school teachers
(N 5 366). This mixed methods examination found that
teachers: viewed the standards as providing new content for
their grade level, used multiple curriculum resources and
collaborated with peers to plan for instruction on the
standards, and believed the new assessments would
determine how the standards are implemented in
classrooms. The teachers also reported familiarity with the
CCSS-Mathematics, but it was uncertain if they had a clear
understanding of how to interpret and enact them in
classrooms.
CCSS-Mathematics and Teacher Change
Whether or not students learn the CCSS-Mathematics
depends upon teachers’ instructional expertise (Schmidt &
Houang, 2012). The introduction of the CCSS-Mathematics
requires many teachers to change what and how they teach,
particularly a shift away from rote memorization toward
understanding and reasoning, and therefore calls into
question their readiness for implementing these standards
(Grifﬁn & David, 2014). Phillips and Wong (2012) suggest
that “moving from the standards on paper to the deep
changes required in practice will be a signiﬁcant challenge”
(p. 31). For example, many standards designated for a
particular grade may be reintroduced unnecessarily over the
course of several years and spanning different grade levels
(e.g., 4th grade standards may be taught in classrooms from
2nd through 6th grades) if teachers continue to rely on past
standards’ implementation schedules (Gewertz, 2012). In
addition, Schmidt and Houang (2012) suggest that many
teachers view the CCSS as predominantly the same as their
state’s previous standards and this lack of awareness poses
signiﬁcant difﬁculties.
School Science and Mathematics

The CCSS-Mathematics proposes that teachers focus on
fewer “big” mathematical ideas so students will: build
conceptual understanding, achieve procedural skill and
ﬂuency, and learn how to transfer what they know to solve
problems in and out of the mathematics classroom (Phillips
& Wong, 2012). In order to develop these student
understandings, Ewing (2010) contends:
Teachers must have deep and appropriate content
knowledge to reach that understanding; they must be
adaptable, with enough mastery to teach students with a
range of abilities; and they must have the ability to
inspire at least some of their students to the highest
levels of mathematical achievement. (para. 6)
This assertion highlights some of the necessary teacher
competencies for teaching the CCSS-Mathematics. One
competency, teacher content knowledge, is signiﬁcant as
teachers need deep and broad knowledge of mathematics to
be effective in their teaching (Hill, 2010). Multiple efforts
have attempted to deﬁne the exact mathematical knowledge
needed for teaching (Ball & Forzani, 2010; Ball, Thames,
& Phelps, 2008; Hill, 2010), and researchers have recently
proposed a “specialized content knowledge” (SCK)
characterized as “mathematical knowledge needed to
perform the recurrent tasks of teaching mathematics to
students” (Ball et al., 2008, p. 399).
Research Questions
This inquiry was guided by the following research
questions:
1. What are elementary teachers’ familiarity with and
preparation for teaching the CCSS-Mathematics?
2. What are elementary teachers’ views on integration of
the CCSS-Mathematics into their classroom teaching
practices?
3. What tensions do elementary teachers identify with
implementation of the CCSS-Mathematics?
Method
This study used mixed methods, speciﬁcally “concurrent
triangulation” (Creswell, Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003,
p. 223) of quantitative and qualitative data. This approach
implies: (a) concurrent collection of both types of data, (b)
equal prioritization of both types of data, and (c) integration
during the analysis and interpretation phases.
Participants and Context
This study involved 73 teachers at a large, urban
elementary school in the southeastern U.S. Years of
teaching experience ranged from 40% with 5 years or less,
213

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

25% with 6–10 years, and 35% with more than 10 years.
The educational background of the teachers included 68%
with at least a master’s degree. Ninety-ﬁve percent of the
students were eligible for free or reduced lunch (Georgia
Department of Education, 2014). The student population
was diverse, including 69% Hispanic, 22% African
American, 5% Asian, and 4% Caucasian. Seventy-two
percent of the students were non-native English speakers,
and the English as a Second Language (ESL) program
served 55% of the student population.
At the time of data collection, the teachers were midway
into their second year of implementation of the CCSSMathematics. The standards were adopted in 2010, with
roll-out including communication and administrator
training during 2010–2011 and teacher training during
2011–2012. Initial classroom implementation of the
standards was expected in fall 2012, with full
implementation in fall 2014. For the district in which the
school is located, the CCSS-Mathematics is implemented
as the Academic Knowledge and Skills (AKS) Curriculum,
which is aligned with the state adopted Common Core
Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS). The
professional development received thus far on the CCSSMathematics, as reported by the teachers, is described in the
results section.
Data Collection
Quantitative data were collected via a survey, and
qualitative data were collected via an open-ended
questionnaire and individual interviews. Participants
completed the survey and open-ended questionnaire on the
same day during their grade level Common Planning Time.
All interviews were conducted within two weeks of this
initial data collection at the convenience of the interviewees.
All teachers completed a survey focused on their
experiences with and perspectives on the CCSSMathematics, as well as an open-ended questionnaire
designed to provide insights into the survey items. At the
time of this study, there were no published surveys or
questionnaires addressing teachers’ perspectives on the
CCSS that emphasized mathematics. The survey includes
22 items (see Appendix A), some of which are multi-part.
Some of the items were written by the researchers, and
some were modiﬁed items from EPE Research Center’s
(2013) national survey of teacher perspectives on the
CCSS. The domains of the survey items cluster around:
teachers’ reported experiences with the standards, including
familiarity with, preparation for, and implementation of
them. Additional items focus on teachers’ perspectives on
the standards, including the potential of the standards to
inﬂuence or change their instructional practices and
214

students’ learning as well as mathematics education in
general. The survey also contains ﬁve demographic items.
After completing the survey, all participants completed
the open-ended questionnaire intended to illuminate the
survey items; the questionnaire contains eight multipart
questions (see Appendix B). Six randomly selected teachers
participated in individual, semistructured interviews; the
interview protocol is identical to the open-ended
questionnaire. The interviews ranged from 30 minutes to
one hour in duration.
Data Analysis
Data from the surveys were analyzed using individual
response analysis by examining the descriptive statistics for
each item; data from the interviews and open-ended
questionnaires were initially analyzed by applying a priori
codes of “familiarity,” “preparation,” “implementation,”
and “teacher change” to the comments of the teachers.
Through this process an additional code emerged:
“tensions.” Researchers then used constant comparative
methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to generate more reﬁned
categories within these codes. Speciﬁcally, researchers
individually analyzed the qualitative data through open
coding, which generated numerous categories and
subcategories representing observed phenomena found in
the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Researchers periodically
met and discussed the subcategories to reach consensus on
their meanings related to the categories. This recursive
process of discussion and analysis of all interview data
initiated development of a coding manual that was used in
subsequent analyses. The researchers then engaged in data
reduction by recoding data using the coding manual for
guidance in comparing and reﬁning categories. Coded
categories were collapsed, renamed, and triangulated with
the ﬁndings of the survey data, resulting in ﬁnal themes of:
familiarity with and preparation to use the new standards;
implementation of the new standards, including
incorporation and teacher change; and tensions associated
with enactment of the new standards.
Results
The ﬁndings are clustered around three major themes,
with associated subthemes, including: familiarity with and
preparation to use the new standards; implementation of the
new standards, including incorporation and teacher change;
and tensions associated with enactment of the new
standards, including both teacher- and student-oriented
affordances and constraints. Quantitative data and
qualitative data are presented to support these themes, with
illustrative examples from the data sources intended to
provide a detailed, accurate presentation of the ﬁndings. In
Volume 116 (4)

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

addition, tables with quantitative ﬁndings are provided for
each theme.
Familiarity with and Preparation to Use the Standards
Teachers reported relative familiarity with the CCSSMathematics (see Table 1). On the item, “Please rate your
overall level of familiarity with the CCSS-Mathematics,”
only 22% reported they were very familiar, while 67%
indicated they were somewhat familiar. When asked about
familiarity with the “state/district academic standards in
mathematics prior to the CCSS-Mathematics,” only 29%
reported very familiar, with 52% reporting somewhat
familiar. When combining these two response categories, it
seems the teachers were slightly more familiarity with the
CCSS-Mathematics than their previous standards, which
could possibly be explained by the number of novice
teachers (40%), including ﬁrst year, at the school. Also,
when considering familiarity, the majority of teachers
recognized the dissimilarities between their current and
previous standards, as on an item asking teachers to
consider differences, “The CCSS-Mathematics is different
than my previous state/district academic standards in
mathematics,” 63% strongly agreed or agreed.
Though midway through the second year of
implementation of the CCSS-Mathematics, 25% of teachers
reported no professional development or training on the
standards (see Table 1). Of the 75% indicating professional
development experiences, 56% reported three days or less
as the amount of time spent in such, while 29% indicated
over ﬁve days. When asked to describe the format for
professional learning, teachers indicated the most frequent
as “collaborative planning time with colleagues” (54%),
with the next two frequent as “structured, formal setting
(seminars, workshops, conferences)” (13%) and
“Professional Learning Communities” (13%). Given these
accounts, on the item, “To what extent do you agree with
the following statement? Overall, my professional
development and training on the CCSS-Mathematics have
prepared me to teach the CCSS-Mathematics,” only 7%
strongly agreed, with 65% agreeing and 20% disagreeing.
The interview and questionnaire data conﬁrmed and
illuminated the data from those lacking professional
development, as illustrated by this teacher:
It’s particularly challenging because there’s been no
support or staff development. . . I know myself and
many teachers who are doing everything we can to
reach our students. But, we don’t necessarily feel that
we really know what we are preparing them for and
how to best prepare them. . . The most important thing I
would say that I need or would like to have is some
School Science and Mathematics

Table 1
Survey Items with Reponses Related to Familiarity with and Preparation to
Use the Standards

Please rate your overall level of familiarity with the Common
Core Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-Mathematics).
Very Familiar (22%) Somewhat Familiar (67%) Slightly
Familiar (10%) Not Familiar (1%)
Please rate your overall level of familiarity with your state/
district academic standards in mathematics prior
to the CCSS-Mathematics.
Very Familiar (29%) Somewhat Familiar (52%) Slightly
Familiar (11%) Not Familiar (8%)
To what extend do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics is different than my previous state/
district academic standards in mathematics.
Strongly Agree (10%) Agree (53%) Disagree (15%) Strongly
Disagree (4%) I Don’t Know (18%)
Have you received any professional development or training
related to the CCSS-Mathematics?
Yes (75%) No (25%)
Approximately how much time, overall, have you spent in
professional development or training on the CCSSMathematics?
Less than 1 day (18%) 1 day (8%) 2– 3 days (30%) 4–5 days
(15%) More than 5 days (29%)
Please indicate how the CCSS-Mathematics professional
development and training you have received has been
provided. Check all that apply.
Collaborative planning time with colleagues (54%)
Structured, formal setting (seminars, workshops, conferences)
(13%)
Job embedded training or coaching (10%)
Professional Learning Communities (13%)
Online webinar or video (10%)
Other (0%)
To what extent do you agree with the following statement?
Overall, my professional development and training on the
CCSS-Mathematics have prepared me to teach the CCSSMathematics.
Strongly Agree (7%) Agree (65%) Disagree (20%) Strongly
Disagree (2%) I Don’t Know (6%)
On a 5-point scale (where 5 is “very prepared” and 1 is “not
prepared at all”), how prepared are you to teach the CCSSMathematics to the following groups of student?
Your whole class (Mean Score 5 4.1, Standard
Deviation 5 .74)
ELL students (Mean Score 5 3.6, Standard Deviation 5 .92)
Students with disabilities (Mean Score 5 2.8, Standard
Deviation 5 1.10)
Low-income students (Mean Score 5 3.8, Standard
Deviation 5 .89)
Academically at risk students (Mean Score 5 3.6, Standard
Deviation 5 .80)

preparation and some support, which I don’t and am not
getting from my school and school system. And, I don’t
know if that’s because it’s not available or they’re in the
215

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

same boat that we are because they don’t know either.
But, this is an area that’s going to have to be addressed
if the implementation of this program is going to be
successful (Participant #2, Interview, 12/2/2013)
Teachers proffered professional development should
involve: “modeling of lessons” (Participant #15,
Questionnaire, 11/22/2013) “unpacking the standards”
(Participant #63, 11/22/2103), and understanding
differences between “same lesson taught using CCSSMathematics and not CCSS-Mathematics” (Participant #
49, Questionnaire, 11/22/2013).
In addition, when considering preparation, teachers had
varied responses based on different groups of students (see
Table 1). On the item, “On a 5-point scale (where 5 is “very
prepared” and 1 is “not prepared at all”), how prepared are
you to teach the CCSS-Mathematics to the following
groups of students?”, teachers felt least prepared to teach
students with disabilities (mean score 5 2.8, standard
deviation 5 1.10) and most prepared to teach low-income
students (mean score 5 3.8, standard deviation 5 .89). The
interview and questionnaire data show preparation for
teaching varying groups of students was a concern, with a
teacher asserting, “I don’t necessarily feel that I am
prepared to successfully reach all of my students and
prepare them for math understandings” (Participant #4,
Interview, 12/03/2013).
Implementation of the Standards: Incorporation and
Teacher Change
When considering implementation of the standards, the
data reveal two subthemes: incorporation into teaching
practices and changes in teaching practices. On the item,
“To what extent have you incorporated the CCSSMathematics into your classroom teaching practice?,” 39%
of teachers indicated incorporation into some areas of
teaching but not other areas, while 57% reported full
incorporation into teaching (see Table 2). Teachers were
also asked about their incorporation of the eight Standards
for Mathematical Practice into their classroom instruction.
The data show the two most included as: “Make sense of
problems and persevere in solving them” (40% of teachers
fully incorporate) and “Use appropriate tools strategically”
(56% of teachers fully incorporated). The least incorporated
were: “Construct viable arguments and critique the
reasoning of others” (70% of teachers not incorporate at all)
and “Look for and make sure of structure” (56% of teachers
not incorporate at all).
In regard to implementation, teachers reported the new
standards necessitate a change in their instruction (see
Table 2). For example, 73% strongly agreed or agreed the
216

Table 2
Survey Items with Responses Related to Implementation of the Standards:
Incorporation and Teacher Change

To what extent have you incorporated the CCSS-Mathematics
into your classroom teaching practice?
Fully incorporated into my teaching (57%)
Incorporated into some areas of my teaching, but not others
(39%)
Not at all incorporated into my teaching (1%)
I don’t know (3%)
To what extent have you incorporated the following Standards
for Mathematical Practice in the CCSS-Mathematics into
your classroom teaching practice?
a. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
(Fully 5 40%)
b. Use appropriate tools strategically (Fully 5 56%)
c. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of
others (Not at all 5 70%)
d. Look for and make use of structure (Not at all 5 56%)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?
The CCSS- Mathematics requires me to do things differently as
a teacher of mathematics.
Strongly Agree (26%) Agree (47%) Disagree (17%) Strongly
Disagree (0%) I Don’t Know (10%)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?
The CCSS- Mathematics requires me to change my classroom
teaching practice.
Strongly Agree (17%) Agree (53%) Disagree (21%) Strongly
Disagree (4%) I Don’t Know (5%)

standards require them “to do things differently as a teacher
of mathematics.” On a similar item, 70% strongly agreed or
agreed the standards require them “to change their
classroom teaching practice.” Threaded across statements
about changing teaching practices is the placement of
students at the center—valuing and emphasizing students’
thinking, reasoning, representation, and explanation, with
less teacher direction. Reported changes in instruction
include: “moving away from teaching a standard algorithm
to having the students explain their work, and they’re
working more with manipulatives and coming up with
models” (Participant #1, Interview, 12/2/2013), and “It’s
[CCSS-Mathematics] so much more in-depth. And, it’s
deﬁnitely trying to get them to do, not just like know, for
instance, the formula for area, but all the different ways to
get area” (Participant #5, 12/4/2013). A teacher described
her changes in instruction as: “We didn’t have discussions.
It was more so, it’s wrong. . . Where now, I’m like, how
they did get that, and they can explain it” (Participant #2,
Interview, 12/2/2013). Similarly, another teacher described
her shift in teacher practice as:
Volume 116 (4)

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

More student-centered than teacher-related. . . I’ve had
to back up a little bit because the students are kinda
exploring and ﬁnding different strategies to use. So,
that’s a different practice for me. I kinda want to give
them something but have to back off and say well, if
that strategy worked for them or they’re ﬁnding
strategies that maybe I didn’t know, then I give them
the freedom to explain or teach it to the class.
(Participant #3, Interview, 12/4/2013)
This shift away from teacher as central during instruction is
also described as, “It’s not just giving them a concept. I’m
more giving them ideas, where I don’t teach them. If that
makes sense” (Participant # 5, Interview, 12/4/2013), and
“Now they’re the owner of what is being said, which a lot
of that wasn’t given to us. I enjoy it more because I have
given more responsibility to the child and not to myself”
(Participant #6, Interview, 12/3/2103). Interestingly, though
the teachers clearly emphasize student explanation, of the
eight mathematical practices, “construct viable arguments
and critique the reasoning of others,” was reported as the
least incorporated. Perhaps lacking when students are
explaining their mathematical thinking is the critique of
their peers, which none of the teachers mentioned.
Tensions Associated with the New Standards
The teachers identiﬁed tensions with their perceptions of
the new standards and implementation of them. Almost all
teachers believed the standards would improve their
instruction and beneﬁt student learning. Coupled with these
affordances, they identiﬁed several challenges for
enactment, and these competing affordances and constraints
generated tensions for teachers, that are characterized as
either teacher-oriented or student-oriented.
Tension #1: Affordances for teachers and teachingoriented constraints. The teachers believed the new
standards would make them better teachers of mathematics.
On the item, “To what extent do you agree or disagree with
the following statement? The CCSS-Mathematics will help
me improve my classroom teaching practice,” 83% of
teachers strongly agreed or agreed (see Table 3). A teacher
asserted, “It feels like to me that the new standards are just
good teaching.” However, the teachers identiﬁed several
instruction-oriented constraints with incorporating them
into classroom practices. These tensions can be linked to
lack of “mathematical knowledge for teaching” (MKT) and
inadequate curriculum materials.
MKT is multifaceted and includes in part “common
content knowledge” of mathematics and “specialized content
knowledge” (SCK) for teaching mathematics (Hill & Ball,
2009). The teachers identiﬁed a struggle with the
School Science and Mathematics

Table 3
Survey Items with Responses Related to Tensions Associated with the New
Standards

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?
The CCSS- Mathematics will help me improve my classroom
teaching practice.
Strongly Agree (30%) Agree (53%) Disagree (7%) Strongly
Disagree (0%) I Don’t Know (10%)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics requires new or substantially revised
curriculum materials and lesson plans.
Strongly Agree (18%) Agree (60%) Disagree (14%) Strongly
Disagree (0%) I Don’t Know (8%)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics will improve mathematics education in
the U.S.
Strongly Agree (26%) Agree (47%) Disagree (7%) Strongly
Disagree (1%) I Don’t Know (19%)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics is more of a positive step than a
negative step in mathematics education in the U.S.
Strongly Agree (29%) Agree (49%) Disagree (3%) Strongly
Disagree (0%) I Don’t Know (19%)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics will improve my students’ learning.
Strongly Agree (34%) Agree (44%) Disagree (6%) Strongly
Disagree (0%) I Don’t Know (16%)
On a 5-point scale (where 5 is “very prepared” and 1 is “not
prepared at all”), how prepared do you think your students are
to master the CCSS-Mathematics?
Mean Score 5 3.2, Standard Deviation 5 .89

mathematics in the new standards, describing a difﬁculty they
were facing as limited content knowledge. Sample interview
comments include: “One area I struggled with was math,
even when I went to college it was my worst subject and now
with the CCSS-Mathematics standards I have to go deeper,
and I do not feel comfortable” (Participant #3, Interview, 12/
4/2013); and “I am having to relearn math to be able help my
students” (Participant #27, Questionnaire, 11/22/2013). The
teachers also identiﬁed a struggled with what has been
described as SCK for teaching mathematics. The SCK for
teaching mathematics includes, in part, teachers’ abilities to
analyze and interpret students’ mathematical thinking and
ideas and use multiple representations of mathematical
concepts (Hill, 2010; Thames & Ball, 2010). Teachers’
struggling to understand, interpret, and respond to children’s
invented solution strategies was a common expression. For
217

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

example, a teacher described her challenge to understand her
students’ reasoning as, “And half the time, I’ve seen
something, I’m like, ‘How did you do that?’ And, then I have
to look at it, and I’m like, ‘Oh, okay’” (Participant # 5,
Interview, 12/4/2013), and another reported, “I had a hard
time conceptualizing how different thinkers think different
ways. In the hardest part of my lesson I was trying to connect
all those different ways of learning and the way that different
thinkers think. As I think about math in a very different way
than Johnny or Billy Bob might” (Participant #1, Interview,
12/2/2013).
Another constraint identiﬁed by the teachers was a lack of
resources, speciﬁcally curricular resources, aligned with the
new standards (see Table 3). The teachers recognized the
need for changes in their resources, as 78% strongly agreed or
agreed that the CCSS-Mathematics requires “new or
substantially revised curriculum materials and lesson plans.”
In addition, of the options that would help teachers to be
better prepared to teach the new standards, 44% of them
reported “access to curricular materials aligned to the
standards.” The interview and questionnaire data support this,
as a teacher declared:

positive step than a negative step in mathematics education
in the U.S.,” 78% strongly agreed or agreed, with 19%
indicating “I Don’t Know.” Further, the teachers perceived
the new standards to be of beneﬁt to their own students. For
example, on the item, “The CCSS-Mathematics will
improve my students’ learning,” 34% strongly agreed and
44% agreed, though 16% reported “I Don’t Know.”
The interview and survey data offer conﬁrmation for and
insights into the teachers’ perceptions of the beneﬁts for
students. The teachers appreciate the emphasis in the new
standards on mathematics as a sense-making activity,
including a focus on conceptual understanding, explanation
and justiﬁcation, and connections. For example, a teacher
asserted, “I think that it’s preparing them to be better
thinkers when it comes to math” (Participant #4, Interview,
12/3/2013), with another stating, “I call them [students]
microwaves because they want the answer now, but
Common Core forces them to work it out and really just dig
into it. . . It will have a great impact on deepening their
knowledge and really getting them to understand why math
is math” (Participant #2, Interview, 12/2/2013). Another
teacher elaborated:

Teachers have not been given any curriculum materials,
anything that aligns with the standards, and there really
isn’t much out there that is aligned. . . So, the challenge
here is that teachers like myself are doing the best we
can to learn these new standards. Not only are we
having to learn new standards, but we are having to
create everything we are doing and hoping that we are
understanding. (Participant #2, Interview, 12/2/2013)

It will help students’ learning because instead of just
telling them to do it, they know why they’re doing it.
Why it’s important. When things become more
meaningful, it seems more real to them and their brains
can connect the concepts better than when they are just
memorizing. . . This is why the area formula is what it
is. And, wondering things like perimeter or area and
how they can connect and see how it all works together.
It’s not all isolated incidents that have no meaning in
relation to each other. . . Students have to be able to
explain why math is the way that it is. Students have to
explain why formulas are the way they are. Students
can explain why we do math the way that we do and not
just use rote memorization to solve problems. I really
like how it’s supposed to make students think more
critically. (Participant #6, Interview, 12/3/2013)

Another teacher stated, “The people making the decisions
need to know that teachers need to be given support and
resources if they are going to change the standards. And, we
can’t ﬁx bad teaching by changing the standards”
(Participant #4, Interview, 12/3/2013), with another
reporting, “[I am] having to ﬁnd [curriculum resources] and
create a lot” (Participant #43, Questionnaire, 11/22/2013).
Tension #2: Affordances for students and studentoriented constraints. During this key time of transition to
the CCSS-Mathematics, the teachers largely held a positive
view of the new standards, with notable beliefs about the
beneﬁts for students and their learning. The teachers by and
large believed the CCSS-Mathematics provides a positive
direction for mathematics education in general. For example,
on the item “The CCSS-Mathematics will improve
mathematics education in the U.S.,” 73% strongly agreed or
agreed, with 19% reporting “I Don’t Know” (see Table 3).
On a similar item, “The CCSS-Mathematics is more of a
218

Though teachers believed in the value and emphasis of the
new standards for students, there were student-related
constraints for enactment that generated tensions for
teachers, including lack of student readiness and a
perceived mismatch of the standards with English
Language Learners (ELLs). The teachers believed students
were not ready for the new standards, with gaps in content
and skills linked with past ways of learning mathematics.
When considering student preparation to learn the
standards, on a scale of 5 as “very prepared” and 1 as “not
Volume 116 (4)

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

prepared,” the ﬁndings reveal a mean score of 3.2, thus the
perception that students had mediocre preparation (see
Table 3). One teacher aptly stated, “It’s almost like we’re
going back, undoing and unteaching what they have been
taught” (Participant #1, Interview, 12/2/2013). Another
declared, “A lot of my students have been working with
algorithms for the most part since they have been in school.
It’s difﬁcult to try to go back and teach them really why the
algorithm works, just understanding why they’re doing it”
(Participant #4, Interview, 12/3/2013). Another teacher
elaborated on the struggles of students with providing
explanations:
Students have a hard time explaining how they got the
answer. They just say things like I know that
3 1 356. . . It’s hard for them to grasp the words to
communicate what they understand. They have been so
used to just memorizing facts it’s very confusing for
them. Students have to able to do it and explain their
thinking as opposed to just answering or recalling facts.
(Participant #3, Interview, 12/4/2013).
One teacher identiﬁed particular challenges with students in
the upper grades, as she noted that with younger children:
It’s easier because you’re teaching them what we would
consider the proper way and they can go from there. . .
The higher the grade level the harder it will be because
they’ve learned a certain way and now they have to
learn a new way. . . Because they have to go backwards,
it tends to frustrate them. (Participant #6, Interview, 12/
3/2013)
This teacher went on to propose a phasing in of the CCSSMathematics, starting with the primary grades: “A line
should have been drawn to like, okay, phase one,
implement K–2 and then phase two, 3–5, instead of
everybody getting it at the same time. Instead of boom,
you’re in 5th grade, but you need to learn how to do this.”
In addition, the teachers had salient concerns about the
mismatch of the CCSS-Mathematics with the needs of
ELLs. When asked about their preparation to teach the new
standards to different groups of students, ELLs had the
second to lowest mean score. This school in particular has a
large ELL population, and teachers voiced concerns with
the emphasis on communication and explanation in the new
standards that would pose challenges for students: “Out of
my 29 students, I have 26 ELLs, and it’s very challenging
for them. . . Deﬁnitely with the Common Core, across the
board it is always explaining why” (Participant #1,
School Science and Mathematics

Interview, 12/2/2013). Teachers also lamented multi-step
tasks or word problems involving several parts that require
higher levels of reading comprehension from ELLs, with
one teacher asserting she has “learned to break the tasks or
the activities down for them, and I ﬁnd that works”
(Participant #2, 12/2/2013)
Discussion and Implications
The ﬁndings of this study provide insights into the
experiences of a speciﬁc group of elementary teachers
transitioning to the CCSS-Mathematics and offer
considerations for ways of supporting teachers; the results
also conﬁrm, extend, and challenge the extant literature.
Notably, the teachers in this study held decidedly positive
views on the standards. They believed the standards are a
positive step and improvement for mathematics education in
the U.S. If the intent of the CCSS-Mathematics is
actualized, for the ﬁrst time students across the U.S. in
grades K–8 will have generally been taught the same
content (Schmidt & Burroughs, 2013). It has been argued
this common content will help address two persisting
problems in the U.S.: middling quality of mathematics
learning and unequal opportunity in schools. With only
26% of 12th grade students in the U.S. reaching the
threshold for proﬁciency in mathematics on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2010), the need to improve educational
quality was a chief impetus for the CCSS initiative. The
new standards are intended to be of high quality, helping to
increase and level expectations for students in states with
previous standards of lesser quality, while addressing
inequalities in the opportunity to learn challenging
mathematics content (Schmidt & Burroughs, 2013).
The teachers’ optimism about the new standards was not
exclusive to the national scale, they also believed the
standards improve their own teaching of mathematics and
beneﬁt their own students’ learning, with this perspective
linked in part with the emphasis on mathematics as a sensemaking activity. This optimism is remarkable, considering
this is the third set of academic standards for K–12
education in this state across the past 10 years, as one
teacher lamented:
We have had three or four sets of standards and each
time we are told these will be around for a long time
only to see them changed every few years. This can be
very frustrating for teachers. . . We have many really
great teachers that have been teaching for a long time,
and they are feeling overwhelmed with another change.
This is unfortunate because I think the new standards
219

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

are potentially good, but many teachers are just so tired
of changing. (Participant #2, Interview, 12/2/2013).
Despite this revolving door of standards, such a hopeful view
about the new standards can go a long way with adequate
teacher preparation and aligned curricular resources—of
which, in general, teachers in this study seemed to need more.
In addition, allowing time for teacher change is crucial,
particularly with the uncertainty about forthcoming
assessments, and the rapidly approaching time (i.e., year 3)
for when assessment scores are consequential, which was
perceived as premature by these teachers. And, though the
teachers called for more professional learning, they generally
held a degree of familiarity with the new standards and most
recognized that the new standards are different from the
previous standards. Others have argued this not to be the case
for many teachers and therefore a challenge for CCSSMathematics implementation, as a number of teachers
believe the new standards are the same as their preceding
ones (Schmidt & Houang, 2012). Fortunately, this was not
the case for the teachers in this study.
Several constraints, both teaching- and student-oriented in
nature, were identiﬁed by the teachers. As suggested in the
literature (Schmidt, 2012), content knowledge, particularly
SCK, was a barrier for enactment. Teachers struggled to
understand, interpret, and respond to children’s thinking and
invented solution strategies. The importance of welldeveloped SCK is key. When teachers encounter an
unexpected response or thinking strategy from students,
teachers must make an instant decision about its soundness
and signiﬁcance and choose their response accordingly.
The true success of the implementation of the CCSSMathematics will be determined in the countless minute-byminute decisions that teachers are making during instruction
so that they capitalize on teachable moments in ways that
support students’ mathematical understanding and reasoning
(Grifﬁn & Ward, 2014). Professional development should
prepare teachers for this continuous act of decision-making
in a way that is responsive to and builds on children’s
thinking and understandings (Philipp, 2008; Philipp et al.,
2007). Analyzing and interpreting students’ mathematical
thinking and ideas, a key component of SCK (Hill, 2010;
Thames & Ball, 2010), should be a central component of
professional learning focused on the CCSS-Mathematics.
The teachers also had signiﬁcant concerns about teaching
certain groups of students the new standards. At the school,
95% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunches,
and the teachers felt most prepared to teach low-income
students, which characterizes a large portion of their student
body. The survey data show they felt least prepared to teach
220

students with mathematics disabilities. This concern is
voiced in the literature by others who contend that teaching
the content-rich standards can be daunting: research shows
that students with varying levels of mathematics disability
often lack the most basic mathematics skills (Mulcahy,
Maccini, Wright, & Miller, 2014; Powell, Fuchs, & Fuchs,
2013; Saunders, Bethune, Spooner, & Browder, 2013). It
has been proposed that students with mathematical
disabilities should learn skills aligned with their grade level
content in the CCSS-Mathematics, while continuing to
work on foundational skills such as knowledge of numbers,
counting, number combinations, and operations needed to
complete many mathematics problems.
Additionally, the teachers voiced concerns about the
perceived mismatch of the CCSS-Mathematics with the
needs of ELLs, whom are prevalent at this school. However,
the literature asserts the CCSS-Mathematics affords
opportunities for language development, that is, ELLs can
produce explanations and presentations and participate in
classroom discourse as they are learning English.
Speciﬁcally, mathematics instructions for ELLs should:
1) treat language as a resource, not a deﬁcit, 2) address
much more than vocabulary and support ELLs’
participation in mathematical discussions as they learn
English, and 3) draw on multiple resources available in
classrooms—such as objects, drawings, graphs, and
gestures—as well as home languages and experiences
outside of school (Moschkovich, 2012, p. 18)
Further, regular and active participation—not only reading
and listening but also discussing, explaining, writing,
representing, and presenting—is critical to the success of
ELLs in mathematics (CCSS, 2015). In general, the ﬁndings
of this study suggest the implications of the new standards
for all students, particularly those with speciﬁc or special
learning needs, must be considered and addressed.
Lack of student readiness was also a concern, linked with
students’ past experiences as learners of mathematics. In
general, student explanation was one such challenge, with
teachers needing support for ways of orchestrating classroom
discourse in mathematics. Mathematics discourse,
particularly the practice of students reasoning aloud or
explaining their thinking, is often a new experience for
students in classrooms that emphasize communication of
mathematical thinking. Socialization into this type of
learning environment often takes considerable time for some
students as they adjust to revised classroom norms amenable
to rich discourse (Hufferd-Ackles, Fuson, & Sherin, 2004;
Yackel & Cobb, 1996).
Volume 116 (4)

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

In sum, the ﬁndings of this study illuminate the realities of
CCSS-Mathematics implementation for this group of
elementary teachers, revealing tremendous potential for
positive change provided by the new standards and
accompanying barriers. As teachers are ultimately the
deciding factors on how the standards play out in classrooms,
this close study of their perspectives provides insights into
ways of better equipping them for teaching the standards and
in turn beneﬁting students’ learning. Certainly, aligned
curricular resources and relevant professional development
are vital. The ﬁndings of this study suggest that for teachers to
be better prepared to teach the CCSS-Mathematics,
professional learning should focus on: building mathematical
knowledge for teaching; developing abilities to interpret,
analyze, and respond to children’s thinking; learning ways of
facilitating productive classroom discourse in mathematics;
and addressing the needs of a variety of learners via the
CCSS-Mathematics, particularly ELLs and students with
mathematics disabilities. The teachers in this study suggested
observations of enacted CCSS-Mathematics aligned lessons,
plus time spent unpacking the new standards, as particularly
useful. The CCSS-Mathematics has much to offer students,
teachers, schools, and mathematics education in general, and
now is the time to provide teachers crucial preparation and
support to assure success of the new standards.
A Research to Practice article based on this paper can
be found alongside the electronic version at http://
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ssm.
References
Ball, D., & Forzani, F. M. (2010). What does it take to make a teacher? Phi
Delta Kappan, 92, 8–12.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for
teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.
Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Assessing the quality of the Common Core
State Standards for Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 40, 183–185.
Cogan, L., Schmidt, W., & Houang, R. (2013). Implementing the Common
Core State Standards for Mathematics: What we know about teachers of
mathematics in 41 states (Working Paper No. 33). East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University.
Common Core State Standards. (2010, 2015). Common Core Standards
Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003).
Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie
(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp.
209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dacey, L., & Polly, D. (2012). CCSSM: The big picture. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 18, 378–383.
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2013). Findings from a
national survey of teacher perspectives of the common core. EdWeek. 1.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/rc.
Ewing, J. (2010). The Common Core Math Standards: Implications for
teacher preparation. http://opportunityequation.org/teaching-and-leadership/
Common-core-math-teacher preparation.
School Science and Mathematics

Georgia Department of Education. (2014, October 15). NCLB AYP Report.
Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/Pages/By-School.aspx.
Grifﬁn, L., & Ward, D. (Dec. 2014/Jan. 2015). Teachable moments in math.
Educational Leadership, 72(4), 34–40.
Hill, H. C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary teachers’
mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 41, 513–545.
Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2009). The curious—and crucial—case of
mathematical knowledge for teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 68–71.
Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels
and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81–116.
Lee, J. O. (2011). Reach teachers now to ensure common core success.
Kappan, 92(6), 42–44.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.
McDufﬁe, A R., Drake, C., Choppin, J., Davis J. D., Magana, M. V., &
Carson, C. (2015). Middle school mathematics teachers’ perceptions of the
Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and related assessment and
teacher evaluation systems. Educational Policy. Advance online
publication. doi: 0895904815586850.
Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the common core, and language:
Recommendations for math instruction for ELs aligned with the common
core. In K. Hakuta & M. Santos (Eds.), Understanding language:
Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core
State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, (pp. 17–31).
Retrieved from http://www.sjusd.org/schools/elementary/downloads/ULStanford-Final-5-9-12-wcover.pdf
Mulcahy, C. A., Maccini, P., Wright, K., & Miller, J. (2014). An examination
of intervention research with secondary students with EBD in light of
common core state standards for mathematics. Behavioral Disorders,
39(3), 146–164.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The nation’s report card:
Grade 12 reading and mathematics 2009 national and pilot state results.
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
Philipp, R. A. (2008). Motivating prospective elementary school teachers to
learn mathematics by focusing on children’s thinking. Issues in Teacher
Education, 17(2), 7–16.
Philipp, R. A., Ambrose, R., Lamb, L., Sowder, J. L., Schappelle, B. P., &
Sowder, L. (2007). Effects of early ﬁeld experiences on the mathematics
content knowledge and beliefs of prospective elementary teachers: An
experimental study. Journal for Research on Mathematics Education,
38(5), 438–476.
Phillips, V., & Wong, C. (2012). Teaching to the common core by design, not
accident. Phi Delta Kappan, 7, 31–37.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards:
The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40, 103–116.
Powell, S. R., Fuchs, S. L., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop:
Addressing the common core standards in mathematics for students with
mathematical disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28,
28–48.
Saunders, A. F., Bethune, K. S., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. (2013). Solving
the common core equation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(3), 24–33.
Schmidt, W. H. (2012). At the precipice: The story of mathematics education
in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 133–156. doi:
10.1080/0161956X.2012.642280.
Schmidt, W. H., & Burroughs, N. A. (Dec. 2012/Jan. 2013). The common
core state standards address two tenacious problems in U.S. education.
Educational Leadership, 70(4), 54–58.
Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the common
core state standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41, 294–308.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
221

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning
trajectory based instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational
Researcher, 41, 147–156.
Thames, M., & Ball, D. (2010). What math knowledge does teaching require?
Teaching Children Mathematics, 17, 220–229.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and
autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 27(4), 458–477.

Appendix A: Survey
Please answer the following questions.
1. Do you currently teach mathematics?
w Yes w No
2. What is your gender?
w Female wMale
3. What grade level do you currently teach? Check all
the grade level bands that apply.
w Kindergarten-2nd grades w 3rd–5th grades
w Other (please indicate):
4. How many years have you been a classroom
teacher?
w 0–5 years w 6–10 years w 11–20 years w over
21 years
5. What is your highest level of educational attainment?
w Bachelor’s Degree w Master’s Degree
w Educational Specialist Degree w Doctoral Degree
For the following questions, please think about the new
AKS in Mathematics adopted this school year that are
based on the Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics (CCSM-Mathematics), which are called the
Common Core Georgia Performance Standards in Georgia.
1. Please rate your overall level of familiarity with the
Common Core Standards for Mathematics (CCSSMathematics).
w Very Familiar w Somewhat Familiar
w Slightly Familiar w Not Familiar
2. Please rate your overall level of familiarity with
your state/district academic standards in
mathematics prior to the CCSS-Mathematics.
w Very Familiar w Somewhat Familiar
w Slightly Familiar w Not Familiar
3. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
My curricular materials are aligned with the CCSSMathematics.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
4. Have you received any professional development
or training related to the CCSS-Mathematics?
w Yes w No
222

5. Approximately how much time, overall, have you
spent in professional development or training on
the CCSS-Mathematics?
w Less than 1 day
w 1 day
w 2 to 3 days
w 4 to 5 days
w More than 5 days
6. Please indicate how the CCSS-Mathematics
professional development and training you have
received has been provided. Check all that apply.
w Collaborative planning time with colleagues
w Structured, formal setting (seminars, workshops,
conferences)
w Job embedded training or coaching
w Professional Learning Communities
w Online webinar or video
w Other (please indicate): __________________
7. To what extent do you agree with the following
statement? Overall, my professional development
and training on the CCSS-Mathematics have
prepared me to teach the CCSS-Mathematics.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
8. On a 5-point scale (where 5 is “very prepared” and 1
is “not prepared at all”), how prepared are you to
teach the CCSS-Mathematics to the following
groups of student?
Your whole class
ELL students
Students with disabilities
Low-income students
Academically at-risk students

5
w
w
w
w
w

4
w
w
w
w
w

3
w
w
w
w
w

2
w
w
w
w
w

1
w
w
w
w
w

9. Which of the following would help you feel better
prepared to teach the CCSS-Mathematics? Check
all that apply.
w Information about how the standards will
change my instructional practice
w Information about how the standards will
change expectations for the students
w Access to curricular materials aligned to the
standards
w Access to assessment aligned to the standards
w More planning time
w More time for collaboration with colleagues
w More information about how the CCSSMathematics are different than previous standards
w Other (please indicate): ________________
Volume 116 (4)

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

10. On a 5-point scale (where 5 is “very prepared” and 1
is “not prepared at all”), how prepared do you think
your students are to master the CCSS-Mathematics?
5 (very prepared)
w

4
w

3
w

2
w

1 (not prepared at all)
w

11. To what extent have you incorporated the CCSSMathematics into your classroom teaching
practice?
w Fully incorporated into my teaching
w Incorporated into some areas of my teaching,
but not others
w Not at all incorporated into my teaching
w I don’t know
12. To what extent have you incorporated the
following eight Standards for Mathematical
Practice in the CCSS-Mathematics into your
classroom teaching practice?
a. Make sense of problems and persevere in
solving them
w Fully w Partially w Not at all
w I Don’t Know
b. Reason quantitatively and abstractly
w Fully w Partially w Not at all
w I Don’t Know
c. Construct viable arguments and critique the
reasoning of others
w Fully w Partially w Not at all
w I Don’t Know
d. Model with mathematics
w Fully w Partially w Not at all
w I Don’t Know
e. Use appropriate tools strategically
w Fully w Partially w Not at all
w I Don’t Know
f. Attend to precision
w Fully w Partially w Not at all
w I Don’t Know
g. Look for and make use of structure
w Fully w Partially w Not at all
w I Don’t Know
h. Look for and express regularity in repeated
reasoning
w Fully w Partially w Not at all w I Don’t
Know
13. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics requires me to do things
differently as a teacher of mathematics.
School Science and Mathematics

w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
14. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics will improve my students’
learning.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
15. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics will improve mathematics
education in the U.S.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics will help me improve my
classroom teaching practice.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
17. To what extend do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics is different than my
previous state/district academic standards in
mathematics.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
18. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics requires me to change my
classroom teaching practice.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
19. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics requires new or
substantially revised curriculum materials and
lesson plans.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
20. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
The CCSS-Mathematics is more of a positive step
than a negative step in mathematics education in
the U.S.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
21. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
223

CCSS-Mathematics and Elementary Teachers

The CCSS-Mathematics requires me to change how
I plan for teaching.
w Strongly Agree w Agree w Disagree
w Strongly Disagree w I Don’t Know
22. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the
CCSS-Mathematics relative to your state/district
academic standards in mathematics prior to the
CCSS-Mathematics?
w CCSS-Mathematics is of higher quality.
w CCSS-Mathematics and previous standards are
about the same quality.
w Previous standards are of higher quality.
w I don’t know.

Appendix B: Open-Ended Questionnaire/Interview
Protocol
For the following questions, please think about the
new AKS in Mathematics adopted this school year that
are based on the Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics (CCSM-Mathematics), which are called

224

the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards in
Georgia.
1. Is the CCSS-Mathematics requiring you to change as
a teacher of mathematics? If so, how? If not, why?
2. How do you think the CCSS-Mathematics will impact
your students’ learning?
3. Have you made changes in your classroom planning as
a result of the CCSS-Mathematics? If so, how? If not, why?
4. Have you made changes in your classroom teaching
practice as a result of the CCSS-Mathematics? If so, how?
If not, why?
5. Tell me some things you like about the CCSSMathematics and why. Tell me some concerns you have
about the CCSS-Mathematics and why.
6. What would help your understanding and
implementation of the CCSS-Mathematics?
7. In general, do you believe the CCSS-Mathematics
will improve mathematics education in the U.S.? If so,
how? If not, why?
8. Anything else you want to add about the CCSSMathematics?

Volume 116 (4)

" evaluate this research based on following guidelines; "Method section
● When evaluating a qualitative data collection procedure, look for comments by the author about selecting participants, gaining permissions, selecting data types and developing recording protocols.
● Examine the reasons why researchers select participants for a study. They should detail the reasons that they selected the participants.
● Look for extensive data collection in a qualitative study. It is usual for qualitative inquirers to collect different forms of data in a single study.
● Look for a systematic procedure for the recording of qualitative data. Researchers should discuss their use of protocols, such as interviews and observational protocols. Providing a sample protocol as an appendix to a study is helpful in understanding the questions asked.
● As you read a qualitative study, remember that the researcher will be presenting information inductively from the narrower themes to the broader themes. Throughout the study, the narrative will likely build from the specific (e.g., database) to the general (e.g., broad themes).
● Look to see if an author mentions all of the steps in the data analysis process mentioned in this chapter (e.g., a preliminary reading, the coding, description, thematic development, representation, and interpretation). In well-developed qualitative studies, most of these aspects will be included.
Findings/Results section
● As you look for findings in a study, first examine the research to determine if the authors describe an event or the setting and then search for the themes in their study. Look for the headings as a clue for descriptions and themes.
● To see the complexity and make sense of themes, identify multiple perspectives mentioned by different individuals or cited from different sources.
● Because qualitative researchers report findings in the form of a narrative discussion, examine qualitative research for these discussions and realize that discussions may take many forms.
● What data displays are presented for the narrative discussion?
● Discussion/Conclusion/Implications section
● Check if the “Discussion,” “Conclusions,” “Interpretations,” or “Implications” sections of qualitative research typically include the researcher’s personal views.
● Check if the author uses validation strategies so that you can become confident in the accuracy of the findings.
"