Mathematics Curriculum Reform and Teachers: What Are the Dilemmas?

Teachers do what they do for complex reasons. Research on teacher thinking generally indicates that teachers' personal theories and knowledge are a basis for classroom practice (Peterson, 1988; Peterson & Clark, 1978; Shavelson, 1976; Shavelson & Berliner, 1988; Yinger, 1979), but the nature of this relationship related to standards-based curriculum decision making and implementation is undeveloped (Ross et al., 1992). With rare exception (Keiser & Lambdin, 1996; Pennell, 1996; Pennell & Firestone, 1996), little research on teachers' interactions with innovative and standards-based curricula exists; no long-term studies highlighting challenges teachers face as they enact standards-based programs exist. In this article, I describe an 18-month study to gain insight into the process of evaluation and implementation of four standards-based curriculum programs by 51 middle school mathematics teachers from 10 school districts in the St. Louis, Missouri area. I provide a profile of factors appearing to enhance or impede participating middle school teachers' use of the programs. The Setting During the 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 school years, 158 middle school teachers and some administrators, representing 23 Missouri school districts, participated in a National Science Foundation-funded curriculum review project (Missouri Middle School Mathematics Project-M3). This project involved the participating teachers in review and evaluation of four standards-based middle level (6-8) curricular materials in schools across Missouri. The four programs had common philosophies framed by constructivist perspectives on learning and envisioned similar changes in teachers' instructional approaches. The following list summarizes program goals: * The teacher acts as facilitator of learning instead of imparter of information, asking questions, probing student understanding, and encouraging active learning. * Mathematical work is meaningful to students and has a purpose. Students play an active role in deciding what to do and how to do it. * Students explore a broad range of real-life problems and make real world applications appropriate to their level of development. * Students do whole or complete work instead of discrete exercises. * Students are introduced to computational procedures as they need them. * Students reflect on their work orally and in writing, asking themselves why and how questions. * Students work together in solving problems and evaluating their individual and collective work. * Assessment is integrated in instruction and focuses on what students understand and can do instead of what they do not know or cannot do. * Students and teachers share common understandings of interpretive standards for evaluating work that includes consideration of the quality of students' understanding of task, their approaches to problems and the procedures used for solving them, their reasoning about why choices were made, the connections they make across ideas and tasks, and their communication of ideas through mathematical terms and forms of representation. All programs used teaching tools such as manipulatives and calculators. With the exception of one program, teacher editions for various units were in pilot and incomplete forms. Participating teachers attended a 2-day inservice training session on each of the programs. Workshops, quarterly 'meetings, and state conferences offered professional development opportunities for teachers. Local regional groups assisted teachers during the review and implementation of the curriculum materials. Each regional cohort met quarterly and shared insights on the quality of the units and student outcomes. A regional leader coordinated each region's activities and served as a liaison between the project directors and the participating teachers at local school districts. …