Over the past decade, considerable attention has focused on exploring meaningful ways to prepare pre-service teachers for effective mathematics teaching.  Most teacher preparation programs include two main components: university coursework and fieldwork experience.  The latter, fieldwork experience, is considered one of the most influential pedagogies in teacher preparation.  (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Goodnough et al, 2009).  However, simple placement does not ensure a strong opportunity for teaching and learning.  The models of teaching pre-service teachers typically observe during fieldwork represent prevailing pictures of mathematics teaching as a process of transferring information from teachers to students (Cohen, 1988; Hollingsworth, 1989).  These methods are not only limited but perpetuate approaches that do not reflect mathematics reform goals of inquiry-based, student-centered teaching (Borko & Eisehart, 1992, Tatto & Senk, 2011).  However, even when placed in field placements consistent with reform-minded teaching, pre-service teachers often do not know what to attend to (Star & Strickland, 2008; van Es and Sherin, 2008). As teaching is a complex process, pre-service teachers are easily overwhelmed and may focus on components of teaching that are not as important as others for their learning (Santagata et al, 2007; Grossman, et al., 2009).

For the reasons delineated above, recent research in teacher education has drawn attention to the use of an analysis-based curriculum to bridge the connection between university coursework and classroom fieldwork by assisting pre-service teachers in developing knowledge, skills, and dispositions for reformed-based teaching (Mason, 2002; Hiebert, et al., 2007; Jacobs, et al., 2007; van Es & Sherin, 2008; Star & Strickland, 2008). Hiebert et al. (2007) proposed the idea of treating lessons like experiments where the teacher learn to reason about the effectiveness of teaching by engaging in an analytical process including: (a) setting main learning goals for the lesson; (b) assessing whether the goal has been achieved during the lesson; (c) specifying hypothesis for the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson; and (d) using the hypothesis to revise the lesson.  This framework, centered on the analysis of the classroom lesson, connects reflection to action, and has shown to improve the analytical practice of pre-service teachers (Hiebert el al., 2007; Santagata el al., 2007). However, existing work on analysis-based curriculum has concentrated on developing conceptual frameworks.  Less is known about what pre-service teachers learn from these experiences.

The project under investigation examines the impact of a video-based, analysis-focused curriculum on pre-service mathematics teachers’ ability to plan instruction responsive to student thinking and to reflect on the effectiveness of instruction on student learning. A strong focus of the curriculum is to develop pre-service teacher ability to learn to observe and analyze mathematics instruction during fieldwork in ways that will enhance their teaching and learning.

In this poster session, we will examine the relationship between field experience and the analysis-based curriculum from the pre-service teacher perspective. Specifically, we are interested in understanding the influence of fieldwork experience, placements with practice consistent with university coursework and placements with practice inconsistent with university coursework, has on filtering participant experience in the analysis-based curriculum. In particular, we explore the following questions:

1)     What do curriculum participants attend to when asked to reflect upon their field placement?

2)     How do participant reflective skills change or evolve as they gain more experience in the classroom?

3)     What are the similarities and differences in analysis skills between the participants in different field experiences: placements with practice consistent with university coursework and placements with practice inconsistent with university coursework?

Methods

Pre-service teacher learning was investigated through a series of cases studies that followed four pre-service elementary teachers through their credential year. Data sources include classroom observations and semi-structured interviews from the cooperating teacher and the pre-service teacher.

Data Analysis

Interview transcriptions were coded with the dimensions of the lesson analysis framework (Hiebert et al., 2007; Santagata & Guarino, 2010) used in the course.  Summaries were created for each case, and similarities and differences were identified across cases.

Findings

Preliminary results from the case study show interview reflections focused on an analysis of their master teachers’ mathematics teaching and of their own as it pertained to student thinking and learning, and these reflections evolved through time. However, participants in placements consistent and inconsistent with university course objectives differed in the level of specificity of analysis.  Participants in aligned placements emphasized the critical nature of understanding student learning in mathematics teaching, and they saw this to be a complex and challenging task. These participants talked more in-depth about key routines and strategies that assisted in making visible student thinking and learning such as effective questioning, design of open-ended mathematical problems, monitoring student work, leading a math discussion, and establishing a classroom discourse community.  Participants in unaligned placements more frequently proposed alternative strategies for teaching; however, they provided justifications for why these inconsistencies were in place.

Discussion and Scholarly Significance

As effective mathematics teaching is a complex process, many teacher education programs have begun to focus on the development of longer-term dispositions: reflections and student-centered learning environments.  Our findings suggest that a separation between university course and field placement undermines any radical change in teacher learning.  A reorganization and restructuring of traditional models of theory and practice would strengthen the learning to teach process.

In this poster session, we will present (1) the framework we used to guide pre-service teachers’ analysis of classroom lessons and its research base, (2) project coding dimensions and findings, and (3) structural changes made in the program to address the study findings.

References

Borko, E., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C.A., Underhill, R.G., & Agard, P.C., (1992). Learning to teach mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily?.

     Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194-222

Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ça change. . . . In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27–84).  

     Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.

Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009). Exploring a training model of student teaching: Pre-service teacher and cooperating teacher

      perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 285-296.

Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching. 15(2), 273-289.

Guyton, E., & McIntre, D.V. (1990).  Student teaching and school experiences.  In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514-534).  New

     York, New York: Macmillan.

Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 47-61.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189.

Jacobs, V.R., Franke, M.L., Carpenter, T.P., Levi, L., & Battey, D. (2007). Professional development focused on children’’s algebraic reasoning in elementary schools.

     Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 258-288.

Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: Routledge Falmer.

Santagata, R., & Guarino, J. (2010). Using  video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching. ZDM The International Journal of Mathematics Education. 43(1), 133-145

Star, J.R. & Strickland, S.K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,11(2), 107-125.

Tatto, M.T. & Senk, S. (2011). Mathematics education of future primary and secondary teachers: Methods and findings from the teacher education and development study in mathematics. Journal  of Teacher Education, 62(2), 121-137.

van Es, E. A. & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers ”learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244-276.