Educative curriculum materials

Educative curriculum materials refer to textbooks, workbooks, planning guides, and other curriculum materials designed to support teacher learning as well as student learning.

Origins and Perspectives

The idea that curriculum materials in mathematics should support teacher learning is a relatively new concept. The "new math" reforms of the 1960s and early 1970s, most prominently that of the School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG), became well-known for representing a departure from traditional mathematics curriculum. These reforms failed to take hold, in part, because teachers did not receive adequate support to teach the new mathematics. The director of SMSG, Edward Begle, admitted that "in our work on curriculum we did not consider the pedagogy" (Kline, 1973, p. 110).

Following the 1989 publication of the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, a second wave of mathematics curriculum reform began, largely enabled by funding from the National Science Foundation. Ball and Cohen (1996) recognized that without support, teachers might resist or struggle to use the new materials as their authors intended. Ball and Cohen suggested that curriculum materials could influence teacher practice in the following ways:

• Crossing Boundaries: If the goals and rationales of the curriculum developer were made explicit in teacher support materials, teachers could better understand the content, how it was intended to be taught, be prepared for issues that might arise upon enactment, and better understand how the learning of current content influences the learning of future content.
• Improved Instruction: Instead of focusing on fidelity of implementation, curriculum adoption should be seen as an opportunity for professional development and teacher cooperation targeted at increasing teacher learning and effectiveness.
• Partners in Practice: For curriculum of this quality to be developed, more research is required on teacher learning and curriculum use, instead of viewing curriculum simply as something for student use.

Teachers' Curricular Knowledge

Shulman (1986) recognized a need for a new conceptualization of teacher knowledge that was not solely about content, nor solely about teaching, but rather specialized knowledge for teaching specific content. While Shulman's 1985 AERA presidential address and 1986 article is best known for pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), he also described a specialized knowledge he termed curricular knowledge, which he likened to an expert physician's knowledge of available treatments, their effectiveness, costs, side effects, and interactions with other treatments. For teachers, curricular knowledge means knowledge of available textbooks, software, manipulatives, videos, activities, demonstrations, and the likelihood that each will be effective with their students. Shulman also included in curricular knowledge a horizontal knowledge of the curriculum in students' other subjects, as to encourage multi-disciplinary learning, and a vertical knowledge of the curriculum in other grades.

In mathematics education, Shulman's conceptions of specialized teacher knowledge have been further developed by Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008). Referring to "domains of mathematical knowledge for teaching" (MKT), Ball et al. describe "knowledge of content and curriculum" as a particular domain of pedagogical content knowledge but provide few other details. Unlike Shulman (1986), Ball et al. separate knowledge of curriculum outside a teacher's grade and subject, preferring to categorize "horizon content knowledge" as a special kind of content knowledge.

Aims of Educative Curriculum Materials

Schneider and Krajcik (2002) further developed Ball and Cohen's ideas into a set of five design principles for educative curriculum materials (p. 224):

• Address each area of knowledge necessary for exemplary practices — content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and PCK
• Situate teacher learning by meshing the content of the support to lessons for students
• Link different knowledge areas within lessons
• Make knowledge accessible to teachers through short scenarios or models of actual practice
• Address immediate needs for understanding as teachers plan for lessons soon to be enacted

References

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14. doi:10.3102/0013189X025009006

Kline, M. (1973). Why Johnny can't add: The failure of the new math. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245. doi:10.1023/A:1016569117024

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004