In What Types of Professional Development Activities Do U.S. Mathematics
Teachers Participate?
As a 魅影直播 1999 national option, the United States asked mathematics
teachers to describe their professional development during the 1998-99
school year, defined as June 1998 to May 1999. Since no other countries
asked these questions, cross-country comparisons are not possible.
Comparisons, however, can be made to the United States as a whole
and among the Benchmarking jurisdictions. Teachers were asked both
how often they observed and were observed by other teachers (see Exhibit
6.18). In the U.S. overall, these observations of and by teachers
were reported by the mathematics teachers of 25 and 35 percent of
the students, respectively. Among the Benchmarking states, the results
for classroom observation as a professional development approach resembled
the national results. Among districts and consortia, observations
were used most extensively in the First in the World Consortium and
Montgomery County with more than half the students having teachers
who reported both observing and being observed by other teachers.
The professional development activities teachers were asked about
include the following school- and district-based activities: immersion
or internship activities; receiving mentoring, coaching, lead teaching,
or observation; teacher resource centers; committees or task forces;
and teacher study groups. As shown in Exhibit
6.19, participation on committees or task forces was the most
frequently used of these activities. It was reported nationally by
the mathematics teachers of more than half the eighth graders (55
percent), and was similarly popular among the Benchmarking participants.
Mathematics teachers were asked about their participation in several
types of workshops, conferences, and networks, including within-district
workshops and institutes; out-of-district workshops and institutes;
teacher collaborative or networks; out-of-district conferences; and
other forms of organized professional development (see Exhibit
6.20). They were also asked about individual activities, including
taking courses for college credit; individual research projects; individual
learning; and other individual professional development activities
(see Exhibit
6.21). Of all of the professional development activities, within-district
workshops or institutes (79 percent of the students) and individual
learning (84 percent) were generally the most frequent activities
in which mathematics teachers of U.S. eighth-grade students participated
during the 1998-99 school year. Even though there was considerable
variation, these activities were also widely reported by teachers
in the Benchmarking jurisdictions.
Teachers’ reports about the topics heavily emphasized in their
professional development are presented in Exhibit
6.22. Nationally, mathematics teachers of 63 percent of eighth
graders reported that curriculum was emphasized quite a lot or a great
deal. The next greatest emphasis was on general pedagogy, mathematics
pedagogy, and instructional technology (45 to 47 percent of the students).
Teachers reported the least emphasis on content knowledge (28 percent)
and leadership development (15 percent). Again, although there was
variation across the Benchmarking participants, the national pattern
held in many jurisdictions.
The most interesting result about professional development may be
the limited emphasis on content knowledge in relation to the other
topics. Further detail about the types of content emphasized is provided
in Exhibit
6.23. Nationally, teachers reported that the five content areas
(fractions and number sense; measurement; data representation, analysis,
and probability; geometry; and algebra) were emphasized relatively
equally (from 45 to 56 percent). In general, the pattern of relatively
equal emphasis was also found in the Benchmarking states. There was
more variation within some districts and consortia. For example, the
Academy School District focused relatively less emphasis on professional
development in geometry (17 percent) than in the other four areas
(28 to 42 percent). Montgomery County placed relatively less emphasis
on measurement (18 percent) and more emphasis on data representation,
analysis, and probability (72 percent). The First in the World Consortium
placed relatively more emphasis on geometry (77 percent) and relatively
less on data representation, analysis, and probability (37 percent).
Teachers in the United States reported a relatively heavy focus on
curriculum in their professional development activities. Their reports
about familiarity with various curriculum documents are presented
in Exhibit
6.24. Nationally, teachers of most students (91 percent) reported
that they were fairly or very familiar with the curriculum guides
for their school and their school district, and this held across most
of the Benchmarking jurisdictions. U.S. mathematics teachers of 82
percent of the eighth-grade students reported being very familiar
with the nctm Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. For
the Benchmarking states, this ranged from 71 percent in Idaho to 98
percent in South Carolina. For districts and consortia, it ranged
from 62 percent in the Chicago Public Schools to 97 percent in the
Fremont/Lincoln/Westside Public Schools.
Fewer teachers than might be anticipated reported being at least
fairly familiar with their state curriculum guides. Nationally, 74
percent of the eighth graders had mathematics teachers who so reported.
Among states the figure ranged from 57 percent in Pennsylvania to 98
percent in South Carolina, and among districts and consortia from
54 percent in the Southwest Pennsylvania Math and Science Collaborative
to 100 percent in the Academy School District.
