An Investigation of the Relationship between Mathematics Textbook Alignment Preferences, Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Attention to the NCTM Standards, and Teaching Experience A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Education of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Valerie N. Blom June 2009 © 2009 Valerie N. Blom. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled An Investigation of the Relationship between Mathematics Textbook Alignment Preferences, Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Attention to the NCTM Standards, and Teaching Experience by VALERIE N. BLOM has been approved for the Department of Teacher Education and the College of Education by George Johanson Professor of Educational Studies Renée A. Middleton Dean, College of Education 3 ABSTRACT BLOM, VALERIE N., Ph.D., June 2009, Curriculum and Instruction An Investigation of the Relationship between Mathematics Textbook Alignment Preferences, Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Attention to the NCTM Standards, and Teaching Experience (179 pp.) Director of Dissertation: George Johanson This study examined the relationship between a teachers’ degree of agreement with Standards-based mathematics textbook characteristics (textbook alignment preferences) and influencing factors. Cluster sampling was utilized to obtain a sample of K-6 teachers from Ohio to respond to a 60 item web-based survey. A return rate of 48% was realized with 273 completed surveys suitable for analysis. Responses to the 24 items that constituted teachers’ degree of agreement with Standards-based mathematics textbook characteristics represented the dependent variable, textbook alignment preferences. Beliefs about the teaching and learning of mathematics, emphasis of professional development, hours of professional development, years of teaching experience, and level of attention to the NCTM Standards represented the independent variables. Data were analyzed using descriptive methods, regression methods, and factor analysis. Eighty-four percent of the teachers did not disagree (mean score was neutral or agreed) with the characteristics of Standards-based textbooks while less than one-fourth agreed. Additionally, teachers’ beliefs about the teaching and learning of mathematics were close to agreement with those espoused by the NCTM Standards. Seventy-three percent of the participants reported teachers in their school had implemented the Standards in their teaching and about half reported being able to explain the Standards 4 and that they had been thoroughly discussed in their school. Participation in professional development activities was found to be relatively low for this sample of teachers. A significant regression model where textbook alignment preferences were predicted by mathematics beliefs, prior number of years of teaching experience, emphasis of professional development, hours of professional development, and teacher attention to the NCTM Standards was constructed. The statistically significant predictors for this model were mathematics beliefs and prior number of years of teaching experience. The 24-item scale of textbook alignment preferences, where the items represented differences between traditional and Standards-based mathematics textbooks was factor analyzed. Parallel analysis indicated a four-factor solution. One factor represented characteristics of traditional textbooks and another represented characteristics of Standards-based textbooks. The third factor represented technology characteristics of textbooks. The last factor represented structure of mathematics topics among textbooks. Also, a two-factor solution was explored since the items for this scale represented traditional and Standards-based textbooks. Most characteristics loaded on the appropriate factor (traditional (10 out of 12) and Standards-based (10 out of 12)). For the remaining items, three did not meet the loading criteria and one item loaded on the other type of factor. Overall, the factor analysis indicated that there is evidence of construct validity for this scale. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ George Johanson Professor of Educational Studies 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I first want to extend my utmost gratitude to my Lord Jesus Christ. His unyielding strength and comfort helped me persevere on a daily basis through this endeavor. Furthermore, I want to extend my sincerest thanks to my committee members Dr. George Johanson, Dr. Jim Schultz, Dr. Gordon Brooks, and Dr. Jeff Connor. These professors have given much time and energy in providing me with the guidance needed to accomplish this research. Also, I want to thank Dr. Gregory Foley for his assistance with part of the last leg of my journey. I would also like to thank my family, dearest friends, and colleagues for their prayers, patience, and encouragement while I worked on the completion of this life long goal: Allen (I did it Dad!), Anita, and Janet Whitehead, Mitzi Jones, Mark Cooper, Barbara Rogers, Cathy Singleton, Noushi Stouffer, Melanie Musheno, Diane Polczynski, all members of the Stouffer Home Church, Rose Teuta, Colleen McKimpson, Godwin Dogbey, Sue Nichols, Holly Raffle, Mike Waters, and Jane Barnard. A special thank you to Cathy Singleton for her assistance in regards to the numerous reports she coauthored and helped disseminate to various schools in Ohio. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 12 List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 14 Background of the Study .............................................................................................. 14 Reports and Recommendations ................................................................................. 15 The Standards ............................................................................................................ 15 Influence of Adoption States .................................................................................... 17 Controversy ............................................................................................................... 18 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 19 Significance of the Problem .......................................................................................... 21 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 26 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 26 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .................................................................................. 28 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 28 History of Mathematics Textbooks. .......................................................................... 28 Critical Review of the Relevant Literature ................................................................... 32 Textbook Preferences, Professional Development, and Years of Teaching Experience ................................................................................................................. 32 7 Professional Development .................................................................................... 32 Professional Development and Years of Teaching Experience ............................ 34 Textbook Use and Professional Development ...................................................... 35 Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Years of Teaching Experience, and NCTM Standards ...................................................................................................... 37 Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, and Years of Teaching Experience ................................................................................................................................... 38 Mathematics Beliefs .............................................................................................. 38 Mathematics Beliefs and Professional Development ........................................... 39 Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, and Years of Teaching Experience ............................................................................................................. 40 Studies Related to the Standards Beliefs Instrument ............................................ 41 Textbook Alignment Preferences, Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Years of Teaching Experience, and Teacher Attention to the NCTM Standards ..... 46 Mathematics Beliefs and Textbook Preferences ................................................... 46 Mathematics Beliefs, Textbook Preferences, and Professional Development ..... 47 Teacher Attention to the NCTM Standards, Textbook Use, Years of Teaching Experience,