CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 1 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH PEER TEACHING USING PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY by Samantha Dunham Burila A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah December 9, 2021 Approved __________________________________________ Sheryl Rushton, Ph.D. __________________________________________ Kristin Hadley, Ph.D. __________________________________________ Michelle C Topham, M.Ed. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 2 Acknowledgement I would like to express my appreciation to the Education Department at Weber State University. I was able to accomplish my goal of becoming a teacher and receiving this master’s degree because of their instruction and guidance. I’d especially like to thank Dr. Rushton, who helped me to settle on a project and get out of my head. I am also grateful for the help from Dean Hadley. Michelle you’re the best cheerleader. I truly appreciate your encouragement to finish. I would also like to acknowledge my family, Dave, Steven, Lizzie, Robert, and Kyle, who for six years found a way to get dinner and do your own homework while I struggled through mine. I love you all so much and hope that you can follow the leader here. You can accomplish whatever you truly put your mind too. It might not be easy, but it will be worth it when you accomplish your goals. I would also like to thank my mom, Norma Butler, who I should have spent more time with instead of doing “homework”. I am grateful for her encouragement and understanding when I chose school over her. I know she understood how important this project and earning this degree was too me. I hope you and dad are watching from heaven when I walk across the stage and have that hood placed. Lastly, I would like to thank Angie Gillette, you have influenced my career more then you know. Thank you for hiring me. Thank you for finding this program and making sure I was part of the grant that helped me get my license without having to pay. I don’t know that I would have gotten this far if I would have had to pay for the ARL classes in Salt Lake. Thanks for your encouragement and teaching me. You are an educator I hope to emulate during my career. Trying to help other educators be the best they can be, so that our students will be successful. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM............................................................................................ 6 Literature Review...................................................................................................... 8 Educator Experience ..................................................................................... 9 Challenges in Using Technology-Based Curriculum ................................... 11 Professional Development ............................................................................ 11 Professional Learning Communities ............................................................. 12 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 15 METHOD ............................................................................................................................. 17 Participants ................................................................................................................ 17 Instruments ................................................................................................................ 17 Procedures ................................................................................................................. 18 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 18 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 20 Educator Experience with CCSSM Curriculum ....................................................... 20 Professional Development with CCSSM Curriculum .............................................. 21 Professional Learning Community Influence on Implementation ............................ 22 Educator Confidence in Implementing Research Based CCSSM Curriculum ......... 24 Professional Development Needs of Educators ........................................................ 25 Lead Teacher Model ................................................................................................ 30 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 31 Educator Experience with CCSSM Curriculum ....................................................... 31 Professional Development with CCSSM Curriculum .............................................. 32 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 4 Professional Learning Community Influence on Implementation ............................ 34 Educator Confidence in Implementing Research Based CCSSM Curriculum ......... 34 Professional Development Needs of Educators ........................................................ 34 Lead Teacher Model .................................................................................................. 35 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 36 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 39 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix A ............................................................................................................... 44 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 5 List of Tables Figure 1. Number of Years Teaching in Percents ................................................................. 22 Figure 2. Confidence Level in Teaching CCSSM in Percents .............................................. 25 Figure 3. Confidence in Teaching 8 Core Mathematics Practices in Percents .................... 26 Figure 4. Level of Comfort using the Curriculum in Percents .............................................. 27 Figure 5. Use of Online Components of Curriculum in Percents ......................................... 28 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 6 Abstract Professional development for educators is not always delivered or received as intended. Using research-based curriculums for CCSSM requires a system wide implementation for educators, yet there are times when the professional development for the curriculum does not reach all educators. Years after the initial professional development and implementation of the curriculum educators come into the system and require training to properly use the curriculum. Districts have differing methods of disseminating information to educators, professional learning communities, and lead teacher methods are sometimes used to provide informal professional development to assist educators in their understanding and implementation of curriculums. Educators have an increased reliance on colleagues for training, the professional learning community (PLC) model incorporates the exchange of educational experience amongst colleagues. However, the professional development needs of educators may not be fully met with the PLC team. A needs analysis was used to determine the professional development needs of new and experienced educators. Educators indicated that they were in need of additional mathematics professional development, but further implications suggest that educators may need administrative direction when using the PLC teams and mathematics lead teachers as trainers Determining what educators desire for professional development or curriculum training by conducting a needs analysis could give a more focused view of the needs of educators and help districts to provide or guide deeper instruction to their elementary mathematics instructors. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 7 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM The transition to Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM) has required school districts to adopt curriculum materials that are aligned with the prescribed state standards to increase mathematics proficiency for students (Nelson, 2017; Reys & Lappan, 2007). The proper implementation of a research-based curriculum requires professional development (PD) for educators who will be teaching from the aligned curriculum. School districts may offer this PD in the first years of a new curriculum adoption. However, after a few years of implementation, training may not exist for newly hired educators or educators who have been assigned to teach a different grade level who find themselves unfamiliar with the curriculum and its ancillary materials. Districts may rely on experienced teachers or teachers who received the PD to demonstrate and train teachers in the curriculum. As educators have an increased reliance on colleagues for training, the professional learning community (PLC) model incorporates the exchange of educational experience amongst colleagues (Supovitz et al., 2010). PLCs provide a place that educators can share best practices, as well as experiences with different teaching methods and ideas that the team of educators may use in their own classroom instruction (Spillane et al., 2018). The PLC model also affords educators an environment that cultivates educator training and learning. Educators need to be familiar with the curriculum design and alignment to the CCSSM that are embedded in the lessons of the district-adopted curriculum. Educators should also understand the vertically aligned pedagogy driving instruction in the adopted material, and how these materials aim to improve student mathematics proficiency. Educators called upon to teach a curriculum with which they are unfamiliar need time and instruction to learn the required CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 8 methods and pedagogy required to achieve the projected outcomes of students’ proficiency (Thames & Ball, 2010). When educators are given a new curriculum to implement, they need time to familiarize themselves with the components that are used in the program. Districts usually provide training when a new curriculum is adopted, however, it may not include all teachers. A method of training that involves PLCs in which a lead teacher is employed to bring the training back to those in their PLC (Davis et al., 2017). This can present problems in full implementation or understanding of an adopted curriculum, as it depends on the success of the lead educator to impart the same information they received. This may affect the degree to which a program is implemented in individual classrooms. Some educators may spend more of their personal time, outside contract hours, discovering the components in which they were not trained, while other educators may simply receive the training and not pursue more understanding. These demands on educator time can create an unbalanced pendulum in which teachers are unable to achieve an understanding of the adopted curriculum (Spillane et al., 2018). The educator’s inexperience can have unintended consequences for all stakeholders in education. The educators themselves may feel frustration at the lack of training to become proficient in the materials used for instruction, and time to completely understand all the components of the curriculum, including online technology-based curriculum components. (Ertmer et al., 2012; Mueller & Wood, 2012). Unfortunately, educators in various stages of their careers may not seek out or feel comfortable expressing a need for further professional development. Districts that wholly rely on the lead teacher models of training may neglect the deeper needs of educators in their ranks because the assumption is that lead teachers are training educators to use all the components of the curriculum. Determining what educators desire for professional development or curriculum CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 9 training by conducting a needs analysis could give a more focused view of the needs of educators and help districts to provide or guide deeper instruction to their elementary mathematics instructors. Literature Review No two classrooms in the United States are identical (Roth McDuffie et al., 2018). The move over the last 30 years to reform mathematics instruction and learning has created a unique tenuous scenario in which all stakeholders in education play a role (Dietiker & Riling, 2018; Reys et al., 1999). Administrators, educators, parents, and students interact with the curriculum designs that are used to implement this reform. Educators stand at the crossroads between those who make the decisions to adopt a certain research-based curriculum and those to whom the adopted materials are intended to educate. (Dietiker & Riling, 2018; Reys et al., 1999). The adoption of CCSSM throughout the country is one of the driving forces in this scenario in which the curriculum design goals are not always in line with the abilities, experience, and goals of educators who are using the curriculum to teach students (Dietiker & Riling, 2018). The CCSSM has called for a change in the pedagogy by which mathematics is taught to students opening a door for the students to interact with mathematics in a manner that allows them to solve more real-world problems and to see mathematics as more than a set of facts and algorithms to memorize (Reys et al., 1999). The difficulty in this endeavor lies in two areas, educators’ own experiences in teaching and learning mathematics, and their ability to implement and follow a reform with which they may be unfamiliar and may not fully have faith in the promised outcomes of that implementation (Davis et al., 2017). Some scientists argue that the cognitive abilities of students do not match with the rigor and the implemented CCSSM that educators are using in the school system CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 10 (Nelson, 2017). If educators perceive that the students, they are teaching lack the cognitive skills to progress in the assigned curriculum, they may stray from that curriculum and use another method that lacks the rigor that is called for in the reform. Educator Experience Research on how educators learn has implicated that the way PD is required by local education agencies does not always transfer into classroom implementation (Davis et al., 2017; Jones & Dexter, 2014). When PD is more self-directed by educators, the efficacy and implementation of the learned material or pedagogy are more closely tied to use in the classroom (Jones & Dexter, 2014). This gap in required PD and desired PD could be closed if the educators were given the opportunity for self-directed or a menu of PD that they could choose. Educators are not intentionally seeking out information on PD subjects that they are offered (Jones & Dexter, 2014). Educators are influenced by a myriad of situations in which learning can occur. PD that is provided in a formal setting, where educators must participate in the learning environment, is reported to not always be the ideal setting for engagement in the use of information provided to the educator (Polly et al., 2018). Many educators report the need to be hands-on in the learning process (Jones & Dexter, 2014; Polly et al., 2018). This can lead to times in which educators need to explore their learning interests. Educators are usually aware of what they lack in knowledge when they need to teach a certain subject and are allowed to explore what is desired to improve their pedagogy and understanding of curriculum and standards. Jones and Dexter (2014) suggest that organizations should be aware of the different styles of educator learning and allow educators to engage in formal and informal learning opportunities. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 11 The spectrum of educator experience also influences the desire for PD. New educators, those in their first three years of teaching, tend to have high desires for teaching and learning opportunities. Having recently left the university setting, the practice of educating, compared to the theory of educating, brings a renewed desire to improve their teaching abilities. New educators are looking for information, training, and assistance to become effective educators, not only in formal PD offered by their employer but the in use of informal learning opportunities which may be more beneficial for a new teacher (Kyndt et al., 2016). Educators who are committed to the profession and have reached a mid-career status, are more likely to look for ways to improve their teaching, less through formal training, but by experimenting. A seasoned educator does not feel a sense of inadequacy like a new educator. Since they have progressed to this level of career, these educators now feel knowledgeable and are willing to learn through experimentation to develop their own, or borrowed, pedagogies to improve their teaching (Kyndt et al., 2016). The last group on the spectrum of educator experience are those who have fulfilled a long career and are nearing the decision of retirement. This group poses an enigma, as they have experienced many years of practice to which they may feel no need to add to their instructional methods of practice. Their willingness to participate and implement new practices, offered through formal PD may be met with a cavalier attitude of not needing new training or the willingness to change their craft. Educators who are inexperienced with the CCSSM may have received mathematics training during their teacher preparation program. However, the adopted and implemented curriculum design of a particular school district may be unfamiliar to the educator as they begin teaching. The use of mathematical operations, methods, and practices in a CCSSM aligned CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 12 curriculum are sometimes unfamiliar to educators whose previous mathematics experience is not based on CCSSM (Jones & Dexter, 2014). The prior experience of the educator in learning and teaching mathematics may get in the way of their grasp of the design of CCSSM (Jones & Dexter. 2014). Challenges in Using Technology-Based Curriculum The integration of a mathematics curriculum that is internet-based, challenges educators who are uncomfortable with the use of computers in the classroom. Educators who are uncomfortable with the use of technology, or who lack the understanding of technology integration in the classroom may further impede their ability to use the mathematics curriculum to the full potential to reach the learners it has been adopted to instruct (Mueller & Wood, 2012). Most digital curriculum, or what one might term technology-driven educational materials, are materials that educators must learn and determine implementation in the classroom. Educator beliefs and experience may hinder, or increase, student proficiency based on their experience using technology in the classroom (Ertmer et al., 2012; Mueller & Wood, 2012). If the educator has the training and experience to navigate the online curriculum and to implement the pedagogy embedded in the curriculum the confidence of educators in using the online components will increase. Using a technology-based mathematics curriculum in the classroom is highly dependent on the positive beliefs and attitudes of the educator (Mueller & Wood, 2012). Professional Development Educators are requested and required to participate in different types of PD to enhance and increase their ability to facilitate the environment necessary for students to engage with information that can help them achieve proficiency in learning objectives and common core state standards. Research has focused on the differences between student achievement when the CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 13 educator has been given professional training as opposed to a control group who did not receive hours of PD on how to implement and use a curriculum to improve student performance (Polly et al., 2018; Jones & Dexter, 2014). The PD was provided to select educators in 65 schools, the principals selected the instructors who would participate in the week-long PD, and the instructors who would receive a 40-minute tutorial on how to use the formative assessment site. The results of the study indicated that there was not a marked difference between the two groups of educators and the outcomes from the amount of training that they were given. The conclusion was that educators no matter how much training is given are going to help produce students’ ability to pass the assessment (Polly et al., 2018). Formal PD and informal PD are sought after in different phases of an educator’s career. Educators report that when given the opportunity to collaborate freely with other colleagues, they are more likely to use the learned instructional designs in their classroom (Kyndt et al., 2016). Professional Learning Communities Education does not take place in a sterile environment. The influence of different stakeholders has a significant impact on the level of development for students and educators alike. Student outcomes are dependent on the ability of the educator to present information in such a way that the students can utilize the information and process it to become useful knowledge. The level of experience an educator has in the classroom has been studied for the outcomes on students' test scores in mathematics and reading; also subject to study has been the influence of the educator’s teaching team on student outcomes (Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009). The study hypothesized that the peer teachers would have an impact on the students' test outcomes for an educator at the same school teaching the same grade. Evaluating the movement of educators in North Carolina, the research determined that educators benefitted from CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 14 observable and non-observable skills that their peers possessed. The characteristics of the peer teacher’s education and motivation did have an impact on developing educators. Jackson and Bruegmann (2009) determined that young and inexperienced educators would most benefit from placement within school grade-level teams that consisted of more seasoned educators who could motivate the new educator to learn from the team. The study questioned whether the motivation for peer learning was based on peer pressure, both negative and positive in nature. The negative aspects that motivate educators to learn from their peers are possibly the embarrassment of lower scores, which then provides the catalyst for an educator to mimic, develop, or emulate the observable skills of the peer educators. Some motivation could be the positive enthusiasm that the grade level team expresses to the other educators. This attitude can be inspiring for a new educator, as opposed to a negative attitude that would maybe hamper the growth of a new educator (Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009). The results of the study would indicate that new educators should be seeking out job placement that would benefit them for “on-the-job” skill acquisition. Stakeholders should be committed to finding a set of colleagues who would improve the inexperienced educators’ abilities to learn best practices and to increase their pedagogical awareness. The circle of educational influence is expanded from the grade-level team to the school team, which can consist of all teachers in the building to the administration. PLC teams can differ in configuration, the previous study indicated that the grade-level team was the closest to influence educator skills and impact student test scores (Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009). The next level of influence could be visualized in the influence of a whole school PLC. Understanding the impact of the principal, as well as the vertical teams of fellow educators can have a significant factor in the outcomes of educator learning that will influence student outcomes. Research CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 15 indicates that principals indirectly influence positive student learning outcomes in their fostering a school climate that emphasizes collaboration amongst the school educators and setting high expectations and goals for all members of the PLC team (Supovitz et al., 2010). Administrators who focus on school-wide collaboration are perceived by educators to have a greater influence on teacher peer influence as they allow time for these cooperative teaching opportunities that focus on teaching and learning outcomes for students. Peer influence is advanced as the “buy-in” of school climate is a shared outcome among the school PLC team (Supovitz et al., 2010). Peer learning is the underlying basis of Professional Learning Communities, as the team works together to achieve improved outcomes for students. The experience of the team members has a direct correlation to those outcomes. The outcomes are even further improved if the collaborators are chosen freely by the educator, instead of being assigned to a PLC group (Kyndt et al., 2016). CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 16 PURPOSE Academic intended outcomes are improved with the implementation of a curriculum when educators are trained and have received PD to understand the curriculum components (Dietiker & Riling, 2018). However, when educators have missed the initial implementation training of a mathematics curriculum, it can be complicated and time-consuming to learn all the components on their own. Likewise, when a curriculum adds online components, it can challenge educators who lack confidence in using computers within their instruction (Ertmer et al., 2012). The differing skill sets of educators can become a type of PD when shared teaching and learning is employed in a PLC team. PLCs are fast becoming one of the ways that information and PD are shared among colleagues in education (Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009; Jones & Dexter, 2014; Kyndt et al., 2016). Many local education authorities employ a type of lead teacher-based training, in which one site-level educator is given the opportunity to attend the training and then that lead teacher is to effectively reteach the educators at their site (Davis et al., 2017). Much like the game of telephone, this type of PD does not always reach the level of training that could effectively help educators to improve or achieve the intended curriculum outcomes (Dietiker & Riling, 2018). A thorough needs analysis was conducted to discern the PD needs of teachers in local districts. As the district is seeking accreditation, this needs analysis provided evidence of an area of need or refinement amongst the system, allowing for further conversations to engage teachers in seeking, finding, and providing improved practices in mathematics instruction among elementary educators. Looking at systems and consistency among practices in that system, this analysis helped to improve understanding, knowledge, and how to improve training for all teachers of varying career levels. Therefore, assisting the administration in achieving school CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 17 improvement in mathematics practices of training and PD, which in turn will achieve more self-efficacy among educators in their mathematics instruction. The purpose of this study is to address: • What has been the participants experience with CCSSM prior to, and when being employed to teach the mathematics standards? • How were educators who missed the initial PD at implementation of the adopted mathematics curriculum trained to use the curriculum and its ancillary component parts including online technology-based materials? • What role does the PLC group and the lead teacher model play in helping educators learn, and implement the curriculum, especially new teachers who were not employees at the time of curriculum adoption and training provided by the publisher? • What is the confidence level of educators in teaching and using research based CCSSM curriculum including the online technology-based components of the adopted curriculum? • What are the mathematics PD needs of educators in the district? CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 18 METHOD The method used to conduct this study was a needs analysis which gathered data using an inquiry-based questionnaire to elicit responses from a variety of elementary educators. The researcher analyzed participants' responses to determine a potential course of action to meet the needs of educators for mathematics professional development. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were used to synthesize collected data in determining the potential need for mathematics training for elementary educators. The questionnaire was designed to help the researcher understand the level of comfort faculty had with the use and integration of the online components of the curriculum. Further investigative questions referenced intervention and reteaching methods used in the curriculum and whether the educator was familiar with and used these methods within the classroom. Participants Educators teaching kindergarten through sixth grade in a district that serves both rural and suburban populations in the Western United State, were sent the questionnaire via email with a response rate of 46%. The 26 participants were an existing group of elementary teachers, who’s professional backgrounds vary from first-year teachers to teachers with over 40 years of experience. Fifty percent of the participants were educators at the time of the transition to Common Core State Standards of Mathematics (CCSSM) in 2010, which gives insight into the participant’s experience using a curriculum aligned with the CCSSM was a new construct for them in 2010 when the legislation was enacted to use this system of targeted learning and vertical alignment amongst grade levels. All participants had an assigned grade level PLC group that they meet with weekly for a minimum of 1.5 hours. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 19 Instrument The instrument used to collect data was a researcher-developed questionnaire created in Google forms and administered through district email (see Appendix A). Using the questionnaire, the researcher measured the PD needs amongst the varied groups of educators. The questionnaire helped to gather information about educator experience in teaching mathematics, educator experience in PD. Information regarding interactions with other colleagues in which learning the curriculum components were learned as an outcome of PLC interactions associated with the mathematics curriculum employed by the district, as well as PD that was provided by the district. The questionnaire was used to gather demographic data on the varying backgrounds and education of the participants, the amount of outside contract time the participants spent learning the curriculum. The questionnaire was designed to help the researcher understand the level of comfort faculty had with the use and integration of the online components of the curriculum. Further investigative questions referenced intervention and reteaching methods used in the curriculum and whether the educator was familiar with and used these methods within the classroom. Procedures The researcher, having gained permission from the University IRB and the district in which the study was conducted, sent the developed questionnaire to 61 district-approved educators. The educators who were sent the questionnaire were staff members from two elementary schools and an additional 14 educators of which were designated elementary mathematics lead teachers in the districts. The questionnaire was emailed with the informed consent letter included. The potential participants received two follow-up emails asking them to participate. Participants were asked to give scaled score responses along with open-ended CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 20 question responses that helped guide the researcher to analyze potential PD needs and best practices to assist in the implementation of a mathematics curriculum. Twenty-six participants responded to the Google Form. Data Analysis The descriptive and qualitative data gathered were analyzed. The author read the qualitative data looking for commonalities in the responses that could help determine the shared needs and experiences of the participants and could lead to potential actions to meet the perceived needs of the respondents. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 21 RESULT For this needs analysis, the researcher gathered information to help understand the educational experience, the professional development interactions for teaching and learning CCSSM curriculum. The information gathered is to address the PD needs of those associated with the study. demographic information was gathered to help understand the needs of both seasoned educators and those who are new to the profession. The study was focused on the district adopted mathematics curriculum that has online technology-based components in teaching CCSSM. Educator Experience with CCSSM Curriculum The demographic questions were given to determine background with CCSSM as a student and as an educator. Most of the participants graduated high school before the implementation of CCSSM, less than 12% reported graduating from high school after 2010 and after the implementation date of the CCSSM. Many educators in this district were not taught in high school using CCSSM practices. Fifty-four percent of the participants reported that they were granted their first teaching license prior to 2010, and 46% percent who received their elementary educator licensing after the 2010 CCSSM implementation in the state. The latter group could have had some instruction in CCSSM practice in their education program. Forty-six percent of the respondents also reported that they have not participated in a college level mathematics pedagogy class in the last 16 years. Data from the questionnaire showed that 46% of educators who attended a teacher preparation program in the last ten years, were more likely to have attended a program that integrated the pedagogy emphasized within the CCSSM, this may influence the needs of educators for mathematics PD, since this group was more likely exposed to teaching with CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 22 CCSSM and in a way that would help them to understand curricula built around those standards. The percentage of respondents that are within their first ten years of teaching is 46% (see Figure 1). The percentage of respondents that reported being a teacher at the time of CCSSM implementation was 50%. Figure 1 Number of Years Teaching in Percents Garnered responses to the question of how many years have you been teaching in your current position/grade level showed that 46% of the educators had been teaching at their current position for 1-5 years, 39% for 6-10 years, and 15% for 11-25 years. Professional Development with CCSSM Curriculum Respondents answered the question of how they were trained in the aspects of the current curriculum provided by their district, 46% of the respondents did not recall being formally trained and indicated they navigated the program on their own; 31% of the respondents responded that they were trained at the district office by the curriculum publisher. Twelve percent of respondents claimed to have had help from their PLC group to navigate the 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% First Year Year 2 - Year 5 Year 6 - Year 10 Year 11 - Year 15 Year 16 - Year 20 Year 21 - Year 25 Year 26 - Year 30 31 Years +CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 23 curriculum. Another 12% stated that they were trained by their school mentor who was not a mathematics lead teacher for the school. None of the respondents had been trained by the school mathematics lead teacher. To determine the amount of time educators had sought or received PD for the curriculum or for mathematics teaching and practices, a series of questions were posed to help the researcher understand the background and desires of the participants. Forty-six percent of the respondents stated their last mathematics pedagogy class they attended in college was 16 years or more years ago, 8% stated it was 11 to 15 years ago, 12% said six to ten years ago, 27% reported it was three to five years ago, and 8% reported it was in the within the last two years. A second question to assess the amount of mathematics PD that the participants had sought and received asked how many hours of PD they had actively pursued specifically geared to teaching mathematics in the last five years? Twenty-seven percent reported having received zero hours of PD, 31% reported seeking out at least one to three hours of PD, 15% reported having had four to seven hours of PD, 8% reported having eight to eleven hours of PD, and the final group, 19% of the participants reported seeking more than 12 hours of mathematics PD. . The third question asked how many hours of PD, in the last five years, were specifically designed to help implement the adopted mathematics curriculum. The responses reported that 54% had not received any PD specifically designed to help implement the curriculum, 31% reported having one to three hours of PD, 8% reported having four to six hours of PD, then the final two groups of 4% reported receiving seven to nine hours and 10-12 hours of PD. To evaluate how much time the participants had spent learning the curriculum on their own time and not during contract hours, a question was asked to approximate how many hours they spent outside of contract time learning the currently adopted curriculum. The percentage of CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 24 respondents reporting they spent no time outside of contract hours to learn the curriculum matched the highest amount of time being more than 12 hours spent to learn the curriculum, the percentage for each group is 27% of the respondents. Also matching these groups with 27% are those participants who reported spending 1-3 hours of outside contract time to learn the curriculum. The percentage of participants reporting using four to seven hours of their time to learn the curriculum was 8% and the next group 11% reported using between 8-11 hours of their time. To determine the participants' feelings about the curriculum the question was posed, “do you feel like your training in the curriculum had been sufficient for you to fully implement the program in your classroom?” Only 23% of the participants agreed that their training was sufficient to use the curriculum in the classroom. The participants who felt that the training was insufficient to fully implement the curriculum in the classroom was 77%. Professional Learning Community Influence on Implementation The responses to “what role did your grade-level PLC give to assist you in your implementation of the district-adopted mathematics curriculum?” had a wide variety of open responses. Thirty-eight percent of the responses stated that the PLC group played a major role or described actions consistent with helping to learn, know, and use the components of the curriculum, with statements such as, “They introduced me to it and showed me where to find materials”. Thirty-one percent of the statements reported that their PLC group had no role or assistance in their implementation of the curriculum, represented by quotes like, “I worked through it on my own”. Fifteen percent of the comments reported that the group worked together to create a schedule of lessons or develop a curriculum map for the program, for example, “We did the curriculum mapping for our team” and “They assist me in editing online tests and CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 25 sequence of lessons”. Eleven percent reported that the PLC group showed them the components of the curriculum and how to use the program for data use, with quotes such as, “What components they used, how they analyzed data”. Educator Confidence in Implementing Research Based CCSSM Curriculum To understand the ability to teach from the CCSSM two questions were asked specifically about aspects of the Standards and Mathematical Practices that are embedded components of the CCSSM from First through Twelfth Grade. The first question asked, “when thinking about your teaching practice in mathematics, on a scale from 1 to 4: how confident are you in teaching the State Core Standards for Mathematics for your grade level?” Most of the participants stated they were confident or very confident in teaching the State Core Standards (see Figure 2). Figure 2 Confidence Level in Teaching CCSSM in Percents In trying to assess the confidence of the participants in explaining and teaching a key component of the CCSSM, participants were asked to identify their confidence in explaining and 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Not Confident at all Somewhat Confident Confident Very ConfidentCURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 26 teaching the Eight Core Mathematics Practices. Figure 3 shows the percentages of their confidence level based on a four-point Likert scale. Forty-six percent of the participants feel confident or very confident. However, more than half of the participants are only somewhat confident or not confident at all. Figure 3 Confidence in Teaching 8 Core Mathematics Practices in Percents The respondents were asked to identify their comfort level in using the adopted curriculum, to which the majority responded in a more favorable comfort level, Figure 4 illustrates the breakdown of comfort level for the educators. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Very Confident Confident Somewhat Confident I am not sure what the Eight MathematicsPractices are in the Core.CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 27 Figure 4 Level of Comfort using the Curriculum in Percents Respondents gave differing accounts of other curricula that were used in their classrooms. Educators reported using the following supplemental curriculum resources in addition to or in place of the adopted curriculum: Touch math, SPED materials, Eureka Math, Saxon Math, unspecified math games. One resource that was provided by the State and District Office of Education is Imagine Math/Imagine Math Facts; 23% of respondents reported using this blended learning resource in their classroom. Internet resources were listed in four categories: Internet, Teachers Pay Teachers(TPT), Pinterest, and Magic of Math (a paid resource found in TPT). The overall percentage of educators reporting using resources found on the internet for additional curriculum materials was 57% with TPT being the most frequently used of these internet resources (38%). It is interesting to note that Magic Math is a curriculum resource that is only available for purchase and 12% of the respondents reported using it. To determine the usage of the curriculum among the participants the question was asked, “do you use the mathematics curriculum provided by the district as your main source of Tier 1 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Uncomfortable Somewhat Uncomfortable Somewhat Comfortable ComfortableCURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 28 mathematics instruction?” The participants responded that 92% of them use the district-provided curriculum, while 8% reported that they do not use it as their main Tier 1 instructional material. Participants were asked to select the resources available and accessible online in the current adopted program that they use in their classroom instruction. Participants were given a list to choose from, they were also given the option to add other components not listed. But no other components were added by the participants. Figure 5 lists these embedded components and the percentages of respondents who use the item in their mathematics practice. Figure 5 Use of Online Components of Curriculum in Percents Professional Development Needs of Educators The last questions were used to inquire about the needs and desires of the participants for additional PD for mathematics. The first question asked, “would you attend mathematics professional development to achieve higher mathematics proficiency scores for your students on the high stakes testing materials?” Forty-two percent would attend. Four percent responded they would not attend the PD, while 54% were noncommittal by responding with a “maybe”. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Look and Listen For (Common Mistakes) Develop the Concept: Visual Learning eText Assessment Modification Online Assessment Tools Online Game Center Grade Level Online Math Tools Intervention Lessons Data Collection Class Results by… Data Collection Class Mastery by Standard Vertical Alignnment of Curriculum Unfamiliar with online components of… Uncomfortable using online components…CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 29 Participants were asked to rate their need for mathematics training, none of the educators felt that they needed extensive training. However, 38% of the participants felt that they did need training. Along with another 54% of educators who felt they needed some training. An additional question was asked to probe participant desire to request PD from the district, this was asked on a Likert scale of 1-4, more than 60% felt that they needed some training, with only 8% having a great desire for mathematics professional development. The responses to “what role did your grade-level PLC give to assist you in your implementation of the district-adopted mathematics curriculum?” had a wide variety of open responses. Thirty-eight percent of the responses stated that the PLC group played a major role or described actions consistent with helping to learn, know, and use the components of the curriculum, with statements such as, “They introduced me to it and showed me where to find materials”. Thirty-one percent of the statements reported that their PLC group had no role or assistance in their implementation of the curriculum, represented by quotes like, “I worked through it on my own”. Fifteen percent of the comments reported that the group worked together to create a schedule of lessons or develop a curriculum map for the program, for example, “We did the curriculum mapping for our team” and “They assist me in editing online tests and sequence of lessons”. Eleven percent reported that the PLC group showed them the components of the curriculum and how to use the program for data use, with quotes such as, “What components they used, how they analyzed data”. Lead Teacher Model When asked if the educator was a mathematics lead teacher in 2013 when the current curriculum was adopted only 3.8% indicated that they were in the position of being the lead teacher for their school. However, 19% of the total respondents reported being a mathematics CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 30 lead teacher at the time of the survey. Those who identified as mathematics lead educators reported that none of them were responsible for training the educators at their school to use or navigate the curriculum. To determine the hours of training that the mathematics lead teacher was given to use the curriculum the respondents answered that 60% received zero hours of training each year, 20% reported receiving up to four hours of training, and another 20% reported receiving up to eight hours of training per year to become acquainted with the curriculum. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 31 DISCUSSION For this needs analysis, the researcher gathered information to help understand the professional development needs of those associated with the study. She gathered demographic information to help understand the needs of both seasoned educators and those who are new to the profession. The study was focused on the adopted mathematics curriculum and how educators felt about using the curriculum and teaching CCSSM. The researcher also desired to know how educators were trained to implement the curriculum. There were four types of professional development interactions reported in the study: the formal training by the district and the curriculum publisher, training in a less formal setting through interactions of a PLC group, training by the building mentor, and training by the mathematics lead teacher. Educator Experience with CCSSM Curriculum Half of the respondents indicated that they had been teaching at the time the CCSSM was implemented in the state. Most of the educators also indicated that they had graduated from high school and college prior to the shift to CCSSM. Educators who responded to the survey who were in the latter part of their careers, teaching for over twenty-five years, all indicated that they were trained at the district office by the curriculum publisher, when the curriculum was adopted to improve materials teaching with CCSSM. Four other educators indicated that they too had been trained at the district office, three of these teachers had been new educators at the time of the curriculum adoption and another indicated that they were granted their license 10 years before the curriculum adoption. Of these eight educators, only four of them indicated that they felt their PD was sufficient for them to fully implement the curriculum. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 32 Professional Learning Community Influence on Implementation Twelve educators indicated that they had not received any formal training on using and implementing the curriculum; they followed up in their questionnaire that they did not feel that their training was sufficient to fully implement the program in the classroom. Seven of these 12 indicated in their questionnaire, however, that they had some curriculum interaction with their PLC group. They reported that the PLC group helped to decide on lessons, or worked on a curriculum map, some also reported that the PLC group had shown them where to find books and material, including how to access items on the curriculum website. Five educators in this group indicated that the PLC group gave no assistance to them in navigating the curriculum. Four of these educators reported to be in their first five years of teaching. There is an important need for new educators is to be supported in their learning. Since the educators have weekly meetings with a PLC group designated by their administrator, these new educators should feel like they have a support system and a built-in system of learning their practice. These newer educators tend to see the more experienced teacher as a mentor within the PLC group. Experienced educators have indicated that they do not need as much training, or have as much desire for training, yet within a PLC model, a more experienced educator can still learn from working with the newer educators in a mentoring role. Three respondents indicated that they had been trained by the PLC group, one educator is in their first year of teaching, the other two have been employed 12 and 18 years. The teacher with the most years of service in this group felt that she had been trained sufficiently to implement the curriculum. The other two felt that the training was not sufficient to fully implement the curriculum. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 33 The last three educators who responded to the questionnaire indicated they were trained by the mentor teacher, each of these were within their first five years of teaching, and one felt they had been sufficiently trained, while the other two indicated they were not trained sufficiently to implement the curriculum. It is worth noting that functioning PLC groups may have a significant influence on curriculum implementation. Working together to determine lesson scope and sequence indicates that educators are sharing knowledge, if even in the smallest portions in terms of the implementation of the curriculum. However, the indicators from the study suggest the PLC teams are not working together to engage in the administration of the adopted curriculum and can be detrimental to the newest educators who are somewhat dependent on the PLC team to assist in peer learning. The most experienced teachers should be sharing information and knowledge within the PLC group. The quality of peer educators in PLC groups can have a long-lasting impact on the instructional practices for good or bad on the group. Within the data, one group of educators indicated that they used a separate curriculum which may be the result of poor training in the adopted curriculum techniques. That group, not understanding the adopted curriculum components and how to successfully implement those components, moved to find something they could use with more ease. Participants who use this other curriculum as the main source all had 6 to 10 years of experience except for one newer educator who indicated she was within the first five years of teaching and a provisional educator who expects to receive their license in the following calendar year. If it is understood that a particular curriculum is to be used district-wide, the impact of using curriculum other than the district-adopted curriculum could be significant for educator and student outcomes. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 34 Educator Confidence in Implementing Research Based CCSSM Curriculum The study indicated that the educators were comfortable in teaching the with the adopted district curriculum. Although many of the educators use minimal amounts of the online technology-based components of the curriculum, only a small percentage indicated that they were unfamiliar or uncomfortable using those pieces of the adopted curriculum. However, it would be beneficial for more educators to implement the use of these component pieces in the classroom and for additional instructional methods. The high reliance on internet-based sources of supplemental materials can be concerning for rigor in teaching the CCSSM. One notable indication of not understanding the basics of CCSSM is the fact that many respondents indicated that they did not feel confident in teaching the Eight Core Mathematics Practices. These math practices are the vertical alignment framework of the CCSSM. The confidence of the participants was more than half of the participants are only somewhat confident or not confident at all in teaching them. The Math Practices help student to understand the methods of problem solving and persistence it takes to be a proficient mathematician. The adopted curriculum calls for educators to teach these practices at the beginning of every year, along with naming practices that are used in every lesson. Educators could benefit from a greater understanding of how these practices effect student learning over their mathematics education from kindergarten to twelfth grade. This is an indicator that more CCSSM training along PD regarding the curriculum components may be useful to educators. Professional Development Needs of Educators The closest access that the educators have for professional development is found within their PLC group or team. However, the indications from the survey are that the PLC group is CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 35 interacting with the mathematics curriculum to set up curriculum maps, showing how to access the curriculum and collecting data. Only 12% reported being trained by the PLC group and 38% responded in a favorable way to the second question of what role did your grade-level PLC team play in your implementation of the adopted curriculum. The district has a 90-minute requirement of PLC time embedded into teacher planning time. This has the potential to create a very effective way to help members of the grade level team gain confidence in using the adopted materials. There is a slight indicator that if a PLC team doesn’t have confidence in the adopted curriculum and failed to receive adequate training in the use of the curriculum, that the team could collectively move away from the adopted materials and use other resources they are more familiar and comfortable using, at the price of educational rigor for students and research-based curriculum results. Only one of the educators indicated they did not need mathematics PD; this educator has been teaching for more than 26 years and understandably feels she have developed her craft. Yet all other educators indicated they could use some further training or had a greater desire for additional mathematics PD. Lead Teacher Model The five respondents who indicated that they were the mathematics lead teacher for their school, indicated that they were not required to train other educators to use the curriculum. They also indicated that they had received a varying rate of training on the curriculum as the mathematics lead teacher, that range was between zero hours of training and up to eight hours of training, only two of the five mathematics leads indicated that they received any training CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 36 regarding the curriculum. These findings support the fact that none of the respondents indicated that the mathematics lead teacher trained them to use the program. Conclusion In evaluating all the responses to the questions on the amount of PD received for the mathematics curriculum and hours spent learning the curriculum, it can be determined that most teachers lack the training to feel comfortable using the curriculum. As indicated in the survey, many of the teachers use the curriculum as their main source for instruction, yet they lack the confidence in using it fully. Only one of the educators indicated they did not need mathematics PD; this educator has been teaching for more than 26 years and understandably feels she have developed her craft. Yet all other educators indicated they could use some further training or had a greater desire for additional mathematics PD. Many of the respondents indicated that they used other resources to supplement the curriculum, but that their primary curriculum taught in the classroom is the Envisions/Savvas Realize curriculum. It is important to note that within the respondents, 8% of the respondents indicated that they were not using the district-provided curriculum as their main source when teaching mathematics. This can be problematic when the curriculum being used is not research-based. For example, the Magic of Mathematics curriculum is purchased off the internet site TPT. Although 8% does not seem a significantly high portion of the educators, the influence of moving away from the district-adopted curriculum could potentially affect other educators if the lack of training and understanding of the adopted curriculum components persists. Peer teaching in mathematics practices is almost twice as influential for educators than if the training is received from a broader range of school leadership, such as the principal (Supovitz et al., 2010). CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 37 The potential for these teachers to have an influence on other teachers if they are moved to another position and PLC group or as new educators are introduced to alternate curriculums and not encouraged to use the district-adopted curriculum. Another reason this may be problematic is if the educators are moving away from the adopted curriculum is a perception that the students who they are teaching lack the cognitive skills to progress in the assigned curriculum, they may be implementing a curriculum that lacks the rigor that is in the adopted materials aligned with CCSSM (Dietiker & Riling, 2018). PLC groups were indicated to have shown the curriculum to new educators, and what lessons to teach in sequence. If the needs of new educators are met by other educators who do not understand the curriculum and the ancillary parts, there could be a breakdown in the use of the curriculum. Lack of understanding on how to use the curriculum could cause the entire framework of having a consistent system-wide curriculum to be defeated. The administration may want to evaluate the need for training in the PLC model to encourage more sharing of how the curriculum is being used in peer classrooms. Encouraging the use of the PLC time to improve curricular implementation. Further, the administration could encourage the mathematics lead teacher at each school to share their understanding of the curriculum and how it can be used in the classroom. While training the mathematics lead in curriculum components, they also need a better understanding of what their responsibility is to the school-wide PLC group. The district administration may want to evaluate the need for a mathematics lead teacher and what role this lead teacher plays in the ability to disseminate mathematics PD within the district. The question then arises of what the role of the mathematics lead teacher at each school site should be. It should be decided if their duty is to help provide PD to other educators at their CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 38 school site, or to grade level PLC groups. Or is the mathematics lead teacher role just as a liaison to the administrative office. The mathematics lead teachers, based on the responses in the questionnaire, did not feel they had a responsibility to help others with the mathematics curriculum. The researcher believes that the mathematics lead teacher could be used to instruct their site educators how to use the curriculum in the classroom. The lead teacher could be used in a greater capacity, like those in the blended learning model, being used to enhance the ability of teachers to use technology in the classroom. The participants in this study will benefit from coursework that will encourage them to understand the ancillary online components of the curriculum. Having a curricular system that flows district-wide begins with an understanding of having a common curriculum, and the implementation of CCSSM; educators can use the common curriculum to share techniques that they use to help improve their teaching across PLC and school groups. Another solution could be to use the mentor teacher in each building, to familiarize new educators during the onboarding process with the adopted curriculum materials not just where to find materials in the classroom or online, but to use the system in a short mentoring session in which educators could have some hands-on interactions with the system. Many of the educators revealed they had spent one to twelve hours of their own time to become familiar with the curriculum. To alleviate the use of out-of-contract time, the district could implement a one-hour presentation or canvas course to familiarize new educators with the curriculum. It would seem to take some pressure off newer educators having to navigate an unfamiliar curriculum in a short amount of time. A final piece to this research could be the clear expectations of curriculum used within the system, either school or district wide. If the use of adopted materials is not an essential or CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 39 required part of the teaching practice in the classroom, that should be communicated to classroom teachers across the system. If the curriculum is to be the main source of instruction, then those educators who have a great desire or need for PD should be given ample opportunity to access that training, maybe quarterly or at the administration's discretion. Especially for elementary educators who may have more mathematics anxiety then the upper grade-level mathematics instructors. There could also be further research to determine if the high rate of PD needs stem not just from lack of training with the curriculum, but maybe with the number of years that mathematics pedagogy classes were taken amongst the educators. The researcher believes more seasoned educators should be given opportunities to engage in learning new teaching strategies if they are open to new ideas and are not closed off to learning. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 40 REFERENCES Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. B. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice: Uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 599-607. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.006 Caron, T. A. (2007). Learning multiplication: The easy way. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(6), 278-282. doi:10.3200/TCHS.80.6.278-282 Confrey, J., Maloney, A. P., Belcher, M., McGowan, W., Hennessey, M., & Shah, M. (2018). The concept of an agile curriculum as applied to a middle school mathematics digital learning system. (DLS). International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 152-172. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.017 Corcoran, R. P. (2018). Preparing teachers to raise students’ mathematics learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(6). 1169-1185. doi:10.1007/s10763-017-9819-1 Cosner, S., Leslie, D., & Shyjka, A. (2019). Supporting instructional transformation tied to standards-based reforms: Examining a learning-focused approach to supporting school-wide implementation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-19. doi:10.1080/15700763.2018.1551550 Davis, J. D., Choppin, J., Roth McDuffie, A., & Drake, C. (2017). Middle school mathematics teachers’ perceptions of the common core state standards for mathematics and its impact on the instructional environment. School Science and Mathematics, 117(6), 239-249. doi:10.1111/ssm.12232 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 41 Dietiker, L., & Riling, M. (2018). Design (In)tensions in mathematics curriculum. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 43-52. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.001 Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbriet-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59(2), 423-435. doi:10:1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 Handa, Y. (2012). Teasing out repetition from rote: An essay on two versions of will. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 263-272. doi:10.1007/s10649-011-9343-0 Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 85-108. doi:10.1257/app.1.4.85 Jones, W. M. & Dexter, S. (2014). How teachers learn: The roles of formal, informal, and independent learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 367-384. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9337-6 Kimmons, R., Miller, B. G., Amador, J., Desjardins, D., & Hall, C. (2015). Technology integration coursework and finding meaning in pre-service teachers’ reflective practice. Education Technology Research Development, 63(3), 809-829. doi:10:1007/s11423-015-9394-5 Kyndt, E., Gihbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents, and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research 86(4) 1111-1150. doi:10.3102/0034654315627864 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 42 Lyons, N., Halton, C. & Freidus, H. (2013). Reflective inquiry as transformative self-study for professional education and learning. Studying Teacher Education 9(2), 163-174. doi 10.1080/17425964.2013.808057 Mangram, C. & Solis-Metz, M.T. (2018) Partnering for improved mathematics engagement. School Community Journal, 28(1), 273-294. Mueller, J. & Wood, E. (2012). Patterns of beliefs, attitudes, and characteristics of teachers that influence computer integration. Education Research International, Vol. 2012, 1-13. doi:10.1155/2012/697357 Nelson, E. A. (2017). Cognitive science and the common core mathematics standards. Nonpartisan Education Review, 13(3), 1-18. Nunez, J.C., Suarez, N., Rosario, P., Vallejo, G., Valle, A., & Epstein, J.L. (2015). Relationships between perceived parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: Differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 375-406. doi:10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5 Patton, K., Parker, M., Tannehill, D., Helping teachers help themselves: Professional development that makes a difference. NASSP Bulletin 99(1), 26-42. doi:10.1177/0192636515576040 Polly, D., Wang, C., Lambert, R., Pugalee, D., & Middleton, C. (2018). The influence of mathematics professional development, school-level, and teacher-level variables on primary students’ mathematics achievement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(1), 31-45. doi:10.1007/s10643-017-0837-y CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 43 Puklek Levpuscek, M., & Zupancic, M. (2009). Math achievement in early adolescence: The role of parental involvement, teachers’ behavior, and students’ motivational beliefs about math. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(4), 541-570. doi:10.1177/0272431608324189 Randolph, T. D., & Sherman, H. J. (2001). Alternative algorithms: Increasing options, reducing errors. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(8), 480-484. Reys, B., Robinson, E., Sconiers, S., & Mark, J. (1999). Mathematics curricula based on rigorous national standards: What, why and how? The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(6), 454-456. Reys, B. & Lappan, G. (2007). Consensus or confusion? The intended math curriculum in state-level standards. The Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9), 676-680. doi:10.1177/00317217078800909 Roth McDuffie, A., Drake, C., Choppin, J., Davis, J. D., Magana, M. V., & Carson, C. (2017). Middle school mathematics teachers’ perceptions of the common core state standards for mathematics and related assessment and teacher evaluation systems. Educational Policy, 31(2), 139-179. doi:10.1177/0895904815586850 Spillane, J. P., Hopkins, M., & Sweet, T. M. (2018). School district educational infrastructure and change at scale: Teacher peer interactions and their beliefs about mathematics instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 532-571. doi:10.3102/000283127743928 Spillane, J. P., Shirrell, M., Adhikari, S. (2018). Constructing “experts” among peers: Educational infrastructure, test data, and teachers’ interactions about teaching. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 44 Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 40(4), 586-612. doi:10.3102/0162373718785764 Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 46(1) 31-56. doi:10.1177/1094670509353043 Thames, M. H., & Ball, D. L. (2010). What math knowledge does teaching require? Teaching Children Mathematics, 17(4), 220-229. Van Den Ouweland, L., Vanhoof, J., & Van den Bossche, P. (2019). Underperforming teachers: The impact on co-workers and their responses. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 3(1), 5-32. Doi:10.1007/s11092-019-09293-9 Zhukova, O. (2018) Novice teachers’ concerns, early professional experiences and development: Implications for theory and practice. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 9(1), 100-114. Doi:10.2478/dcse-2018-0008 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 45 Appendix A CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 46 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 47 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 48 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 49 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 50 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 51 CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION 52