Vol. 30 No. 1 (2021)

The Relationship between Instructors’ Teaching Contexts, Academic and Professional Backgrounds, and Their Uses of Class Time in Mathematics Content Courses for Elementary Teachers: Results of a National Survey

Laura Kyser Callis
Curry College
Allen G. Harbaugh
Boston University

Published 2021-08-17


  • mathematics content courses,
  • Teacher education,
  • instructional practices


This article reports on a national survey of post-secondary mathematics instructors (n = 458) of mathematics courses designed for elementary teachers. The article links the use of various instructional practices to instructor characteristics. Specifically, there were statistically significant differences in reported use of class time depending on instructors’ subject and level of their degree, their experience teaching in preK–12 classrooms, and whether they perceived the institutions at which they taught as selective. Use of regression models with interactions demonstrate that the relationship between academic and professional background, teaching context, and use of class time was complex.


  1. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2017). Standards for preparing teachers of mathematics. http://amte.net/standards
  2. Blair, R. M., Kirkman, E. E., & Maxwell, J. W. (2013). Statistical abstract of undergraduate programs in the mathematical sciences in the United States: Fall 2010 CBMS survey. American Mathematical Society. https://www.ams.org/profession/data/cbms-survey/cbms2010-Report.pdf
  3. Bleiler, S. K. (2015). Increasing awareness of practice through interaction across communities: The lived experiences of a mathematician and mathematics teacher educator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9275-6
  4. Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Lozano, J. B., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013–2014 HERI faculty survey. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. https://heri.ucla.edu/monographs/HERI-FAC2014-monograph.pdf
  5. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410.short
  6. Hart, L. C., Oesterle, S., & Swars, S. L. (2013). The juxtaposition of instructor and student perspectives on mathematics courses for elementary teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(3), 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9464-0
  7. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2005). Questioning our patterns of questioning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(9), 484–489.
  8. Lo, J.-J., Kim, R.-Y., & McCrory, R. (2008). Teaching assistants’ uses of written curriculum in enacting mathematics lessons for prospective elementary teachers. In O. Figueras & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the 32nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, and the XX North American Chapter (Vol. 1). PME. http://meet.educ.msu.edu/pubs/Lo_PME08_.pdf
  9. Masingila, J. O., Olanoff, D. E., & Kwaka, D. K. (2012). Who teaches mathematics content courses for prospective elementary teachers in the United States? Results of a national survey. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(5), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-012-9215-2
  10. McCrory, R. (2009). ME.ET: The Mathematical Education of Elementary Teachers Project [Advisory board progress report]. http://meet.educ.msu.edu/reports/Advisory%20Board%20Report_010209.pdf
  11. McCrory, R., Zhang, C., Francis, A. P., & Young, S. (2009, September 23–26). Factors in the achievement of preservice elementary teachers in mathematics classes [Paper presentation]. Psychology of Mathematics Education North America Conference (PME-NA), Atlanta, GA, United States. http://meet.educ.msu.edu/pubs/pmena09/McCrory_Zhang_HLM_PMENA09.pdf
  12. Mesa, V., & Griffiths, B. (2012). Textbook mediation of teaching: An example from tertiary mathematics instructors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 85–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9339-9
  13. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study fieldtest results to improve item construction (Working Paper No. 1999-08). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/199908.pdf
  14. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
  15. Papageorge, N. W., Gershenson, S., & Kang, K. M. (2020). Teacher expectations matter. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(2), 234–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00838
  16. Schoenfeld, A. H., Thomas, M., & Barton, B. (2016). On understanding and improving the teaching of university mathematics. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0038-z
  17. Walczyk, J. J., & Ramsey, L. L. (2003). Use of learner-centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 566–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10098
  18. Walczyk, J. J., Ramsey, L. L., & Zha, P. (2007). Obstacles to instructional innovation according to college science and mathematics faculty. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20119
  19. Walter, E. M., Henderson, C. R., Beach, A. L., & Williams, C. T. (2016). Introducing the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS): A concise, interdisciplinary, and easy-to-score survey of postsecondary instructional practices. https://dx.doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.15-09-0193