Teachers are an essential link between the curriculum and student achievement. Teachers make instructional decisions that (1) determine the success or failure of a curricular intervention and (2) can result in either alignment or disconnect between the written and enacted curricula. Despite overwhelming evidence linking the success or the failure of a curricular intervention to the classroom teacher, little is known about the instructional decisions teachers make when using a standards-based curriculum. The use of standards-based curriculum is becoming common, therefore, it is essential to know how teachers are using it. This study focused on three questions. First, can the factors that influence instructional decisions be consolidated into manageable, representative, and useful categories? Second, what instructional decisions did six science teachers in a rural central Texas school district make when using the standards-based curriculum, CSCOPE? Finally, what steps did one district take to select and adopt the SBC, CSCOPE? This study found that the factors that influence instructional decisions could be clustered into four categories: (1) working conditions, (2) pedagogical content knowledge, (3) prior experiences, and (4) beliefs. Further, that teachers made instructional decisions both to use CSCOPE as intended and to modify CSCOPE lessons. Modifications to CSCOPE were made despite (1) an administrative mandate not to modify CSCOPE, (2) good administrative support, and (3) the stated intention of these teachers to adhere to CSCOPE. Teachers omitted, replaced and/or supplemented lessons and/or parts of lessons in order to (1) accommodate the needs of their students and (2) prepare students for the state assessment. Finally, several steps taken by Bluecat ISD administrators assisted teachers in using CSCOPE as intended. This study makes three contributions to the educational literature. First, no useful categorization exists of the factors that influence teachers‟ instructional decisions. Chapter II provides an initial categorization of these factors that is manageable, representative, and useful. Second, administrators need to be able to anticipate how teachers may use a standards-based curriculum. Chapter III identifies the instructional decisions made by these six science teachers. Chapter IV identifies the measures put in place to support teachers as they adjusted to CSCOPE.

<p>Utilizing action research as the methodology, this study was developed with the ultimate goal of describing and reflecting on my implementation of one aspect of the <i>Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (</i><i>CCSSM)</i> in an algebra classroom. This implementation focused on the Problem-Solving Standard of Mathematical Practice (SMP) as described in <i>CCSSM </i>(Making sense of problems and persevere in solving them). The research question that guided my work was the following: How is the <i>Common Core State Standards for Mathematics </i>(<i>CCSSM</i>) Problem-Solving Mathematical Standard enacted in an algebra class while using a <i>Standards-</i>based curriculum to teach a quadratics unit?</p> <p>I explored this by focusing on the following sub-questions:</p> <ul> <li>Q1. What opportunities to enact the components of the Problem-Solving Mathematical Standard are provided by the written curriculum? </li> <li>Q2. In what way does the teacher’s implementation of the quadratics unit diminish or enhance the opportunities to enact the components of the Problem-Solving Mathematical Standard provided by the written curriculum? </li> <li>Q3. In what ways does the teacher’s enactment of problem-solving opportunities change over the course of the unit? </li> </ul> <p>Reviewing the literature related to the relevant learning theories (sociocultural theory, the situated perspective, and communities of practice), I outlined the history of <i>CCSSM, </i>National Council of Teachers of Mathematics <i>(</i>NCTM), National Research Council (NRC), and the <i>No Child Left Behind Act of 2001</i>. Exploring the details of <i>CCSSM</i>’s Standards of Mathematical Content (SMCs) and Standards of Mathematical Practice (SMPs), I discussed problem solving, the Problem Solving Components (PSCs) listed in the Problem-Solving SMP of <i>CCSSM</i>, teaching through problem solving, and <i>Standards-</i>based curricula, such as <i>College Preparatory Mathematics (CPM)</i> which is the algebra curricula I chose for this study. </p> <p>There are many definitions of the construct problem solving. <i>CCSSM </i>describes this construct in unique ways specifically related to student engagement. The challenge for teachers is to not only make sense of <i>CCSSM</i>’s definition of problem solving and its components, but also to enact it in the classroom so that mathematical understanding is enhanced. For this reason, studies revealing how classroom teachers implemented <i>CCSSM</i>, especially in terms of problem solving, are necessary. </p> <p>The Critical Theoretic/Action Research Paradigm is often utilized by researchers trying to improve their own practice; thus, I opted for an action research methodology because it could be conducted by the practitioner. These methods of data collection and analysis were employed in order to capture the nature of changes made in the classroom involving my teaching practice. I chose action research because this study met the key tenets of research in action, namely, a collaborative partnership concurrent with action, and a problem-solving approach. </p> <p>While I knew how I wanted to change my classroom teaching style, implementing the change was harder than anticipated. From the onset, I never thought of myself as an absolute classroom authority, because I always maintained a relaxed classroom atmosphere where students were made to feel comfortable. However, this study showed me that students did view my presence as the authority and looked to me for correct answers, for approval, and/or for reassurance that they were on the right track. My own insecurities of not knowing how to respond to students in a way to get them to interact more with their group and stop looking to me for answers, while not being comfortable forcing students to talk in front of their peers, complicated this study. While it was easy to anticipate how I would handle situations in the classroom, it was hard to change in the moment. </p> <p>The research revealed the following salient findings: while the written curriculum contained numerous opportunities for students to engage with the Focal PSCs, the teacher plays a crucial role in enacting the written curriculum. Through the teacher’s enactment of this curriculum, opportunities for students to engage with the Focal<i> </i>PSCs can be taken away, enacted as written, or enhanced all by the teacher. Additionally, change was gradual and difficult due to the complexities of teaching. Reflection and constant adapting are crucial when it comes to changing my practice. </p> As a classroom teacher, I value the importance of the changes that need to be made in the classroom to align with <i>CCSSM</i>. I feel that by being both a teacher and a researcher, my work can bridge the gap between research and classroom practice.

Doctor of Education / Department of Educational Leadership / Gerald Bailey / The purpose of the study was to research, develop, and validate a step-by-step guide for museum and public school partnerships that wish to create motivational standards-based curriculum materials in high school social studies. Museum and Public School Partnerships: A Step-by-Step Guide for Creating Motivational Standards-Based Curriculum Materials in High School Social Studies was developed using the research and development methodology of Borg and Gall (1989). The research and development process used in this study included seven steps: 1) research analysis and proof of concept, 2) product planning and design, 3) preliminary product development, 4) preliminary field testing, 5) revision of the prototype, 6) main field testing, and 7) revision of the final product. A prototype of the guide was produced and then evaluated by museum and public school experts in the preliminary field test. Revisions were made to the guide based on their feedback. The guide was then distributed to practitioners in the main field test. The reviewers in the main field test were museum staff or high school history educators; or museum, curriculum, or technology directors in the United States. Feedback from the main field test was used to create the final product. Major conclusions of the study were: a) there was a lack of literature specifically for museum and public school partnerships that wished to create motivational standards-based curriculum materials for high school social studies, b) museum and public school personnel benefit from quality resource step-by-step guides, c) educational guides developed through research and development methodology offer museum and public school personnel practical and valuable products for improving education, d) a step-by-step guide is a useful tool when museums and public schools partner to create motivational standards-based curriculum materials for high school social studies, e) this study produced the first step-by-step guide for museums and public schools that wish to partner to create motivational standards-based curriculum materials for high school social studies.