@article{65645,
  abstract     = {{<jats:p xml:lang="en">Curriculum material is often designed to address content-specific intended learning goals. However, research indicates that teachers’ personal goals may cause misalignments between their implementation of curriculum material and its intended learning goals. This study aims to investigate misalignments between teachers’ implementation of curriculum material and its intended learning goals and to which extent they are caused by teachers’ personal goals. To reach this aim, a qualitative study was conducted to examine how eight vocational school teachers implemented the learning activity “How many?” suggested for the initial training of early childhood educators on the topic of set perception and determination of cardinality. Each participant provided a lesson plan and self-recorded lesson video on the topic of set perception and determination of cardinality. In addition, participants were interviewed on how they used the provided curriculum material for designing their lessons and their potential reasons to adapt or omit “How many?”. To evaluate their lesson design’s alignment with the activity’s intended learning goals, the participants' lesson plans were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Triangulation of the findings with the interview data revealed that only one participant fully adopted the intended learning goals as her own and implemented the activity completely in line with its intended learning goals. Meanwhile, the remaining participants’ personal goals, such as reducing math anxiety, seemed to cause misalignments regarding the intended learning goals. The study's results detail further constraints and affordances to the alignment between teachers’ lesson designs and learning goals intended by curriculum material. It is followed that it is central to support teachers in adopting intended learning goals as their personal goals. Otherwise, teachers’ classroom implementation of curriculum material may not suffice to reach desired outcomes.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Richter, Alix and Bruns, Julia}},
  issn         = {{1306-3030}},
  journal      = {{International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education}},
  number       = {{2}},
  publisher    = {{Modestum Ltd}},
  title        = {{{All a question of the goal? Re-tracing (mis)alignments between teachers’ implementations of curriculum material and intended learning goals in the context of early childhood educator training in Germany}}},
  doi          = {{10.29333/iejme/18564}},
  volume       = {{21}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}

@article{61518,
  abstract     = {{<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>
          <jats:p>Teacher professional development (TPD) is a crucial support mechanism for mathematics teachers. Strategies for implementing TPD include disseminating educative curriculum materials or conducting TPD courses. However, it remains unclear whether different implementations of the same TPD support mathematics teachers in distinct ways. This study investigated two implementations of the TPD <jats:italic>EmMa-FS</jats:italic> which focuses early mathematics education (EME) for German vocational school (VS) teachers who instruct prospective early childhood (EC) educators. One group of teachers received an in-person TPD course along with educative curriculum materials (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic>
            <jats:sub>
              <jats:italic>PM</jats:italic>
            </jats:sub> = 26), whereas the other received only the educative curriculum materials (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic>
            <jats:sub>
              <jats:italic>M</jats:italic>
            </jats:sub> = 15). The effects on VS teachers’ beliefs and knowledge concerning EME were examined using a <jats:italic>t</jats:italic>-test and repeated measures ANOVA. To assess how teachers in the different implementation groups made use of the TPD in their lesson planning, participants submitted hypothetical lesson sequences on early numeracy, which were analysed for instructional quality, covered content, and the visible implementation of the provided educative curriculum materials using qualitative content analysis. The results indicated that both TPD implementations positively affected VS teachers’ knowledge related to EME but not their beliefs. While the instructional quality of the lesson sequences varied across both groups, participants who received the TPD course appeared to use the educative curriculum materials more often and to cover more content.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Richter, Alix and Bruns, Julia and Gasteiger, Hedwig}},
  issn         = {{0173-5322}},
  journal      = {{Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik}},
  number       = {{1}},
  publisher    = {{Springer Science and Business Media LLC}},
  title        = {{{Interaction- or Material-Centred Implementation of Teacher Professional Development: a Comparison of Teachers’ Competence Development and Potential Lesson Planning Lehrkräftefortbildung interaktions- oder materialzentriert implementieren: Ein Vergleich hinsichtlich der Kompetenzentwicklung sowie der potentiellen Unterrichtsplanung von Lehrkräften}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s13138-025-00259-7}},
  volume       = {{46}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}