This article was downloaded by: [Central U Library of Bucharest]

On: 11 March 2014, At: 05:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Teachers and Teaching: theory

and practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Teachers Conceptualizing
Student Achievement
Robert E. Stake
Published online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Robert E. Stake (2002) Teachers Conceptualizing Student

Achievement, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8:3, 303-312
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000459

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, Vol. 8, No. 3/4, 2002

Teachers Conceptualizing Student

Achievement

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

ROBERT E. STAKE

Although teachers vary widely in their perceptions of education, student

achievement, and methods of assessment, more than psychometricians and other people
they concentrate on student performance of tasks. To the teacher, grades are an indication
of successful acquisition of particular knowledge and an increase in skill. Achievement is
not thought of so much as enhancing a trait or increasing an ability, but as successfully
completing the task. They visualize the experience, more so than the competence. When
emphasis is given to standardizing curricula and testing, even though goals and standards
can be expressed as task performance, the technology of testing and school reform devises
indicators of success in terms of human ability. Ability is generalized; task performance is
particularized, contextualized. When the success of teaching or schooling is interpreted in
terms of test scores, the teacher is pressed to reconceptualize teaching and, directly or
indirectly, to teach for the test.
ABSTRACT

Introduction
Michael Huberman and his family lived in Cambridge, MA, USA, in 1991 95.
With a group of some 30 very special people, he and I worked on the American
side of an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (Paris) and
National Science Foundation (Washington, DC, USA) project identifying successful national science and mathematics education innovations around the world and
preparing case study reports of them. Under the direction of Senta Raizen, our
eight cases were published in 1997 under the title Bold Ventures (Raizen & Britton,
1997). Michael was the technical consultant for case study methods but also
worked with Sally Middlebrooks and James Karlan to prepare case studies on the
Voyage of the Mimi and the Kids Network. I worked with Douglas McLeod
studying the development of education standards by the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). It was a ne collection of chapters, subsequently unnoticed, needing perhaps something like the $400,000 the Council paid
a public relations rm to publicize its standards.
Michaels interest in the circumstances of teaching was deep and abiding. He
was particularly attentive to efforts made by those outside the classroom to
change the way a teacher teaches, including the National Science Foundation. One
of the circumstances he and I pondered was the sense in which teachers concepISSN 1354-0602 (print)/ISSN 1470-1278 (online)/02/03/040303-10
DOI: 10.1080 /13540600210000045 9

2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

304

R. E. Stake

tualized standards such as the NCTM Standards, and what they considered
evidence that standards were being met. The conversation at the time took place
against the background of innovations in mathematics and science instruction that
I already mentioned. In the present article, I will focus on the teaching of
mathematics, although similar points could be made about other school subject
matters. I take this opportunity to record my recollection of the meat of our
conversations about teacher perceptions, hoping that Michaels inspiration helps
me to incorporate his views.

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

The Teachers Conceptualization of Student Achievement

Experienced teachers have a particular way of looking at education, drawing

vigorously on their own behavior in the classroom (Doyle, 1979; Shavelson &
Stern, 1981). For example, they may think of students knowledge of trigonometry
in terms of the tasks they assign. They conceptualize knowledge and skill as the
knowledge and skill they teach. To be educated in mathematics, in this view, is to
have completed years of assignments and done well on the tasks included in
examinations.
I speak too generally. Teachers are not of one mind. They conceptualize
education in different ways. Some think more like epistemologists or curriculum
designers or psychometricians, but most of them, according to my eldwork,
think of education in terms of scholastic production. While they are well aware
that students learn much outside of school, these teachers tend to think the degree
to which they are educated is the degree to which they have succeeded in school
and college and further training.
Most experienced teachers have a far-reaching conceptualization, developed
over time, of the mix of ideas and behaviors that constitute a course. That
conceptualization is based on the teachers experience with such factors as:
The calendar and time allotments.
What topics should be covered.
The relationship and interdependence of topics.
The nuances and sub-classi cations of the topical eld.
Diverse applications of topics.
The relevance of topics to standardized testing.
Opportunities for enrichment and cooperative learning.
Nurturing independent thinking and self-directed learning.
Ways of increasing motivation and decreasing discouragement.
What will be the stumbling blocks.
How socialization and con ict pre-empt academics.
What experience and vitality the students will bring.
The expectations of students and parents and other teachers, and more.

Most teachers are far more able to teach sensitively in this complexity than they
are to describe it. To be an analyst of pedagogy is neither required nor evidence
of teaching competence. Drawing on a quarter century of classroom research

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

Teachers Conceptualizing Student Achievement

305

(Stake & Easley, 1979; Stake et al., 1993, 1997), I speak speci cally of the complexity of the teachers own perception of the teaching of mathematics. Some refer
to this perception as `psychological perception (Bruner, 1962) as opposed to
`sociological perception (Schrag, 1992) and to `logical structure (Ausubel, 1963).
Considerably more complex than psychological perception, the logical structure of
mathematical knowledge (Romberg, 1992) is the collective perception of mathematics education by experts in the NCTM and elsewhere.
Somewhere in the mind of each mathematics teacher is an evolving inventory
of topics to teach. Each topic alone can be as intricate as a tree, with bigger and
smaller branches, twigs and lacy buds and leaves, individually dispensable but
collectively vitalizing the tree. The parts are open to personal interpretation. Some
writers would use trunk and limbs to represent classi cations of goals, objectives,
chapters, and types of problems as structure for the emergent learning of mathematics. Others would use trunk and limbs to represent the relationship among
ideas. Still others would emphasize the connection of mathematics to experience
in academic disciplines and to preparation for such elds of work as accounting
and engineering. Whatever the theoretical representation, it is in actual teaching
that the teacher represents the categories, relationships and connections. More
than anything else, it is the teachers comprehension of subject matter as `manifest-in-action, content embedded in process, that distinguishes a teacher view of
mathematics achievement.
The inventory of mathematics to be taught is the practical epistemology of
education. Comprehensiveness and integrity of subject matter and topical evolution are not issues for most teachers. They are not reading John Dewey or Jean
Piaget or John von Neumann. Few mathematics teachers have a philosopher or
mathematician to chat with. For them, the authority of mathematics lies in syllabi,
textbooks, worksheets and tests each with its leaning toward simpli cation, and
each increasingly bent on raising achievement scores. But it is not all teach to the
test. Within a still vital autonomy existing in most classrooms, the complexity of
teaching survives. It draws from an ideology of mathematics education rmly
embedded in the minds of the teachers (Lundgren, 1979; Darling-Hammond, 1990;
Romberg, 1992).

The Establishment View of Student Achievement

The teachers view of mathematics education is not the of cial, establishmentarian
view. Of cial documents setting forth the purpose of schools focus on student
competencies. The competencies are de ned in the words of the psychologists of
three decades back who touted behavioral objectives. In the US today, state
departments of education and school districts continue to reify documents identifying such of cially approved academic goals. The Georgia Board of Education,
for example, adopted student goal statements that identify the skills and attitudes
that a graduate of Georgias educational system should have achieved in school.
State board members testi ed that instructional programs in the public schools

306

R. E. Stake

should provide each individual with opportunities to develop abilities so that

he/she:

communicates effectively
uses essential mathematics skills
recognizes the need for lifelong learning
has the background to begin career pursuits
participates as a citizen in our democratic system, etc.

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

When I studied it, the mathematics section of the Georgias Quality Core Curriculum consisted of `objectives relating to concepts, process skills and problem
solving at each grade level, kindergarten through eighth. In Grades 9 12, objectives are given for each mathematics course. Mathematics began and continues to
be a way of organizing ones world, through the study of quantity and space, their
properties and the relationship[s] within and between these concepts. Mathematics is rst experienced as a language created to describe the world, accompanied
by rules that govern its use. In Georgia, Algebra I was to explore Topics/
Concepts such as:
E. Polynomials
13. Identi es polynomial expressions.
14. Adds and subtracts polynomials.
15. Uses of laws of exponents necessary to perform polynomial operations, etc.
In this way, of cial curricular statements identify content and behaviors, representing mathematics education in language that is more rule-based, that are more
general and abstract than does the teacher.
Conceptualization of Student Achievement by the Psychometrician [1]
Experienced test makers have a particular way of looking at education, through
their conceptualization of traits and abilities. Knowledge of trigonometry, for
example, they see in terms of the abilities of students. The purpose of the test is
to measure the ability of a student to solve trigonometric tasks. These are more or
less the same tasks the teacher thinks of when conceptualizing the nature of an
education, but the psychometrician sees them less as representing a sector of the
domain of mathematics teaching and more as a sampling of students scholastic
ability. For the teacher, each subtopic or task is an important acquisition, not
interchangeable with others. A good sampling of topics gives face validity and
makes consumers happy. But for the test maker, mathematics achievement is a
homogeneous construct. If half the domain called Trigonometry were transferred
to Vector Science, the psychometrician would not presume that a different test
necessarily would be needed.
I speak too generally. Like teachers, test makers are not of one mind. They
conceptualize education in different ways. Some think more like epistemologists
or curriculum designers or teachers, but many of them think of education in terms
of scholastic aptitudes. They are well aware that students learn diversi ed content

Teachers Conceptualizing Student Achievement

1. 20 3 1.8 1

32 5 ?

2. (1/5)(20)(9) 1
3.

23

4. y 5

20 3
10

307

9
1

32 5

32 5 ?

1.8x 1 32. Solve for y if x 5

5. Convert 20C to Fahrenheit . F 5

20.
(9/5)C 1 32.

6. Convert 20C to Fahrenheit . C 5 (5/9)(F 2

32).

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

7. Ann wants to know todays temperature on the Fahrenheit scale. Her thermometer reades 20
degrees Celsius. What is the Fahrenheit temperature?
FIG. 1. A family of seven mathematical tasks.

in school, but test makers tend to think that the degree to which a person is
educated is the degree to which he/she has maximized a potential for further
learning.
Seven mathematics tasks are shown in Fig. 1. To a test maker, these tasks are
points on a single scale; differing only in dif culty. To a teacher, each of the tasks
requires separate knowledge. Across a large group of students, the statistical
correlation among the seven would run high but each task requires its own
understanding of operations. The mathematics teacher provides instruction on
each task. Getting any six of the items right does not assure getting the seventh
right. To a teacher, mathematics achievement is not just getting the best score on
the test; it is understanding and performing the work.
These seven tasks cut across several content domains (Hively et al., 1973), yet a
teacher might include all of them within a single lesson, within a single objective,
or refer the solution of each to a single page of textbook. Each task is unique, a
special variation on the others. Each will be more or less well understood by
students and thus more or less dif cult. Although different in form, they belong
to a family. The family is not de ned by mathematical operations as much as by
the practical problem of dealing with two temperature scales, Celsius and Fahrenheit. To a teacher, all seven need teaching and testing. To a test specialist, any one
of them is mathematical enough.

Representing Student Achievement.

Like all people, teachers use simple representations. Their course outlines and
lesson plans brie y list topics and activities. To satisfy the requirements of
administrators or to talk to visiting parents, they sometimes refer to lists of
objectives such as those for the State of Georgia. But in thinking about how and
what they will be teaching, teachers work at a much higher level of speci city and
complexity.
Within mathematics education, as within all of education, there is far more

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

308

R. E. Stake

FIG. 2. A map of mathematics education content.

interweaving and interdependence of meaning than is apparent in a test score or

on a list or on a `content by behavior grid (Wilson, 1971, p. 646). What if we tried
to represent the similarity of mathematics topics as a function of distance, where
close together means similar? The map in Fig. 2 is one such representation. It
could refer to the knowledge of a single student, the achievement of a group of
students, or the logical structure of the eld. Here, the topics of trigonometry are
closer to geometry than to arithmetic. If we had more detail, we would expect to
see `percentages lying closer to `fractions than to `probability. Many equally
good maps of this content could be presented. A two-dimensional map raises
many good questions but, for providing insight into the relationships of mathematical domains, turns out to be almost as unsatisfying as a list. The relationships overwhelm the mapping.
When we analyze what a teacher is doing, we nd topics and activities
connected in logical ways as if all were mapped there in the teachers mind. When
we ask for it, the teacher cannot produce the map beyond certain points that
indicate what teaching ts where. Indirectly more than directly, the teacher has
transformed complex epistemological relationships into course schedule with
on-the-spot responsiveness. When we analyze the thrust, we nd the teaching is
not aimed at developing some general mathematical ability, but at developing
speci c topics and skills for solving speci c kinds of problems. The inventory is
the tacit map by which the pursuit of knowledge is rationalized.
Mathematics teachers require students to perform tasks. They allocate great
blocks of time to operations and exercise work. Their conceptualization of
mathematics teaching is process oriented more than outcomes oriented. The
teachers strive for high-quality experience, immersion in the topic, honing of the

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

Teachers Conceptualizing Student Achievement

309

FIG. 3. An impressionistic representation of a teacher s approach to teaching the Pythagorean

Theorem.

particular solution. Few mathematics teachers start with thinking about how to
make children `numerate or (until harassed) how to get better scores on an
achievement test. Their rst aim is to help children gain command of a far-reaching, little-told inventory of subject matter, outlined perhaps as the NCTM proposed but extending to a network of detail, which itself as salient as the major
classi cations.
How does a teacher of 11 year olds approach the lesson? Figure 3 is my
impressionistic representation of choices made by a teacher as to what to teach
tomorrow about the Pythagorean Theorem [2]. The topic is identi ed in the states
list of learner objectives, in the district curriculum guide and in the textbook the
teacher is using. To a degree, the textbook author de nes what will be taught but,
especially in recitation (Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Darling-Hammond, 1990), the
teacher modi es course content to t the situation, noting especially the frame of

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

310

R. E. Stake

mind of the students. Re ecting on the many topics pertinent to the course
(Topography A, bottom of Fig. 3), the teacher considers the acts of teaching in
terms of facts, concepts, relationships, and applications of the Pythagorean Theorem. Distribution B represents a closer look at what is most relevant for these
particular students (of course, it will be different for each child). The teacher
draws elements from several knowledge bases (Circles C, D, and E) to obtain a
small selection to teach (Plate F) and then, re ecting on previous exchanges in
class, thinks about learning dif culty (Cylinder G) and imagines herself/himself
serving up the content (Tray H) for this class. The teacher anticipates a small
presentation with graphics, reading, seatwork and homework. When this occurs,
ideas are modi ed while the conversations of instruction go on. The process is
shaped, of course, by the teachers overall conceptualization of mathematics
education (Lampert, 1988; Easley & Easley, 1992).
Figures 2 and 3 are simplistic, but not really more so than of my earlier lists of
classroom conditions and state goals. Graphic technology to represent pedagogy
and epistemology is not highly developed [3]. Classi cation systems and contentskill grids are common in district-level curriculum of ces but there are few
devices to represent conceptual links between topics and potentially to guide
pedagogical moves from one content to another. Yet, just as ancient travelers
reached destinations before there were maps, teachers teach without them. Intuitively, good teachers merge topical paths, capitalize on personal experience, and
draw out and preserve the youngsters line of thought.
The differences among conceptualization of student achievement by teachers,
authorities, and test makers provide insight into current dif culties of using
standardized testing for school reform. A teacher does think about a panoply of
tasks and a panoply of student competencies, but translating one into the other is
neither easy nor common. Teachers pay little attention to performance on individual test items (tasks) because, lacking diagnostic validity, such tasks give little
guidance to instruction. They were chosen because they discriminated among
students with high and low aptitudes, not because they indicate the most critical
learning content. Teachers see the authorities pressing for recognition of their
matrices of competency because the competencies are more closely linked to the
tested aptitudes [4], but the teachers have an enormous investment in conceptualizing the tasks to be taught, some of which must be cut if the teacher maximizes
adherence to the syllabus and readiness for the tests.
Recalling conversations with Michael, I have described the teaching and learning of mathematics as intricately detailed. Other subjects have different conceptual
structures, no less intricate. From their words and activities in the classroom and
in long unstructured interviews, I have found that teachers conceptualization of
student achievement greatly in uences their planning, instructional strategy, and
assessments. Although the writings of subject matter specialists, school district
syllabi, textbooks and tests can be claimed to be built on more powerful epistemological structures, these formal conceptualizations of education fail to identify
many characteristics of achievement important to teachers for whom it is important to visualize the tasks taught and learned.

Teachers Conceptualizing Student Achievement

311

Notes
[1]

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

[2]

[3]

[4]

Testing, broadly considered, is the presentation of certain tasks with responses judged as
right and wrong or above and below criterion. Both teacher-made and psychometric
achievement testing extrude student performances to be interpreted in summary as above
or below those of other students. The standardize d test score indicates an absolute score
on a pedagogically uninteresting selection of tasks, but a powerful indicator of the
students relative standing among other examinees. The test is not intended to be
diagnostic. The score is taken as an index of achievement, a datum, a bit of information.
For most people, testing is seen mainly as information gathering, but the limits of that
information are not widely known (Stake, 1995).
Figure 3 is not a research nding, it is merely a euphemism, a view representing what
experienced teachers have appeared to do in my observation. When asked, they seldom
claim to be involved in such detailed analysis. And yet such operations can be observed.
The point again is that the intuitive working of teaching is highly complex with far
greater texture than the goals stated by the state or district.
Some of the best works to date are Driver (1973), Gowin (1990), Jonassen (1982), Sato
(1991) and School Mathematics Study Group (1961). These works analyze either instruction, epistemology or cognitive development; they do not adapt nicely to the `conversational exchanges of classrooms.
Many of the tests are labeled as achievement tests and they have a patina of curricular
language, but they attain a high discriminatio n quotient by being good indicators of
scholastic aptitude. They indicate who is good at taking tests and they predict who will
be good at taking tests in the future (Stake, 2001).

References
AUSUBEL, D. P. (1963) Some psychological aspects of the structure of Knowledge. Paper presented at
the Fifth Phi Delta Kappa Symposium on Educational Research, University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL, 4 5 November.
BRUNER, J. (1962) On Knowing: essays for the left hand (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press,
Belknap).
DARLING-HAMMOND, L. (1990) Achieving our goals: super cial or structural reforms, Phi Delta
Kappan, 72(4), pp. 286 295.
DOYLE, W. (1979) Classroom tasks and student abilities, in: P. L. PETERSON & H. WALBERG (Eds)
Research on Teaching (Berkeley, CA, McCutcheon).
DRIVER, R. (1973) The representatio n of conceptual frameworks in young adolescent science
students. Unpublished dissertation (Urbana, IL, University of Illinois).
EASLEY JR., J. A. & EASLEY, E. (1992) Changing the teaching of mathematics, in: R. WALKER (Ed.)
Elementary Classrooms, Series on Classroom Research (Geelong, Deakin University).
GOWIN, R. (1990) Epistemic elements in evaluation research, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 16,
pp. 319 333.
H IVELY II, W., MAXWELL, G., RABEHL, G., SENSION, D. & LUNDIN, S. (1973) Domain-referenced
curriculum evaluation: a technical handbook and a case study from the Minnemast
Project, CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, 1 (Los Angeles, CA, Center for the Study of
Evaluation, UCLA).
JONASSEN , D. H. (Ed.) (1982) The Technology of Text (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Educational Technology Publications).
LAMPERT, M. (1988). Connecting mathematics teaching and learning, in: E. FENNEMA, T. P.
CARPENTER & S. J. LAMON (Eds) Integrating Research on Teaching and Learning Mathematics
(Madison, WI, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research).

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 05:14 11 March 2014

312

R. E. Stake

LUNDGREN, U. P. (1979) Background: the conceptual framework, in U. P. LUNDGREN & S.

PWETTERSSON (Eds) Studies in curriculum theory and cultural reproduction, Vol. 3: Code,
context, and curriculum processes (pp. 5 35) (Stockholm, Stockholm Institute of Education).
RAIZEN, S. A. & BRITTON, E. D. (Eds) (1997) Bold Ventures (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers).
ROMBERG, T. A. (1992) Problematic features of the school mathematics curriculum, in: P. W.
JACKSON (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum (New York, Macmillan).
SATO, T. (1991) Development of Instructional Materials in NEC Technical College: concepts and
practices (Tokyo, NEC Corporation).
SCHOOL MATHEMATICS STUDY GROUP (1961) First Course in Algebra: Units 9 and 10 (New Haven,
CT, Yale University Press).
SHAVELSON, R. L. & STERN, P. (1981) Research on teachers pedagogical thoughts, judgments,
decisions and behavior, Review of Research in Education, 3, pp. 268 301.
SCHRAG, F. (1992) Conceptions of knowledge, in: P. W. JACKSON (Ed.) Handbook of Research on
Curriculum (New York, Macmillan).
STAKE, R. E. (1995) The invalidity of standardized testing for measuring mathematics achievement, in T. A. ROMBERG (Ed.) Reform in School Mathematics and Authentic Assessment
(Albany, NY, SUNY Press).
STAKE, R. E. (2001) Substituting aptitude testing for measurement of human accomplishment.
Unpublished paper (Urbana, IL, CIRCE, University of Illinois).
STAKE, R. E. & EASLEY, J. A. (1979) Case Studies in Science Education (Urbana, IL, CIRCE,
University of Illinois).
STAKE, R. E., BURKE, M., FLORES, C. A., WHITAKER, M. & IRIZARRY , K. (1993) Renewal and Transformation (Urbana, IL, CIRCE, University of Illinois).
STAKE, R. E., RATHS, J., ST JOHN, M., TRUMBULL, D., JENNESS, D., FOSTER, M., SULLIVAN, S., DENNY, T.
& EASLEY, J. (1997) Teacher Preparation Archives: case studies of middle school science and
mathematics teacher preparation projects (Urbana, IL, CIRCE, University of Illinois).
WILSON, J. W. (1971) Evaluation of learning in secondary school mathematics, in: B. BLOOM, T.
HASTINGS, J. THOMAS & G. MADAUS (Eds) Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation
of Student Learning (pp. 645 696) (New York, McGraw Hill).