Several years ago, I was working with a group of high school math teachers. Their assistant principal was impressed with their practice of sharing data from common assessments, assuming that they used these data to drive instruction. However, when I asked the teachers which data they used when teaching, they said that student work and questions during class were much more valuable. Apparently, people may interpret “data-driven instruction” differently. As a mathematics teacher, what data can you collect, and how can you use those data to improve instruction?
Margaret S. Smith
Building a trustworthy knowledge base for mathematics teacher education–the mission of Mathematics Teacher Educator–requires that manuscripts convey more than stories of practice, however compelling. Manuscripts must include evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention being described beyond anecdotal claims or personal intuitions. As the Editorial Panel articulated in the call for manuscripts, “the nature of evidence in a practitioner journal is different from that in a research journal, but evidence is still critically important to ensuring the scholarly nature of the journal. Thus, authors must go beyond simply describing innovations to providing evidence of their effectiveness. Note that effectiveness implies that something is better and not just different as a result of the innovation.” Hence, claims must be supported by evidence. In this editorial, I discuss the nature of evidence appropriate for articles in Mathematics Teacher Educator