The implementation of National Educational Standards in Germany has great implications for individual teaching. Although assessment and improvement of students´ achievement are global objectives of the standards, the teachers initially must accept these innovations. At the classroom level, the concept of competence orientation is seen as a necessary teaching and learning culture to reach the desired output standards. Helmke (2008) describes competence orientation as teaching that focuses on the required competencies in the standards. But as Oelkers and Reusser (2008) elaborate, teachers must be open minded for such an educational innovation like the standards and need to understand their intention. Furthermore, Köller (2008) emphasizes the need for didactical and content-related models for a standards-based classroom instruction. The competency model for mathematics includes six general mathematical competencies required at the primary and lower secondary levels (use of arguments, problem solving, modeling, use of mathematical representations, dealing with symbolic, formal and technical elements, and communication). A transfer of these competencies to inter-national assessments concludes that German students perform at average in the area of mathematical representations and dealing with symbolic, formal and technical elements. This shows a deficit for the other competencies, especially for mathematical problem solving, use of arguments, and modelling (Hessisches Kultusministerium, 2008). From 2007-09, the Institute for Educational Progress (IEP) initiated a project with an experimental design, to implement the Educational Standards in the domain of mathematics. Using quantitative instruments, we investigated the changing processes of teachers and students longitudinally around a teacher training program (see Pöhlmann et al., 2009). The intervention was conceptualized as part of the teachers’ professional development and focuses on class developmental elements regarding competence-orientated teaching. One of the goals was to increase the cooperation within the subject-specific teams. We concentrated on the following research questions: Which developments towards an educational innovation could be determined for the teachers? Is there a change in teaching due to the intervention? Do students recognize the change in teaching towards competence orientation and does this affect their performance? To answer these questions, we surveyed teachers as well as students. In addition, the ninth graders (1st assessment) and later tenth graders (4th assessment) had to fulfil a standards-based test in mathematics with each survey. In the first year we introduced the intervention in nine schools, with an attrition rate of two schools after one year. The remaining seven schools participated in the second project year. To investigate the effects of the intervention, we tested another eight schools as a control group. Altogether data of two cohorts of students and their teachers were analyzed. Because of student graduation, students were divided into two cohorts, whereas the teams of teachers remained in one.

One of the instruments for the teachers was a questionnaire by Hall and Hord (2006), which focuses on the implementation of the innovation in schools. To measure teaching practice, we gathered data from both teachers and students on the frequencies of initiating competence-orientated activities for all six mathematical competencies. Each competence is exercised through four items and involves mathematical activities during lesson.

We found that schools changed their profiles from that of self-related concerns to one that focuses on students and colleagues. The results will be presented by group design (intervention versus control group) as well as by school level. Towards the questionnaire for measuring teaching practice, the results show a different awareness of students and their teachers about the activities in class. The students and teachers in the test group report more competence orientation in their mathematical classes. However, the study shows no significant association between the tested teaching practices and improved achievement in students. The results of two project years will be compared and critically discussed with a focus on the second year.