The Teacher as a Lesson Designer
Keywords:
mathematics teacher, pedagogical design capacity, curriculum resources, teaching/learning process, teaching/learning mathematics
Abstract
Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity is their ability to perceive and mobilise existing resources to create productive instructional episodes in the classroom. To a certain extent, this ability is dependent on the curricular resource used. As the textbook remains the most commonly used curricular resource in mathematics classrooms, the study reported in this paper investigates how and why one experienced mathematics teacher utilises the textbook. Data were gathered using lesson observations, as well as pre-lesson and post-lesson interviews. The teacher used offloading on the textbook, adapting the textbook content and improvising in the lessons to varying degrees, being aware of the affordances and constraints that the textbook has for her teaching practice. That approach to the textbook enabled the teacher to create various opportunities that enhance learning. The results of the study indicate that the mathematics teacher’s awareness of what a particular resource offers for teaching practice, and what constraints could be encountered on this journey are significant in terms of the teacher’s design capacity.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is or might be the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14.
Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, M., & Edelson, D. C. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? Evanston, IL: The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 331–353.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 633–646.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013). Collective work with resources: An essential dimension for teacher documentation. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 1003–1016.
Glasnović Gracin, D. (2011). Requirements in mathematics textbooks and PISA assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Klagenfurt: University of Klagenfurt.
Glasnović Gracin, D., & Jukić Matić, Lj. (2016). The role of mathematics textbooks in lower secondary education in Croatia: An empirical study. The Mathematics Educator, 16(2), 29–56.
Goetz, J. P., & Le Compte M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. London, UK: Academic Press.
Huizinga, T. (2014). Developing curriculum design expertise through teacher design teams (Doctoral dissertation). Enschede: University of Twente. doi: 10.3990/1.9789036537698
Johansson, M. (2006). Teaching mathematics with textbooks. A classroom and curricular perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Luleå: Luleå University of Technology.
Jukić Matić, L., & Glasnović Gracin, D. (2015). How Croatian mathematics teachers organize their teaching: Differences according to the initial education. In Z. Kolar-Begović, R. Kolar-Å uper, & I. ÄurÄ‘ević Babić (Eds.), Higher goals in mathematics education, (pp. 303–317). Osijek: Element.
Klinshtern, M., Koichu, B., & Berman, A. (2015). What do high school teachers mean by saying ‘I pose my own problems’? In F. M. Singer, N. Ellertonm, & J. Cai (Eds.), Problem posing: From research to effective practice (pp. 449–467). New York, NY: Springer.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London, UK: Sage Publication.
Leshota, M. (2015). The relationship between textbook affordances and mathematics' teachers' pedagogical design capacity (Doctoral dissertation). Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Retrieved from http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/18211
Love, E., & Pimm, D. (1996). This is so: A text on texts. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 371–409). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pepin, B. (2015). Enhancing mathematics/STEM education: a ‘resourceful’ approach. Inaugural lecture, 27 November 2015. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Re-sourcing teachers’ work and interactions: a collective perspective on resources, their use and transformation. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 929–943.
Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: A way to understand teaching and learning cultures. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 33(5), 158–175.
Rabardel, P. (2002). People and technology: A cognitive approach to contemporary instruments. Paris: Université Paris. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01020705
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
Remillard, J. (2016). Teachers' design decisions and the role of instructional resources. International Congress on Mathematics Education. Hamburg: Germany, doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2491.6726
Shield, M. J., & Dole, S. (2013). Assessing the potential of mathematics textbooks to promote deep learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 183–199.
Thomson, S., & Fleming, N. (2004). Summing it up: Mathematics achievement in Australian schools in TIMSS 2002. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book. Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, M., & Edelson, D. C. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? Evanston, IL: The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363–401). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 331–353.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 633–646.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013). Collective work with resources: An essential dimension for teacher documentation. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 1003–1016.
Glasnović Gracin, D. (2011). Requirements in mathematics textbooks and PISA assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Klagenfurt: University of Klagenfurt.
Glasnović Gracin, D., & Jukić Matić, Lj. (2016). The role of mathematics textbooks in lower secondary education in Croatia: An empirical study. The Mathematics Educator, 16(2), 29–56.
Goetz, J. P., & Le Compte M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. London, UK: Academic Press.
Huizinga, T. (2014). Developing curriculum design expertise through teacher design teams (Doctoral dissertation). Enschede: University of Twente. doi: 10.3990/1.9789036537698
Johansson, M. (2006). Teaching mathematics with textbooks. A classroom and curricular perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Luleå: Luleå University of Technology.
Jukić Matić, L., & Glasnović Gracin, D. (2015). How Croatian mathematics teachers organize their teaching: Differences according to the initial education. In Z. Kolar-Begović, R. Kolar-Å uper, & I. ÄurÄ‘ević Babić (Eds.), Higher goals in mathematics education, (pp. 303–317). Osijek: Element.
Klinshtern, M., Koichu, B., & Berman, A. (2015). What do high school teachers mean by saying ‘I pose my own problems’? In F. M. Singer, N. Ellertonm, & J. Cai (Eds.), Problem posing: From research to effective practice (pp. 449–467). New York, NY: Springer.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London, UK: Sage Publication.
Leshota, M. (2015). The relationship between textbook affordances and mathematics' teachers' pedagogical design capacity (Doctoral dissertation). Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Retrieved from http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/18211
Love, E., & Pimm, D. (1996). This is so: A text on texts. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 371–409). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pepin, B. (2015). Enhancing mathematics/STEM education: a ‘resourceful’ approach. Inaugural lecture, 27 November 2015. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Re-sourcing teachers’ work and interactions: a collective perspective on resources, their use and transformation. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 929–943.
Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: A way to understand teaching and learning cultures. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 33(5), 158–175.
Rabardel, P. (2002). People and technology: A cognitive approach to contemporary instruments. Paris: Université Paris. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01020705
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
Remillard, J. (2016). Teachers' design decisions and the role of instructional resources. International Congress on Mathematics Education. Hamburg: Germany, doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2491.6726
Shield, M. J., & Dole, S. (2013). Assessing the potential of mathematics textbooks to promote deep learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 183–199.
Thomson, S., & Fleming, N. (2004). Summing it up: Mathematics achievement in Australian schools in TIMSS 2002. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book. Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Published
2019-06-21
How to Cite
Jukić Matić, L. (2019). The Teacher as a Lesson Designer. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 9(2), 139-160. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.722
Section
VARIA
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
