# Mathematics Pedagogical Design Capacity from Planning through Teaching

## Abstract

As teachers prepare formathematics lessons they make instructional plans based on their knowledge andavailable resources. A teacher's capacity to mobile resources to design lessonsis known as his or her pedagogical design capacity. This study analyzes shiftsin the pedagogical design capacity of four teachers as they transition fromlesson planning to lesson implementation in the classroom. Results indicatethat teachers' pedagogical design capacities are reflected differently from thetime of lesson planning to the time of instructional delivery, with a shifttoward less curricular reliance during implementation. Findings indicate that teacherswould benefit from support to know how to make changes while teaching in waysthat will best support students' mathematical learning. Additional workfocusing on the role of context as related to pedagogical design capacity wouldprovide further insight for understanding teachers' abilities to use resourcesfor mathematics instruction.## References

Amador, J., & Lamberg, T. (2013). Learning trajectories, lesson planning, affordances, and constraints in

the design and enactment of mathematics teaching. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15, 146-170.

Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of

texts. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Beyer, C., & Davis, E. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining

the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96 (1), 130-157.

Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum

materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-36). New York: Routledge.

Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the

ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support

changes in practice? Research Report, Center for Learning Technologies in Urban

Schools (Northwestern University). http://www.letus.org/papers.htm

Chval, K., Reys, R., Reys, B., Tarr, J., & Chavez, O. (2006). Pressures to improve student

performance: A context that both urges and impedes school-based research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 158-166.

Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers' understanding and use of curriculum resources.

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 331-353.

Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of a

new mathematics curriculum: An application of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 157-176.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (Ed.),

Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). New York: Macmillan.

Cobb, P., McClain, K., Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional

practices in the institutional setting of the school and school district. Educational Researcher, 32, 13-24.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, E.A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C.T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical design

capacity through teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 797-810.

Everyday Mathematics Resource and Information Center. (2010). Retrieved June, 2010

from http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/.

Freeman, D., & Porter, A. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in

elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26, 403-421.

Land, T. (2011). Pedagogical design capacity for teaching elementary mathematics: A cross-case analysis of four teachers. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 12120. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/12120

Learning Things (2012). Retrieved from http://www.learningthings.com/ itemdesc.asp?ic=CD-0768232023.

McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2004). The critical role of institutional context in teacher development.

Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 281-288.

Pea, R. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 20, 167-182.

Remillard, J. (1992). Teaching mathematics for understanding: A fifth-grade teacher’s

interpretation of policy. The Elementary School Journal, 9, 189–193.

Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics

curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.

Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: investigating patterns in

teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41, 467-500.

Shield, M., & Dole, S. (2012). Assessing the potential of mathematics textbooks to promote deep

learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, Online First.

Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting mathematics curricula at scale.

American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663-693.

Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The

impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning

environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education, 39, 247-280.

Wartofsky, M. W. (1973). Perception, representation, and the forms of action: Towards a

historical epistemology. In M. Wartofsky (Ed.) Models: Representation and the Scientific Understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed). Los Angeles: Sage.