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.
