Abstract
In my work with teachers I have observed a phenomenon of profound and rapid changes in practice. A deeper look at this phenomenon has revealed that there are nuances to it that go beyond the nature of the change itself. In a significant number of these cases the phenomenon can be attributed more to the teachers’ classroom experiences than to their inservice education experiences. In this chapter, I first introduce these cases and then use them to argue for a change in perspective when thinking about, and working in, the professional development setting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
It should be noted that the main distinction between a methodology of noticing and a methodology of practitioner inquiry is that noticing does not presuppose a research question. It is a methodology of attending to the unfolding of the situation while being attuned to the occurrence of phenomena of interest.
- 2.
Rapid and profound are relative terms. What is rapid for one person is not for another. Likewise, what is profound for one is not for another. In general, a transformation is deemed to be profound if a teacher’s new practice is both visibly and invisibly different. That is, there are substantial differences evident from the perspective of an outside observer AND the teacher claims to have undergone a substantial change within how they view their teaching. In practice, this transformation is seen as being rapid if the bulk of the transformation occurs within a period of less than one month.
- 3.
The grounded theory approach that is used to spawn the six themes is not sufficient for analyzing the themes. At the same time, each theme, although not discrete, is distinct enough to be seen as its own phenomenon. As such, each theme is analyzed using the theoretical framework most relevant to its particular characteristics.
- 4.
In my research, I distinguish between cases and narratives. Although both generated in the tradition of narrative inquiry (Clandinin, 1992; Clandinin & Connelly, 1996) cases and narratives are written for different purposes. Narratives are written in the first person and are meant to capture some of the hidden aspects of a teacher’s practice such as beliefs, anxieties, intentions, and goals. These are deeply personal aspects and require close relationships and deep trust in order to be produced. Cases, on the other hand, are written in the third person and deal more with the visible aspects of teaching such as lesson routines and assessment schemes. They may also include personal aspects such as goals, but these are usually aspects that are freely given or espoused. In all cases, both narratives and cases are shared with participants as a way to both enrich the descriptions and confirm their validity.
References
Askew, M. (2008). Mathematical discipline knowledge requirements for prospective primary teachers, and the structure and teaching approaches of programs designed to develop that knowledge. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (pp. 13–35). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
Ball, D. L. (2002). What do we believe about teacher learning and how can we learn with and from our beliefs? In D. S. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th international conference for psychology of mathematics education – North American chapter. Athens, Georgia.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83–104). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C, & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 2005(Fall), 14–46.
Chapman, O. (2002). Belief structures and inservice high school mathematics teacher growth. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 177–194). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Clandinin, D. J. (1992). Narrative and story in teacher education. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching from classroom to reflection (pp. 124–137). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories – Stories of teachers – School stories – stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, and university culture. In J. Loughran, M. Hamilton, V. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of research of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 602–649). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Cooney, T. (1985). A beginning teacher’s view of problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(5), 324–336.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An ongoing investigation of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 293–319.
Delaney, S., Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Zopf, D. (2008). Mathematical Knowledge for teaching: Adapting U.S. measures for use in Ireland. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3,) 171–197.
Feiman-Nemser, S., McDiarmid, G., Melnick, S., & Parker, M. (1987). Changing beginning teachers’ conceptions: A description of an introductory teacher education course. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Greer, B. (2004). The growth of mathematics through conceptual restructuring. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 541–548.
Hill, H., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking “pedagogical content knowledge”: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.
Jasper, B., & Taube, S. (2004). Action research of elementary teachers’ problem-solving skills before and after focused professional development. Teacher Education and Practice, 17(3), 299–310.
Karaagac, K., & Threlfall, J. (2004). The tension between teacher beliefs and teacher practice: The impact of the work setting. Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 137–144.
Kazemi, E. (2008). School development as a means of improving mathematics teaching and learning: Towards multidirectional analysis of learning across contexts. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education (pp. 209–230). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (second edition, enlarged). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Leatham, K. (2006). Viewing mathematics teachers’ beliefs as sensible systems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(2), 91–102.
Leikin, R. (2006). Learning by teaching: The case of Sieve of Eratosthenes and one elementary school teacher. In R. Zazkis & S. Campbell (Eds.), Number theory in mathematics education: perspectives and prospects (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lerman, S., & Zehetmeir, S. (2008). Face-to-face communities and networks of practicing mathematics teachers: Studies on their professional growth. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education (pp. 133–153). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
Liljedahl, P. (in press). Changing beliefs as changing perspective. In Proceedings of the 6th congress of the European society for research in mathematics education. Lyon, France.
Liljedahl, P. (2008). Teachers’ insights into the relationship between beliefs and practice. Proceedings of the 14th international conference on mathematical views (MAVI). St. Wolfgang, Austria.
Liljedahl, P. (2007). Reification: Explicating teachers’ tacit knowledge and beliefs. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on mathematical views (MAVI). Gävle, Sweden.
Liljedahl, P., Chernoff, E., & Zazkis, R. (2007). Interweaving mathematics and pedagogy in Task Design: A tale of one task. Journal for Mathematics Teacher Education – Special Issue on the Role and Nature of Mathematics-Related Tasks for Teacher Education, 10(4–6), 239–249.
Liljedahl, P., Rolka, K., & Rösken, B. (2007). Affecting affect: The re-education of preservice teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and mathematics learning and teaching. In M. Strutchens & W. Martin (Eds.), 69th NCTM yearbook – The learning of mathematics (pp. 319–330). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ community of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917–946.
Little, J. W., & Horn, I. S. (2007). ‘Normalizing’ problems of practice: Converging routine conversation into a resource for learning in professional communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth, and dilemmas (pp. 79–92). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and the roles of professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on national standards in America (pp. 175–204). New York, NY: The College Board.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mason, J. (2006). What makes an example exemplary? Pedagogical and didactical issues in appreciating multiplicative structures. In R. Zazkis & S. Campbell (Eds.), Number theory in mathematics education: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 141–172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mason, J. (1994). Researching from the inside in mathematics education- locating an I-You relationship. In J. P. da Ponte and J. F. Matos (Eds), Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 269–283). Lisbon, Portugal: University of Lisbon.
McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2004). The critical role of institutional context in teacher development. Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 281–288.
Middleton, J. A., Sawada, D., Judson, E., Bloom, I., & Turley, J. (2002). Relationships build reform: Treating classroom research as emergent systems. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 409–431). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nickerson, S. (2008). Teams of practicing teachers: Developing teacher professionals. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education (pp. 89–109). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
Perrin-Glorian, M.-J., DeBlois, L., & Robert, A., (2008). Individual practising mathematics teachers: Studies on their professional growth. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education (pp. 35–59). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
Piaget, J. (1968). Six psychological studies, Anita Tenzer (Trans.), New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W., (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.
Skott, J. (2001). The emerging practices of novice teachers: The roles of his school mathematics images. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 3–28.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Stylianides, A. J., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Understanding and describing mathematical knowledge for teaching: Knowledge about proof for engaging students in the activity of proving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 307–332.
Sztajn, P. (2003). Adapting reform ideas in different mathematics classrooms: Beliefs beyond mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(1), 53–75.
Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2004). What can mathematics education gain from the conceptual change approach? And what can the conceptual change approach gain from its application to mathematics education? Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 535–540.
Vosniadou, S. (2006). Mathematics learning from a conceptual change point of view: Theoretical issues and educational implications. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of 30th Annual Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 163–165.
Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 445–451.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, S., & Cooney, T. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development: The role of beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 127–148). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liljedahl, P. (2010). On Rapid Professional Growth: Cases of Learning Through Teaching. In: Leikin, R., Zazkis, R. (eds) Learning Through Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Teacher Education, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3990-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3990-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3989-7
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3990-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)