Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 685–698 | Cite as

Investigating textbooks as crucial interfaces between culture, policy and teacher curricular practice: two contrasted case studies in France and Norway

  • B. PepinEmail author
  • G. Gueudet
  • L. Trouche
Original Article

Abstract

This paper reports on an investigation of mathematics curriculum documents, commonly used textbooks and teacher ‘curricular practice’ with respect to educational traditions in France and Norway. The study has helped to develop a deeper understanding of (1) educational traditions in France and Norway; (2) the ways the educational traditions permeate the system, from policy documents through textbooks into the classroom; and (3) the connections between the worlds of policy, textbooks and teacher curricular practice in mathematics. Results show that French and Norwegian curricular documents and practices were influenced by egalitarian values, albeit differently interpreted and ‘lived’ in each country. In terms of mathematics, using a focus on grade 6 geometric transformations has shown that French textbooks and teacher curricular practices emphasized theoretical properties and mathematical reasoning, whereas the Norwegian counterparts stressed practical and inquiry-based activities. It is argued that mathematics textbooks can be regarded as a crucial interface between culture, policy and curricular practice, and as a pivotal resource in teachers’ resource system for curricular practice, even in times of digitization.

Keywords

Textbooks Curriculum Curricular practice Educational and cultural traditions Intended and enacted curriculum 

References

  1. Sesamath: Sesamath 6ème. http://www.sesamath.net. Accessed 15 July 2013.
  2. Alseth, B., Nordberg, G., & Roesseland, M. (2007). Multi 6a and 6b. Grunnbok: Gyldendal NorskForslag.Google Scholar
  3. Bakke, B., & Bakke, I. N. (2006). Grunntall (6a and 6b) Matematikk for barnetrinnet. Oslo: Elektronisk Undervisningsforslag AS.Google Scholar
  4. Braathe, H. J. (2012). Discursive positioning in Norwegian teacher education: Shifting from cross-curricularity to skill-based subject specialisation. International Journal of Educational Research, 55, 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brändström, A. (2005). Differentiated tasks in mathematics textbooks – an analysis of the levels of difficulty. Luleå, Sweden: Universitetstryckeriot, Licentiate Thesis at Luleå University of Technology, Department of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  6. Bueno-Ravel, L., Gueudet, G., & Poisard, C. (2009). Exerciseurs au premier degré, au-delà de l’entraînement! MathemaTICE, 17. http://revue.sesamath.net/spip.php?article238. Accessed 15 July 2013.
  7. Chapiron, G., Mante, M., Mulet-Marquis, R., & Pérotin, C. (2009). Triangle 6ème. Paris: Hatier.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, D. J., Keitel, C., & Shimizu, Y. (Eds.). (2006). Mathematics classrooms in twelve countries: The insider’s perspective. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Core Curriculum-CC: The Royal Ministry of Education. (1997). Core curriculum—For primary, secondary and adult education in Norway. Oslo: Norwegian Board of Education.Google Scholar
  10. Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and U.S. mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. Grenier, D., & Laborde, C. (1988). Transformations géométriques: le cas de la symétrie orthogonale. In G. Vergnaud, G. Brousseau & M. Hulin (Eds.), Didactique et acquisition des connaissances scientifiques. Actes du Colloque de Sèvres mai 1987 (pp. 65–86). Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
  13. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2012). Mathematics curriculum material and teacher development: From text to ‘lived’ resources. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013a). Collective documentation work—An essential dimension for teacher resources and professional development. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7).Google Scholar
  15. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013b). Textbooks design and digital resources. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Designing and using tasks for learning mathematics. 22nd ICMI study, Oxford, July 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study (NCES 2003-013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  19. Johannsson, M. (2003). Textbooks in mathematics education—A study of textbooks as the potentially implemented curriculum. Luleå: Universitetstryckeriot, Licentiate Thesis at Luleå University of Technology, Department of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  20. Kaiser, G. (2002). Educational philosophies and their influence on mathematics education: an ethnographic study in English and German mathematics classrooms. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(6), 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaiser, G., Hino, K., & Knipping, C. (2006). Proposal for a framework to analyse mathematics education in Eastern and Western traditions—Looking at England, France, Germany and Japan. In F. K. S. Leung, K. D. Graf & F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditionsA comparative study of East Asia and the West (pp. 319–351). The 13th ICMI Study, Vol. 9. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Kansanen, P., & Pepin, B. (2005). Historic and comparative perspectives on Didaktik. In S. Ongstad, B. Hudson, B. Pepin, G. Imsen & P. Kansanen (Eds.), Didaktik and mathematics education. Comparative and communicational perspectives (pp. 28–49). Oslo: Oslo University College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Knipping, C. (2003). Learning from comparing: A review and reflection on qualitative oriented comparisons of teaching and learning mathematics in different countries. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 35(6), 282–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kunnskapsløftet-KL 06: Ministry of Education. (2006). Læreplanverket for Kunnskapsløftet. Departementet: Oslo.Google Scholar
  25. McLean, M. (1990). Britain and the single market Europe. London: Kogan Page in association with the Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
  26. Ministère de l’Éducation nationale (2008). Programmes du collegeProgrammes de l’enseignement de mathematiques. Bulletin officiel spécial n°6 du 28 août 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Morgan, C. (2005). Word, definitions and concepts in discourses of mathematics teaching and learning. Language and Education, 19(2), 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pepin, B. (1999). The influence of national cultural traditions on pedagogy: Classroom practices in England, France and Germany. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy (pp. 124–139). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Pepin, B. (2009). The role of textbooks in the ‘figured world’ of English, French and German classrooms—A comparative perspective. In L. Black, H. Mendick, & Y. Solomon (Eds.), Mathematical relationships: Identities and participation (pp. 107–118). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rezat, S. (2012). Interactions of teachers’ and students’ use of mathematics textbooks. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum material and teacher development: From text to ‘lived’ resources (pp. 231–246). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Schmidt, W. H. (2012). Measuring content through textbooks: The cumulative effect of middle-school tracking. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum material and teacher development: From text to ‘lived’ resources (pp. 143–160). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Schmidt, W. H., Jorde, D., Cogan, L. S., Barrier, E., Gonzalo, I., Moser, U., et al. (1996). Characterizing pedagogical flow: An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims (TIMSS Volume 1): A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houng, 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.Google Scholar
  36. Warwick, D., & Osherson, S. (Eds.). (1973). Comparative research methods: An overview. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Woods, P. (1996). Inside schools: Ethnography in educational research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sør-Trøndelag University CollegeTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.University of BrestBrestFrance
  3. 3.French Institute of Education, Ecole Normale Supérieure de LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations