Skip to main content

Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers?

Abstract

We study in this article mathematics teachers’ documentation work: looking for resources, selecting/designing mathematical tasks, planning their succession, managing available artifacts, etc. We consider that this documentation work is at the core of teachers’ professional activity and professional development. We introduce a distinction between available resources and documents developed by teachers through a documentational genesis process, in a perspective inspired by the instrumental approach. Throughout their documentation work, teachers develop documentation systems, and the digitizing of resources entails evolutions of these systems. The approach we propose aims at seizing these evolutions, and more generally at studying teachers’ professional change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://mathenpoche.sesamath.net

  2. 2.

    GUPTEn stands for, in French: Genesis of Professional Use of Technologies by Teachers. This French national research project is headed by Jean-Baptiste Lagrange.

  3. 3.

    SFoDEM stands for, in French: Distance Training Support for Mathematics Teachers.

References

  1. Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualising resources as a theme for teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 205–224. doi:10.1023/A:1009903206236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: a catalyst for change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 499–536. doi:10.1007/s10857-006-6585-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Assude, T. (2008). Teachers’ practices and degree of ICT integration. In D. Pitta-Pantazi, & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Larnacaus: CERME 5.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. (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), 6–8 14.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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, fall 2005, 14–46.

  6. Béguin, P. (2005). Concevoir pour les genèses instrumentées (Designing for instrumented geneses). In P. Rabardel, & P. Pastré (Eds.), Modèles du sujet pour la conception. Dialectiques activités développement (pp. 31–52). Octarès: Toulouse.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bueno-Ravel, L., & Gueudet, G. (2008). Online resources in mathematics: Teachers’ genesis of use. In D. Pitta-Pantazi, & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Larnaca: CERME 5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chevallard, Y. (2005). Steps towards a new epistemology in mathematics education. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the fourth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Sant Feliu de Guíxols: CERME 4.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers’ concern regarding the adoption of a new mathematics curriculum: An application of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 157–176. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000049271.01649.dd.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Visnovska, J. (2008). Learning from and adapting the theory of realistic mathematics education. Education et Didactique, 2(1), 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142. doi:10.3102/01623737025002119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cooney, T. J. (1999). Conceptualizing teachers’ ways of knowing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 163–187. doi:10.1023/A:1003504816467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cooney, T. J. (2001). Considering the paradoxes, perils and purposes for conceptualizing teacher development. In F.-L. Lin, & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 9–31). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. French Education Ministry (2007). ‘Repères et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche’ (Statistical indicators and references on teaching, training and research), http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/21/3/6213.pdf

  15. Gueudet, G. (2006). ‘Learning mathematics in class with online resources’. communication at the 17th ICMI study conference: Technology Revisited, Hanoï, Vietnam.

  16. Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. New York: Springer.

  17. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (2005). Distance training, a key mode to support teachers in the integration of ICT? Towards collaborative conception of living pedagogical resources. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Sant Feliu de Guíxols: CERME 4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lagrange, J.-B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, L. (2003). Technology and mathematics education: A multidimensional study of the evolution of research and innovation. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 239–271). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lagrange, J.-B., Bessières, D., Blanchard, M., Loisy, C., & Vandebrouck, F. (Eds.). (2007). ‘Genèses d’usages professionnels des technologies chez les enseignants’, rapport intermédiaire de l’ACI GUPTEn (Genesis of Professional Uses of Technologies by Teachers, intermediate report of the GUPTEn project), http://gupten.free.fr

  20. Leung, F. K. S., Graf, K.-D., & Lopez-Real, F. J. (Eds.) (2006). Mathematics education in different cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West. Berlin: Springer.

  21. Monaghan, J. (2004). Teachers’ activities in technology-based mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 327–357. doi:10.1007/s10758-004-3467-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings, learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pédauque, R.T. (Ed.).(2006). Le document à la lumière du numérique (Document under digital light), C & F éditions, Caen.

  24. Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies, approche cognitive des instruments contemporains, Armand Colin, Paris (English version at http://ergoserv.psy.univ-paris8.fr/Site/default.asp?Act_group = 1).

  25. Rabardel, P. (2005). Instrument subjectif et développement du pouvoir d’agir (Subjective instrument and development of action might). In P. Rabardel, & P. Pastré (Eds.), Modèles du sujet pour la conception. Dialectiques activités développement (pp. 11–29). Toulouse: Octarès.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. In P. Rabardel and Y. Waern (eds.), Special Issue “From Computer Artifact to Mediated Activity”, Part 1: Organisational Issues, Interacting With Computers 15(5), 665–691.

  27. Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2005). Instruments et systèmes d’instruments (Instruments and systems of instruments). In P. Rabardel, & P. Pastré (Eds.), Modèles du sujet pour la conception. Dialectiques activités développement (pp. 211–229). Toulouse: Octarès.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. doi:10.3102/00346543075002211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ruthven, K. (2008). Teachers, technologies and the structures of schooling. In D. Pitta-Pantazi, & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Larnaca: CERME 5.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Vergnaud, G. (1998). Toward a cognitive theory of practice. In A. Sierpinska, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 227–241). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press (Original work published 1934).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to sincerely thank Carolyn Kieran for her kind help in rereading our paper and helping us to correct our English language, and, more generally, for her valuable advice.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ghislaine Gueudet.

Appendices

Appendix 1: interview guidelines

Teachers are interviewed at their own place, where they keep their resources. It is most of the time in a specific room, their office at home, with a computer connected to the Internet. A one-hour interview is planned, in a rather informal manner, but following the guidelines exposed here. The discussion is recorded, and photos of the office are taken. The interviews took place between April and June 2007, thus at the end of the school year.

First part: inventory, rationale of the documents used this year.

The questions are of the following form: “For your teaching, from the beginning of the year, which documents (book, personal documents, web site…) did you use? Which has been the most important?”

Second part: detailed presentation of three documents.

We ask the teachers to present in detail three of the most important documents of the year, and their history (the teacher proposes him/herself the documents, with at least one personal production):

  • If it is not a personal production: how was it encountered, chosen, modified, used...

  • If it is a personal production: which sources were used; was it elaborated by the teacher on her own, or with colleagues; how was it used, was it modified after use; what is planned for it in the future: communication to colleagues in particular.

Third part: past and future.

  • Ten years ago, how would you have answered the first part? Have you been influenced by specific resources? Which ones?

  • What do you think you would answer in 10 years? Which sources will you use, how would you access these sources? Will you work on their elaboration on your own, or with colleagues? Will these documents be broadcast, and how? What would be for you a dream resource?

Appendix 2: profiles of the teachers interviewed

Table 1 Explanations regarding the content of the table: Collège: grades 6 to 9, students aged 11 to 16; Lycée: grades 10 to 12, students aged 16 to 18; APM: Association of mathematics teachers; CAPES: Teaching certificate (national competition); IREM: Institute for Research on Mathematics Teaching; INRP: National Institute for Pedagogical Research

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gueudet, G., Trouche, L. Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers?. Educ Stud Math 71, 199–218 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9159-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Artifacts
  • Curriculum material
  • Digital resources
  • Documents
  • Documentational geneses
  • Instruments
  • Operational invariants
  • Teacher beliefs
  • Professional development