Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 21–37 | Cite as

Conflicting frames: a case of misalignment between professional development efforts and a teacher’s practice in a high school mathematics classroom

  • Einat Heyd-MetzuyanimEmail author
  • Charles Munter
  • James Greeno


We examine the case of a lesson planning session within the context of professional development for dialogic instruction, and the lesson enacted following this session, which was intended to provide opportunities to 11th and 12th grade algebra students to explore polynomial functions in terms of their roots and linear factors. Our goal was, through the close analysis of the planning and enactment of the lesson, to gain deeper understanding of how the two participants were framing mathematical learning and how such different frames may explain the disparity between the planned lesson and its outcome. The analysis and discussion point to the complexities of supporting teachers in transitioning from a “doing” frame to an “exploring” frame.


Professional development High school algebra Frames Discourse Lesson planning Secondary school teaching Dialogic instruction 


  1. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (2006). Jefferson’s transcript notation. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The dis-course reader (pp. 158–165). London: Routledge. (Reprinted from Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, pp. ix–xvi, by J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage, Eds., 1984, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  2. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.Google Scholar
  3. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6–33.Google Scholar
  4. Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (Eds.). (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gresalfi, M. S., & Cobb, P. (2011). Negotiating identities for mathematics teaching in the context of professional development. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(3), 270–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. (2005). Resources, framing and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Horn, I. S., & Kane, B. D. (2015). Opportunities for Professional Learning in Mathematics Teacher Workgroup Conversations: Relationships to Instructional Expertise. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 373-418.Google Scholar
  10. Lavie, I., & Sfard, A. (2016). Atzamin mdiburim: Keytzad yeladim ktanim yotzrim misparim betoch siah (Objects from talk: How young children create numbers throughout discourse). [In Hebrew] Mehkar VeIyun BeHinuch Matemati, 4. Retrieved from
  11. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255–276.Google Scholar
  12. Ma, J., Munter, C., Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Greeno, J., Kelton, M., Hall, R. & Gresalfi, M. (2014). Disrupting learning: Changing local practice for good. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O'Connor, T. Lee, & L. D'Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Volume 1 (pp. 1396–1405). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  13. Munter, C., Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (2015). Dialogic and direct instruction: Two distinct models of mathematics instruction and the debate(s) surrounding them. Teachers College Record, 117(11).Google Scholar
  14. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc..Google Scholar
  15. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  16. Nelson, B. S. (1997). Learning about teacher change in the context of mathematics education reform: Where have we come from? In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 3-15). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sfard, A., & Lavie, I. (2005). Why cannot children see as the same what grown-ups cannot see as different? — Early numerical thinking revisited. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 237–309.Google Scholar
  19. Simon, M. A., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., Kinzel, M., & Smith, M. S. (2000). Characterizing a perspective underlying the practice of mathematics teachers in transition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 579–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.Google Scholar
  22. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tannen, D. (1993). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14–56). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Tate, W. F., King, K. D., & Anderson, C. R. (Eds.). (2011). Disrupting tradition: Research and practice pathways in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. van de Sande, C. C., & Greeno, J. G. (2012). Achieving alignment of perspectival framings in problemsolving discourse. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 1–44.Google Scholar
  26. Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 163–201). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education in Science and Technology, The Technion - Israel Institute of Technology and Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Education in Science and TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.College of EducationUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations