Advertisement

Mining Mathematics in Textbook Lessons

  • Erlina Ronda
  • Jill Adler
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we propose an analytic tool for describing the mathematics made available to learn in a ‘textbook lesson’. The tool is an adaptation of the Mathematics Discourse in Instruction (MDI) analytic tool that we developed to analyze what is made available to learn in teachers’ lessons. Our motivation to adapt the use of the MDI analytic framework to textbooks is to test the relative robustness of the framework in moving across different pedagogic texts (e.g. video of a lesson, a textbook lesson). Our initial findings suggest it has applicability across pedagogic texts, thus opening possibilities for using a common framework and language in research and in professional development activities involving the written and enacted curricula.

Keywords

Analytic framework Curriculum studies Mathematics discourse Opportunities to learn Socio-cultural theory Textbooks studies 

References

  1. Adler, J. (1999). The dilemma of transparency: Seeing and seeing through talk in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 47–64.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualising resources as a theme for mathematics teacher education. The Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(3), 205–224.Google Scholar
  3. Adler, J. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for teaching in mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 270–296.Google Scholar
  5. Adler, J., & Ronda, E. (2015). A framework for describing mathematics discourse in instruction and interpreting differences in teaching. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(3), 237–254. doi: 10.1080/10288457.2015.1089677.
  6. Adler, J., & Ronda, E. (2016). Mathematical discourse in instruction matters. In J. Adler & A. Sfard (Eds.), Research for educational change: Transforming researchers’ insights into improvement in mathematics teaching and learning. Abingdon, England: Routledge (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Adler, J., & Venkat, H. (2014). Teachers’ mathematical discourse in instruction: Focus on examples and explanations. In M. Rollnick, H.  Venkat, M. Askew, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Exploring content knowledge for teaching science and mathematics. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Askew, M., Hodgen, J., Hossain, S. & Bretscher, N. (2010). Values and variables: Mathematics education in high-performing countries. London, England: Nuffield.Google Scholar
  9. Bernstein, B. B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  10. Bowie, L. (2013). The constitution of school geometry in the Mathematics National Curriculum Statement and two Grade 10 geomtery textbooks in South Africa (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand.Google Scholar
  11. de Freitas, E., Wagner, D., Esmonde, I., Knipping, C., Lunney Borden, L. & Reid, D. (2012). Discursive authority and sociocultural positioning in the mathematics classroom: New directions for teacher professional development. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 12(2), 137–159. doi: 10.1080/14926156.2012.679994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dole, S. & Shield, M. (2008). The capacity of two Australian eighth-grade textbooks for promoting proportional reasoning. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolev, S. & Even, R. (2013). Justifications and explanations in Israeli 7th grade math textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(Suppl. 2), 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9488-7.Google Scholar
  14. Fan, L., Zhu, Y. & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM, 45(5), 633–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleisch, B., Taylor, N., Herholdt, R. & Sapire, I. (2011). Evaluation of Back to Basics mathematics workbooks: A randomised control trial of the Primary Mathematics Research Project. African Journal of Education, 31, 488–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leshota, M. (2015). The relationship between textbooks affordances and teachers' pedagogical design capacity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand.Google Scholar
  17. Lo, M. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching and learning. Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se.
  18. Marton, F. & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marton, F. & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Nagao, M., Rogan, J. & Magno, M. (2007). Mathematics and science education in developing countries: Issues, experiences, and cooperation prospects. Quezon City, Philippines: UP Press.Google Scholar
  21. Newton, J. (2012). Investigating the mathematical equivalence of written and enacted middle school standards-based curricula: Focus on rational numbers. International Journal of Educational Research, 51, 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pimm, D. & Wagner, D. (2003). Investigation, mathematics education and genre: An essay review of Candia Morgan’s writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E. & Koyama, M. (1996). The development of computation in three Japanese primary-grade textbooks. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139–159. doi: 10.1080/10573560601158461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communication. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shield, M. & Dole, S. (2013). Assessing the potential of mathematics textbooks to promote deep learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stacey, K. & Vincent, J. (2009). Modes of reasoning in explanations in Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Reasoning-and-proving in school mathematics textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11(4), 258–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H. & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Venkat, H., & Adler, J. (2012). Coherence and connections in teachers' mathematical discourses in instruction. Pythagoras, 33(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  31. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wagner, D. (2015). A speech act in mathematics education: The social turn. In P. Gates & R. J. Zevenbergen (Eds.), Shifts in the field of mathematics. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  33. Yang, K. (2013). A framework for analysing textbooks based on the notion of abstraction. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(1), 31–37.Google Scholar
  34. Zodik, I. & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Characteristics of teachers’ choice of examples in and for the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 165–182. doi: 10.1007/s10649-008-9140-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education DevelopmentUniversity of the PhilippinesQuezonPhilippines
  2. 2.University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations