Concretisations: a Support for Teachers to Carry Out Instructional Innovations in the Mathematics Classroom

Abstract

We recognise that though teachers may participate in various forms of professional development (PD) programmes, learning that they may have gained in the PD may not always lead to corresponding perceivable changes in their classroom teaching. We offer a theoretical re-orientation towards this issue by introducing a construct we term “concretisation”. Concretisations are resources developed in PD settings which can be converted into tangible tools for classroom use. In theorising such resources, we contribute in informing the design process of teacher professional development for better impact into actual classroom practice. We purport principles of design which render concretisations effective. Subsequently, we test these principles by presenting a specific case of teaching mathematical problem solving.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Names of schools, teachers, and students that appear in this paper are pseudonyms.

References

  1. Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological learning theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

  3. Chang, A. S. C., Kaur, B., Koay, P. L., & Lee, N. H. (2001). An exploratory analysis of current pedagogical practices in primary mathematics classrooms. The NIE Researcher, 1(2), 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Dekker, T., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., de Lange, J., & Wijers, M. (2007). Problem solving as a challenge for mathematics education in the Netherlands. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 405–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1504_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). From convergence to divergence: The development of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore. ZDM, 39(5–6), 491–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Foong, P. Y., Yap, S. F., & Koay, P. L. (1996). Teachers' concerns about the revised mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Educator, 1(1), 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hill, H. C. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 470–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaur, B., & Yap, S. F. (1998). KASSEL project report: Third phase. Singapore: Division of Mathematics, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  12. Leong, Y. H., Dindyal, J., Toh, T. L. Quek, K. S., Tay, E. G., & Lou, S. T. (2011a). Teacher education for a problem-solving curriculum in Singapore. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 819–831.

  13. Leong, Y. H., Tay, E. G., Toh, T. L., Quek, K. S., & Dindyal, J. (2011b). Reviving Polya’s "look Back" in a Singapore school. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(3), 181–193.

  14. Leong, Y. H., Toh, T. L., Tay, E. G., Quek, K. S., & Dindyal, J. (2012). Relooking "Look Back": A student's attempt at problem solving using Polya’s model. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(3), 357–369.

  15. Leong, Y. H., Tay, E. G., Quek, K. S., Toh T. L., Toh, P. C., Dindyal, J., Ho, F. H., & Yap, R. A. S. (2013). Making mathematics more practical. Singapore: World Scientific.

  16. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). California: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  17. McNaught, M. D., Tarr, J. E., & Sears, R. (2010). Conceptualising and measuring fidelity of implementation of secondary mathematics textbooks: Results of a three-year study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Americal Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

  18. Ministry of Education [MOE] (2006). Secondary mathematics syllabuses. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

  19. Nipper, K., & Sztajn, P. (2008). Expanding the instructional triangle: Conceptualizing mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 333–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  21. Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2000). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

  22. Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  23. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). Problem solving in the United States, 1970-2008: Research and theory, practice and politics. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 537–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York, NY: Routledge.

  25. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 607–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schoenfeld, A. H., Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (2000). The detailed analysis of an established teacher's non-traditional lesson. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 281–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sfard, A. (2005). What could be more practical than good research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(3), 393–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Smylie, M. A. (1989). Teachers' views of effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stacey, K. (2005). The place of problem solving in contemporary mathematics curriculum documents. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on solving. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. Brussels, Belgium: International Academy of Education.

  32. Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices, and students achievement. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 573–596.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (Eds.). (2015). Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

  34. Yeo, S. M., & Zhu, Y. (2005). Higher-order thinking in Singapore mathematics classrooms. Paper presented at the International education conference: Redesigning pedagogy: Research, policy and practice, Singapore.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yew Hoong Leong.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1123 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leong, Y.H., Tay, E.G., Toh, T.L. et al. Concretisations: a Support for Teachers to Carry Out Instructional Innovations in the Mathematics Classroom. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 17, 365–384 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9868-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Concretisations
  • Instructional practices
  • Mathematics teacher development
  • Problem solving