Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 19, Issue 2–3, pp 277–295 | Cite as

Roles of a teacher and researcher during in situ professional development around the implementation of mathematical modeling tasks

  • Hyunyi JungEmail author
  • Corey Brady


Partnership with teachers for professional development has been considered beneficial because of the potential of collaborative work in the teacher’s own classroom to be relevant to practice. From this perspective, both teachers and researchers can draw on their own expertise and work as authentic partners. In this study, we address the need for such collaboration and focus on how a teacher and a researcher performed their roles when collaboratively implementing mathematical modeling tasks within a context of in situ professional development. Using multi-tier design-based research, as a framework, a researcher worked in a teacher’s classroom to implement a series of research-based mathematical modeling activities. A broad corpus of data from this interaction was analyzed, including audio recordings of interviews with the teacher, video recordings of three mathematical modeling lessons, researcher field notes and journal reflections, instructional materials, and students’ written work using the principles for designing activities for teachers. The emerging roles and relationships between the teacher and the researcher were documented, as (1) the researcher implemented the professional development, (2) the teacher shared her concerns, (3) the researcher responded to the teacher’s challenges, and (3) the teacher reflected on student development. As a case study of collaboration, the participants’ roles and strategies to overcome challenges and achieve shared objectives can benefit teachers and researchers who plan to collaboratively implement modeling in the classroom. The study supports the value and viability of this form of in situ professional development, indicating that significant changes in teachers’ thinking about their students’ mathematical model development can occur in relatively short periods of time.


Teacher learning Mathematical modeling Professional learning community Professional development 


  1. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematics knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (CMESG). Edmonton, AB: CMESG.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cazden, C. B. (1983). Can ethnographic research go beyond the status quo? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 14(1), 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chamberlin, M. T. (2005). Teachers’ discussions of students’ thinking: Meeting the challenge of attending to students’ thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(2), 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darling-Hammond, L. & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching for high standards: What policymakers need to know and be able to do. Center for Policy Research in Education Joint Report Series (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED426491).Google Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597–604.Google Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
  10. Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2006). Middle grade teachers’ learning through students’ engagement with modeling tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doerr, H. M., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling perspective on teacher development. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 125–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Edwards, J. A., & Jones, K. (2003). Co-learning in the collaborative mathematics classroom. In A. Peter-Koop, et al. (Eds.), Collaboration in teacher education (pp. 135–151). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goos, M. (2008). Researcher–teacher relationships in mathematics education. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (pp. 227–234).Google Scholar
  14. Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 114–131). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Herrenkohl, L. R., Kawasaki, K., & Dewater, L. S. (2010). Inside and outside: Teacher–researcher collaboration. The New Educator, 6(1), 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jorgensen, D. L. (Ed.). (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies (Vol. 15). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Jung, H. (2014). Building 21st century skills through modeling. Mathematics in Michigan, 47(2), 10–14.Google Scholar
  19. Jung, H. (2015). Strategies to support students’ model development. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 21(1), 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lau, S. M. C., & Stille, S. (2014). Participatory research with teachers: toward a pragmatic and dynamic view of equity and parity in research relationships. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). In what ways does a models and modeling perspective move beyond constructivism? In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 519–556). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Lesh, R., English, L., Sevis, S., & Riggs, C. (2013). Modeling as a means for making powerful ideas accessible to children at an early age. In S. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), The SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Lesh, R., & Harel, G. (2003). Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2–3), 157–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–646). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., & Kelly, A. (1992). Equity, technology, and teacher development. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Developments in school mathematics education around the world (Vol. 3, pp. 104–129). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  26. Lesh, R., & Kelly, A. E. (2000). Multi-tiered teaching experiments. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research in mathematics and science education (pp. 197–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2003). Models and modeling perspectives on the development of students and teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2–3), 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lesh, R., Yoon, C., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). John Dewey revisited—Making mathematics practical versus making practice mathematical. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Models and modeling as foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 315–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis, C. (2002). Does lesson study have a future in the United States? Nagoya Journal of Education and Human Development, 1, 1–23.Google Scholar
  30. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea, C., & Williams, M. K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.Google Scholar
  33. Mundry, S., Britton, E., Raizen, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Designing successful professional meetings and conferences in education: Planning, implementation, and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  34. National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.Google Scholar
  35. Peng, A. (2007). Knowledge growth of mathematics teachers during professional activity based on the task of lesson explaining. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4–6), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reys, B., Tran, D., Thomas, A. L., Dingman, S., Kasmer, L., Newton, J., et al. (2012). Common core state standards: What follows state adoption? Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 14(2), 5–13.Google Scholar
  38. Schorr, R., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling approach for providing on the-job teacher development. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 141–157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Silver, E. A., Clark, L. M., Ghousseini, H. N., Charalambous, C. Y., & Sealy, J. T. (2007). Where is the mathematics? Examining teachers’ mathematical learning opportunities in practice-based professional learning tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4–6), 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Summit.Google Scholar
  41. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
  43. Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering researcher–practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang, Y., & Ricks, T. E. (2013). Chinese lesson study: Developing classroom instruction through collaborations in school-based teaching research group activities. In L. Yeping & R. Huang (Eds.), How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching (pp. 51–65). Florence, KY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Yoshida, M. (1999). Lesson study: A case study of a Japanese approach to improving instruction through school-based teacher development. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(11), 3895 (UMI No. 9951885).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsCalvin CollegeGrand RapidsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Learning SciencesNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations