Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 19, Issue 2–3, pp 169–185 | Cite as

Teachers, tasks, and tensions: lessons from a research–practice partnership

  • Raymond JohnsonEmail author
  • Samuel Severance
  • William R. Penuel
  • Heather Leary


How teachers make sense of new academic standards significantly shapes the implementation of those standards. Professional development organized around the analysis of mathematical tasks has potential to prepare teachers for standards implementation by helping them develop common understandings of standards and how to help students meet ambitious new learning goals. In practice, however, designers and participants bring different goals to the professional development context, which becomes evident when teachers engage in task analysis. In this article, we use the design tensions framework (Tatar in Human Comput Interact 22(4):413–451, 2007. doi: 10.1080/07370020701638814) to analyze these tensions within a research–practice partnership comprised of five university researchers, three district curriculum leaders from a large urban school district, 12 high school Algebra 1 teachers from nine schools in the district, and a small team of Web engineers. Primary data for the study consist of participant observation and field notes of meetings in which project stakeholders negotiated the design of the professional development, as well as interview and survey data. An analysis based on the design tensions framework helped our partnership surface, both in the moment and retrospectively, the need for designers of professional development focused on standards implementation to be adaptive and willing to evolve activities to satisfy multiple stakeholders’ goals for participation.


Mathematical tasks Design tensions Professional development Standards implementation 



This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award #1147590). The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSF. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014, and the authors thank the International Society of the Learning Sciences for permitting the reuse and further development of that manuscript.


  1. Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(6), 499–536. doi: 10.1007/s10857-006-6585-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boston, M. D. (2013). Connecting changes in secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge to their experiences in a professional development workshop. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(1), 7–31. doi: 10.1007/s10857-012-9211-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 119–156.Google Scholar
  5. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2011). A “task-centric approach” to professional development: Enhancing and sustaining mathematics teachers’ ability to implement cognitively challenging mathematical tasks. ZDM, 43(6–7), 965–977. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0353-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1998). School resources and student outcomes. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 559(1), 39–53. doi: 10.1177/0002716298559001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. doi: 10.3102/01623737023002145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research-practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. New York, NY. Retrieved from
  10. Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113(4), 515–548. doi: 10.1086/518487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from
  12. Davis, J., Choppin, J., Roth McDuffie, A., & Drake, C. (2013). Common core state standards for mathematics: Middle school mathematics teachers’ perceptions. Rochester, NY. Retrieved from
  13. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199. doi: 10.3102/00346543053002159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elliott, R., Kazemi, E., Lesseig, K., Mumme, J., Carroll, C., & Kelley-Petersen, M. (2009). Conceptualizing the work of leading mathematical tasks in professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 364–379. doi: 10.1177/0022487109341150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2013). Design research from the learning design perspective. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 72–113). Enschende: Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).Google Scholar
  16. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425. doi: 10.3102/00028312030002393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289–318. doi: 10.3102/00028312038002289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill, H. C. (2006). Language matters: How characteristics of language complicate policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 65–82). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, K., & Cobb, P. (2013). Coordinating professional development across contexts and role groups. In M. Evans (Ed.), Teacher education and pedagogy: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 80–99). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, K., Shahan, E. C., Gibbons, L. K., & Cobb, P. (2012). Launching complex tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(1), 24–29. doi: 10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.1.0024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development: Attending to the coevolution of teachers’ participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 428–441. doi: 10.1177/0022487108324330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, V. R., Leary, H. M., Sellers, L., & Recker, M. (2014). The role of school district science coordinators in the district-wide appropriation of an online resource discovery and sharing tool for teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 309–323. doi: 10.1007/s10956-013-9465-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Carrasco, I. H. (2014). Implementing common core state standards in California: A report from the field. Retrieved from
  24. Moschkovich, J. N. (2012). Mathematics, the common core, and language. Understanding language: Language, literacy, and learning in the content areas. Retrieved from
  25. Penuel, W. R., Confrey, J., Maloney, A., & Rupp, A. A. (2014). Design decisions in developing learning trajectories-based assessments in mathematics: A case study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 47–95. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2013.866118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74. doi: 10.1142/S1793206807000300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Penuel, W. R., Tatar, D. G., & Roschelle, J. (2004). The role of research on contexts of teaching practice in informing the design of handheld learning technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 353–370. doi: 10.2190/FJ51-5W3V-GGMC-4A92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the Common Core Standards in mathematics? American Educational Research Journal,. doi: 10.3102/0002831215584435.Google Scholar
  29. Porter, A. C., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11424697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sadler, D. R. (2014). The futility of attempting to codify academic achievement standards. Higher Education, 67(3), 273–288. doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9649-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294–308. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12464517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwartzman, H. B. (1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Severance, S., Leary, H., & Johnson, R. (2014). Tensions in a multi-tiered research-practice partnership. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, … L. D’Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014, Vol. 2 (pp. 1171–1175). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  34. Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 91–104. doi: 10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Solano-Flores, G. (2010). Function and form in research on language and mathematics education. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics in education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 113–149). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sprain, L., & Boromisza-Habashi, D. (2012). Meetings: A cultural perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(2), 179–189. doi: 10.1080/17447143.2012.685743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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. doi: 10.1080/10986060802229675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. doi: 10.3102/00028312033002455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stein, M. K., & Kim, G. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 37–55). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80. doi: 10.1080/1380361960020103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sumner, T. (2010). Customizing science instruction with educational digital libraries. In Proceedings of the 10th annual joint conference on digital libraries (JCDL 2010) (pp. 353–356). Gold Coast, Australia. doi: 10.1145/1816123.1816178.
  44. Swan, M. (2007). The impact of task-based professional development on teachers’ practices and beliefs: A design research study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4–6), 217–237. doi: 10.1007/s10857-007-9038-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sztajn, P., Wilson, P. H., Edgington, C., Myers, M., & Teachers, Partner. (2014). Mathematics professional development as design for boundary encounters. ZDM, 46(2), 201–212. doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0560-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tatar, D. (2007). The design tensions framework. Human-Computer Interaction, 22(4), 413–451. doi: 10.1080/07370020701638814.Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, E. V. (2011). Supporting children’s mathematical understanding: Professional development focused on out-of-school practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,. doi: 10.1007/s10857-011-9187-7.Google Scholar
  48. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhao, Q., Visnovska, J., & McClain, K. (2004). Using design research to support the learning of professional teaching community of middle-school mathematics teachers. In D. E. McDougall & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 969–975). Toronto, ON. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations