Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 19, Issue 2–3, pp 169–185

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

  • Raymond Johnson
  • Samuel Severance
  • William R. Penuel
  • Heather Leary

DOI: 10.1007/s10857-015-9338-3

Cite this article as:
Johnson, R., Severance, S., Penuel, W.R. et al. J Math Teacher Educ (2016) 19: 169. doi:10.1007/s10857-015-9338-3


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 

Funding information

Funder NameGrant NumberFunding Note
National Science Foundation
  • 1147590

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