Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 45, Issue 7, pp 929–943 | Cite as

Re-sourcing teachers’ work and interactions: a collective perspective on resources, their use and transformation

  • B. PepinEmail author
  • G. Gueudet
  • L. Trouche
Original Article

Abstract

This paper reviews the literature on the theme of mathematics teachers’ work and interactions with resources, taking a particular perspective, the so-called ‘collective perspective’ on resources, their use and transformation. The review is presented under three headings: (1) theoretical frameworks commonly used in this area of research; (2) teachers’ interactions with resources in terms of their design and use; and (3) teachers’ interactions with resources in terms of teacher learning and professional development. From the literature, and the collection of papers in this issue, we argue that the collective dimensions play an important role in mathematics teachers’ work with resources and in their professional learning/development. Further empirical investigations are likely to be needed on: how teachers may work in collectives and with resources, and in which ways ‘productive’ collectives may form and work together; which roles particular resources can play in these delicate constellations and how particular resources may support teachers in their work and learning; and which kinds of resources offer opportunities for community building.

Keywords

Mathematics Teacher Curriculum Material Lesson Study Teacher Learning Instrumental Genesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualising resources as a theme for teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artigue, M. (1994). Didactical engineering as a framework for the conception of teaching products. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Strasser, & B. Winkelman (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 27–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Assude, T. (2007). Changements et résistances à propos de l’intégration des nouvelles technologies dans l’enseignement des mathématiques au primaire. Informations, Savoirs, Décisions et Médiations (ISDM), 29. http://isdm.univ-tln.fr/articles/num_archives.htm#isdm29. Accessed 6 August 2013.
  4. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.Google Scholar
  5. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Maschietto, M. (2008). Machines as tools in teacher education. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 183–208). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Behm, S. L., & Lloyd, G. M. (2009). Factors influencing student teachers’ use of mathematics 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. 205–222). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Borba, M. C., & Gadanidis, G. (2008). Virtual communities and networks of practising mathematics teachers. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Participants in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 181–206). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Borba, M. C., & Llinares, S. (2012a). Online mathematics teacher education: overview of an emergent field of research. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(6), 697–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borba, M.C., & Llinares, S. (2012b). Special issue: Online mathematics education. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(6).Google Scholar
  10. Borko, H., Jacobs, J. K., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Brown, M. W. (2002). Teaching by design: Understanding the intersection between teacher practice and the design of curricular innovations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston.Google Scholar
  14. 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. 205–222). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Bueno-Ravel, L., Forest, D., Gueudet, G., & Sensevy, G. (2010). Guidelines for design of on line resources for IBST. Mind the Gap FP7 Project 217725. http://uv-net.uio.no/mind-the-gap/Finished%20Deliverables/5.2_Guidelines%20for%20ICT%20design.doc.pdf. Accessed 6 August 2013.
  16. Caprotti, O., & Seppälä, M. (2007). Evaluation criteria for eContent quality. Joining Educational Mathematics, ECP-2005-EDU-038208. http://www.jem-thematic.net/files_private/D%202.1.pdf. Accessed 6 August 2013.
  17. Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–333). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6–33.Google Scholar
  21. Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Smith, T., Sorum, M., & Henrick, E.C. (2013). Design research with educational systems: investigating and supporting improvements in the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook. New York: Teachers College Record. http://www.isls.org/icls2014/Resources.htm. Accessed 6 August 2013 (in press).
  22. Cobb, P., & Smith, T. (2008). District development as a means of improving mathematics teaching and learning at scale. In K. Krainer, & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Participants in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 231–254). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 135–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Confrey, J., Bell, K., & Carrejo, D. (2001). Systemic crossfire: What implementation research reveals about urban reform in mathematics. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
  26. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Diekema, A. R. & Olsen Whitney, M. (2012). The notion of relevance in teacher information behavior. In Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  29. Drijvers, P. (2012). Teachers transforming resources into orchestrations. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche, (Eds.) (2012), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 265–281). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Drijvers, P., Tacoma, S., Besamusca, A., Doorman, M., & Boon, P. (2013). Digital resources inviting mathematics teachers’ professional development: the case of the DPICT project. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0535-1
  31. Fan, L., Jones, K., Wang, J., & Xu, B. (Eds.) (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5).Google Scholar
  32. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson studies: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Fischbein, E. (1977). Image and concept in learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Freudenthal, H., Janssen, G. M., & Sweers, W. J. (1976). Five years IOWO on H. Freudenthal’s retirement from the Directorship of IOWO: IOWO snapshots. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  35. Grant, T. J., Kline, K., Crumbaugh, C., Kim, O. K., & Cengiz, N. (2008). How can curriculum material support teachers in pursuing student thinking during whole-group discussion? In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 103–117). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Gravemeijer, K. (1993). The empty number line as an alternative means of representation for addition and subtraction. In J. de Lange, I. Huntley, C. Keitel, & M. Niss (Eds.), Innovation in mathematics education by modeling and applications (pp. 141–159). Chichester: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  37. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2012). From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013a). Collective work with resources: an essential dimension for teacher documentation. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0527-1.
  40. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013b). Textbooks design and digital resources. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Designing and using tasks for learning mathematics. 22nd ICMI study. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/83/74/88/PDF/ICMI_STudy_22_proceedings_2013-FINAL_V2.pdf. Accessed 6 August 2013.
  41. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2012a). Teachers’ work with resources: Documentation geneses and professional geneses. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2012b). Communities, documents and professional geneses: Interrelated stories. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 305–322). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Haspekian, M. (2005). An instrumental approach to study the integration of a computer tool into mathematics teaching: The case of spreadsheets. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(2), 109–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Haspekian, M., & Artigue, M. (2007). L’intégration d’artefacts informatiques professionnels à l’enseignement dans une perspective instrumentale: le cas des tableurs. In M. Baron, D. Guin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), Environnements informatisés et ressources numériques pour l’apprentissage (pp. 37–63). Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
  47. Healy, L., & Lagrange, J.-B. (2010). Introduction to section 3. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematical education and digital technologies: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 287–292). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematical education and digital technologies: Rethinking the terrain. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital technologies into mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Vahey, P., &, Roschelle, J. (2013). Cornerstone mathematics: designing digital technology for teacher adaptation and scaling. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7) (this issue).Google Scholar
  51. Huang, R., & Jaworski, B. (Eds.) (2014). Practices and strategies of promoting professional development of didacticians and teachers of mathematics: an international perspective. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(2) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  52. Huang, R., & Li, Y. (2009). Pursuing excellence in mathematics classroom instruction through exemplary lesson development in China: A case study. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jaworski, B. (2008). Building and sustaining inquiry communities in mathematics teaching development: Teachers and didactitians in collaboration. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Participants in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 309–330). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Kazemi, E. (2008). School development as a means of improving mathematics teaching and learning: Towards multidirectional analyses of learning across contexts. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Participants in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 209–230). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kieran, C., Boileau, A., Tanguay, D., & Drijvers, P. (2013) Design researchers’ documentational genesis in a study on equivalence of algebraic expressions. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7). (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0516-4
  57. Kieran, C., Tanguay, D., & Solares, A. (2012). Researcher-designed resources and their adaptation within classroom teaching practice: shaping both the implicit and the explicit. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 189–214). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Krainer, K. (2008). Individuals, teams, communities and networks; participants and ways of participation in mathematics teacher education. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (eds.) International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Participants in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 1–10), Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Lagrange, J.-B., & Erdogan, E. O. (2009). Teachers’ emergent goals in spreadsheet-based lessons: Analysing the complexity of technology integration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(1), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Llinares, S., & Olivera, F. (2008). Virtual communities of prospective mathematics teachers: technologies, interactions and new forms of discourse. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Participants in mathematics teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 155–180). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Lloyd, G. M. (1999). Two teachers’ conceptions of a reform-oriented curriculum: implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(3), 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lloyd, G. M., Remillard, J. T., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2008). Teachers’ use of curriculum material: an emerging field. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.) (2008). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 3–14). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Marton, F., & Tsui, A. B. M. (Eds.). (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  65. Maschietto, M., & Soury-Lavergne S. (2013). Merging material, didactical and digital resources: an example for primary school mathematics with the pascaline and Cabri Elem. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0533-3
  66. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Monaghan, J. (2001). Teachers’ classroom interactions in ICT-based mathematics lessons. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 383–390). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  68. Monaghan, J. (2004). Teachers’ activities in technology-based mathematics lessons. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 327–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nührenbörger, M., & Steinbring, H. (2008). Manipulatives as tools in mathematics teacher education. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education, Vol. 2: Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education (pp. 157–181). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. O’Shea, T. (1993). The role of manipulatives in mathematics education. Contemporary Education, 65(1), 6–9.Google Scholar
  71. Ono, Y., & Ferreira, J. (2010). A case study of continuing teacher professional development through lesson study in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 30, 59–74.Google Scholar
  72. Pédauque, R. T. (coll.) (2006). Le document à la lumière du numérique. Caen: C & F éditions.Google Scholar
  73. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organising research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pepin, B. (2012). Working with teachers on curriculum materials to develop mathematical knowledge in/for teaching: Task analysis as ‘catalytic tool’ for feedback and teacher learning. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 123–142). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  75. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Investigating textbooks as crucial interfaces between culture, policy and teacher curricular practice: two contrasted case studies in France and Norway. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0526-2
  76. Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: a way to understand teaching and learning cultures. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 33(5), 158–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies: Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  78. Rabardel, P., & Béguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: from subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical issues. Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Radford, L. (2012). On the cognitive, epistemic, and ontological roles of artefacts. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 283–288). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Remillard, J. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Remillard, J. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Remillard, J. (2012). Modes of engagement: Understanding teachers’ transactions with mathematics curriculum resources. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 105–122). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  83. Remillard, J. (2013) Beyond the script: Educative features of five mathematics curricula and how teachers use them. In Introductory symposium presentation at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association in San Francisco, May 2013.Google Scholar
  84. Remillard, J., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2008). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Rezat, S. (2012). Interactions of teachers’ and students’ use of mathematics textbooks. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 231–246). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  86. Runesson, U. (2008). Learning to design for learning. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 153–172)., Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  87. Ruthven, K. (2012). Constituting digital tools and material as classroom resources: An example in dynamic geometry. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 83–103). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  88. Ruthven, K., & Hennessy, S. (2002). A practitioner model of the use of computer-based tools and resources to support mathematics teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ruthven, K., & Hofmann, R. (2013). Chance by design: Devising an introductory probability module for implementation at scale in English early-secondary education. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(3), 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ruthven, K., Laborde, C., Leach, J., & Tiberghien, A. (2009). Design tools in didactical research: Instrumenting the epistemological and cognitive aspects of the design of teaching sequences. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sensevy, G. (2012). Patterns of didactic intentions. Thought collectives and documentation work. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 43–57). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  92. Sensevy, G., Forest, D., Quilio, S., & Morales, G. (2013). Cooperative engineering as a specific design-based research in joint action theory in didactics. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0532-4
  93. Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Shield, M., & Dole, S. (2008). A methodology for evaluating middle-years mathematics textbooks. Paper presented at ICME 11, Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar
  95. Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Charamlambous, C. Y., & Mills, V. (2009). Exploring curriculum implementation plateau: An instructional perspective. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work—Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 245–265). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  96. 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. Remillard, G. Lloyd, & B. Herbel-Eisenmann (Eds.), Teachers’ use of mathematics curriculum materials: Research perspectives on relationships between teachers and curriculum (pp. 37–55). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  97. Streefland, L. (1990). Fractions in realistic mathematics education, a paradigm of developmental research. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  98. Stylianides, A. J. & Stylianides, G. J. (Eds.) (2013) Special Issue: Classroom-based interventions in mathematics education. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 333–341.Google Scholar
  99. Swan, M., & Dorman, M. (2013). Designing and using professional development resources for inquiry-based learning. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0520-8.
  100. Tabak, I. (2004). Reconstructing context: Negotiating the tension between exogenous and endogenous educational design. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Trgalová, J., & Jahn, A.-P. (2013). Quality issue in the design and use of resources by mathematics teachers. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0525-3.
  102. Trgalová, J., Soury-Lavergne, S., & Jahn, A. P. (2011). Quality assessment process for dynamic geometry resources in Intergeo project: rationale and experiments. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Tricot, A., Plégat-Soutjis, F., Camps, J.-F., Amiel, A., Lutz, G., & Morcillo, A. (2003). Utilité, utilisabilité, acceptabilité: Interpréter les relations entre trois dimensions de l’évaluation des EIAH. In C. Desmoulins, P. Marquet, & D. Bouhineau (Eds.), Environnements informatiques pour l’apprentissage humain (pp. 391–402). Paris: ATIEF/INRP.Google Scholar
  104. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Trouche, L., Drijvers, P., Gueudet, G., & Sacristan, A. I. (2013). Technology-driven developments and policy implications for mathematics education. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 753–790). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  106. Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., KcKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing educational design research. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. KcKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 3–7). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  107. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ ‘learning to notice’ in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Vergnaud, G. (1998). Toward a cognitive theory of practice. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 227–241). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Visnovska, J., & Cobb, P. (2013). Classroom video in teacher professional development program: community documentational genesis perspective. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0523-5.
  110. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering research–practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wedell, M. (2005). Cascading training down into the classroom: the need for parallel planning. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(6), 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Wiliam, D., & Lester, F. K. (2008). On the purpose of mathematics education research: Making productive contributions to policy and practice. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 32–48). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  115. Winsløw, C. (2012). A comparative perspective on teacher collaboration: The cases of lesson study in Japan and of multidisciplinary teaching in Denmark. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 291–304). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  116. Wittman, E. C. (2001). Developing mathematics education in a systemic process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Yang, Y. (2009). How a Chinese teacher improved classroom teaching in Teaching Research Group: A case study on Pythagoras theorem teaching in Shanghai. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sør-Trøndelag University CollegeTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.University of BrestBrestFrance
  3. 3.French Institute of Education, Ecole Normale Supérieure de LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations