Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Resources: A Look Across Cultural Boundaries

  • Janine T. RemillardEmail author
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)


This chapter is written as a reflection on my encounters with the growing body of research on mathematics teachers’ use of resources, focusing on the documentational approach and its impact on my research. I begin by detailing my first encounter with the documentational genesis framework in 2008, introducing me to new language, frameworks, and colleagues from a different cultural context. I then describe two subsequent research projects I have undertaken, one in the USA and the other involving four contexts: Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Sweden, and the USA. These projects have allowed me to refine and deploy the participatory perspective in relation to the documentational approach and have contributed to my understanding of teachers’ interactions with mathematics curriculum resources. I conclude by offering four propositions for research on teachers’ interactions with curriculum resources; the first three reflect the theoretical perspectives of the documentational framework. The fourth reflects findings from my research.


Curriculum use; Participatory perspective Documentational genesis Mathematics teachers Curriculum resources Cross-cultural research 


  1. Andrews, P. (2007). Negotiating meaning in cross-national studies of mathematics teaching: Kissing frogs to find princes. Comparative Education, 43(4), 489–509.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Boesen, J., Helenius, O., Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., Palm, T., & Palmberg, B. (2014). Developing mathematical competence: From the intended to the enacted curriculum. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, M. (2009). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher-tool relationship. 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: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, D. (2013). Cultural studies in mathematics education. Paper presented at the Eighth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Antalya, Turkey.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietiker, L., & Riling, M. (2018). Design (in)tensions in mathematics curriculum. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 45(5), 633–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gueudet, G. (this volume) Studying teachers’ documentation work: Emergence of a theoretical approach. In L. Trouche, G. Gueudet, & B. Pepin (Eds.). The ‘resource’ approach to mathematics education. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2010). Ressources vives, le travail documentaire des professeurs en mathématiques. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Kheong, F. H., Sharpe, P., Soon, G. K., Ramakrishnan, C., Wah, B. L. P., & Choo, M. (2010). Math in focus: The Singapore approach by Marshall Cavendish. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  17. Kim, O. K. (2018). Teacher decisions on lesson sequence and their impact on opportunities for students to learn. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research on mathematics textbooks and ‘teachers resources. Advances and issues. ICME-13 monograph (pp. 315–339). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  20. Osborn, M. (2004). New methodologies for comparative research? Establishing ‘constants’ and ‘contexts’ in educational experience. Oxford Review of Education, 30(2), 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pepin, B. (2005). Can we compare like with like in comparative education research? – Methodological considerations in cross-cultural studies in mathematics education. In B. Hudson & J. Fragner (Eds.), Researching Teaching and Learning of Mathematics II (pp. 39–54). Linz: Trauner Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Pepin, B. (2018). Enhancing teacher learning with curriculum resources. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources. Advances and issues. ICME-13 monograph (pp. 359–374). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 – Mathematics Education, 33(5), 158–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Re-sourcing teachers’ work and interactions: A collective perspective on resources, their use and transformation. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 45(7), 929–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pepin, B., Choppin, J., Ruthven, K., & Sinclair, N. (2017a). Digital curriculum resources in mathematics education: Foundations for change. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 49(5), 645–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2017b). Refining teacher design capacity: Mathematics teachers’ interactions with digital curriculum resources. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 49(5), 799–812. Scholar
  27. Pepin, B., Artigue, M., Gitirana, M., Miyakawa, T., Ruthven, K., & Xu, B. (this volume) Mathematics teachers as curriculum designers: An international perspective to develop a deeper understanding of the concept. In L. Trouche, G. Gueudet, & B. Pepin (Eds.). The ‘resource’ approach to mathematics education. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies. Une approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris: Armand Colin (English version at
  29. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Remillard, J. T. (2010). Modes d’engagement : comprendre les transactions des professeurs avec les ressources curriculaires en mathématiques. In G. Gueudet & L. Trouche (Eds.), Ressources Vives. Le travail documentaire des professeurs en mathématiques (pp. 201–216). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  33. Remillard, J. T. (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
  34. Remillard, J. T. (2013, May). Beyond the script: Educative features of five mathematics curricula and how teachers use them. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Remillard, J. T. (2016). Keeping an eye on the teacher in the digital curriculum race. In M. Bates & Z. Usiskin (Eds.), Digital curricula in school mathematics (pp. 195–204). Greenwich: Information Age.Google Scholar
  36. Remillard, J. T. (2018a). Examining teachers’ interactions with curriculum resource to uncover pedagogical design capacity. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources: Advances and issues. ICME-13 monograph (pp. 69–88). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Remillard, J. T. (2018b). Mapping the relationship between written and enacted curriculum: Examining teachers’ decision making. In G. Kaiser (Ed.), Invited lectures from the 13th international congress on mathematical education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Remillard, J., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualising the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 46(5), 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Remillard, J. T. & Kim, O-K. (2017). Knowledge of curriculum embedded mathematics: Exploring a critical domain of teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics 96(1), 65–81 (view online:
  41. Remillard, J. T., & Kim, O. K. (forthcoming). Comparing elementary mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teachers and teaching. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Remillard, J.T., & Van Steenbrugge, H., (in preparation). A multimodal analysis of the voice of six teacher’s guides from the United States, Flanders, and Sweden.Google Scholar
  43. Remillard, J.T., Van Steenbrugge, H., & Bergqvist, T. (2016, April). A cross-cultural analysis of the voice of six Teacher’s guides from three cultural contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  44. Remillard, J. T., Reinke, L. R., & Kapoor, R. (2019). What is the point? Examining how curriculum materials articulate mathematical goals and how teachers steer instruction. International Journal of Educational Research, 93, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rowland, T. (2013). The knowledge quartet: The genesis and application of a framework for analyzing mathematics teaching and deepening teachers’ mathematics knowledge. Journal of Education, 1(3), 15–43.Google Scholar
  46. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sleep, L. (2009). Teaching to the mathematical point: Knowing and using mathematics in teaching. Unpublished PhD. University of Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  49. Sleep, L. (2012). The work of steering instruction toward the mathematical point a decomposition of teaching practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 935–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Ulrich, C. (2015). Stages in constructing and coordinating units additively and multiplicatively (Part 1). For the Learning of Mathematics, 35(3), 2–7.Google Scholar
  53. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).Google Scholar
  54. Warwick, D., & Osherson, S. (Eds.). (1973). Comparative research methods: An overview. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  55. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations