Linking Research to Practice: Teachers as Key Stakeholders in Mathematics Education Research

  • Carolyn Kieran
  • Konrad Krainer
  • J. Michael Shaughnessy
Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 27)

Abstract

Teachers are regarded as having a major role in the development of mathematics teaching and students’ learning. Nevertheless, in much mathematics education research, teachers are viewed as recipients, and sometimes even as means to generate or disseminate knowledge, thus conserving a distinctive gap between research and practice. The theme of this chapter is to regard teachers as key stakeholders in research (i.e., as (co-)producers of professional and/or scientific knowledge) in order to make the link between research and practice more fruitful for both sides. After exploring the concept of stakeholder, the authors present five international examples, all of them involving teachers researching their own or their colleagues’ practice. An analysis of the commonalities and differences among these examples reveals the presence of three important dimensions of research where teachers are key stakeholders: reflective, inquiry-based activity with respect to teaching action; a significant action-research component accompanied by the creation of research artefacts by the teachers (sometimes assisted by university researchers); and the dynamic duality of research and professional development. This chapter illustrates how traditional barriers between research and practice are being replaced by synergistic interactions between the two, enabling the intersection of the two worlds.

Keywords

Manifold Stake OECD 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Nadine Bednarz, Beth Herbel-Eisenmann, Barbara Jaworski, Minoru Ohtani, Rongjin Huang, Jiansheng Bao, and many others, for the information they have provided, either directly or indirectly, about the projects and programs presented in this chapter. We also appreciate the feedback received from the reviewers and editors on earlier versions of this chapter.

References

  1. Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work; An introduction to action research across the professions (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge [German original: Altrichter, H. & Posch, P. (1990). Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt. Chinese translation 1997, Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan-Liou.].Google Scholar
  2. Atweh, B. (2004). Understanding for changing and changing for understanding. Praxis between practice and theory through action research in mathematics education. In P. Valero & R. Zevenbergen (Eds.), Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power in theory and methodology (pp. 187–206). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazzini, L. (Ed.). (1994). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Systematic Cooperation between Theory and Practice in Mathematics Education (SCTP 5) in Grado: Theory and Practice in Mathematics Education. Pavia, Italy: ISDAF.Google Scholar
  4. Bednarz, N. (1996). Language activities, conceptualization and problem solving: The role played by verbalization in the development of mathematical thought by young children. In H. M. Mansfield, N. A. Pateman, & N. Bednarz (Eds.), Mathematics for tomorrow’s young children: International perspectives on curriculum (pp. 228–239). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bednarz, N. (2004). Collaborative research and professional development of teachers in mathematics. In M. Niss & E. Emborg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Mathematical Education (CD version) (pp. 1–15). Copenhagen, Denmark: IMFUFA, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
  6. Bednarz, N., Dufour-Janvier, B., Poirier, L., & Bacon, L. (1993). Socioconstructivist viewpoint on the use of symbolism in mathematics education. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29(1), 41–58.Google Scholar
  7. Bednarz, N., Poirier, L., Desgagné, S., & Couture, C. (2001). Conception de séquences d’enseignement en mathématiques: Une nécessaire prise en compte des praticiens. In A. Mercier, G. Lemoyne, & A. Rouchier (Eds.), Le génie didactique: Usages et mésusages des theories de l’enseignement (pp. 43–70). Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck Université.Google Scholar
  8. Benke, G., Hospesová, A., & Tichá, M. (2008). The use of action research in teacher education. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities and networks (International handbook of mathematics teacher education) (Vol. 3, pp. 283–307). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte. Zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.Google Scholar
  10. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Corey, D. L., Peterson, B. E., Lewis, B. M., & Bukarau, J. (2010). Are there any places that students use their heads? Principles of high-quality Japanese mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 438–478.Google Scholar
  12. Crawford, K., & Adler, J. (1996). Teachers as researchers in mathematics education. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 1187–1205). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, R. B., Jockusch, E., & McKnight, C. (1978). Cognitive processes in learning algebra. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 2(1), 10–320.Google Scholar
  14. Debien, J. (2010). Répertorier les modalités favorisant une démarche de développement professionnel chez les enseignants de mathématique de niveau secondaire (Master’s thesis). Université du Québec à Montréal, Département de mathématiques.Google Scholar
  15. Even, R., & Ball, D. L. (Eds.). (2003). Connecting research, practice and theory in the development and study of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics (special issue), 54(2–3).Google Scholar
  16. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (Reprint by Routledge, 2009).Google Scholar
  17. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
  18. Freeman, R. E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik (zfwu), 3(5/2004), 228–241.Google Scholar
  19. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. Probing the depths of educational reform. London, UK: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goodchild, S., & Jaworski, B. (2005). Identifying contradictions in a teaching and learning development project. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 41–47). Melbourne, Australia: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, L. C., Alston, A., & Murata, A. (Eds.). (2011). Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education: Learning together. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Hattie, J. A. (2003, December). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Building teacher quality: What does the research tell us? Paper presented at a Conference held at the Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4.
  23. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Introduction to the project, the people, and the reflective activities. In B. Herbel-Eisenmann & M. Cirillo (Eds.), Promoting purposeful discourse. Teacher research in mathematics classrooms (pp. 3–28). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  24. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2010). Discourse analysis: A catalyst for reflective inquiry in mathematics classrooms. In Linking research and practice: The NCTM Research Agenda Conference report (pp. 36–37). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Cirillo, M. (Eds.). (2009). Promoting purposeful discourse: Teacher research in mathematics classrooms. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  26. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Cirillo, M., & Males, L. (2009). An argument for taking up similar work. In B. Herbel-Eisenmann & M. Cirillo (Eds.), Promoting purposeful discourse. Teacher research in mathematics classrooms (pp. 219–232). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  27. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Cirillo, M., & Otten, S. (2009). Synthesizing the bases of purposeful discourse: Reading, reflecting, and community. In B. Herbel-Eisenmann & M. Cirillo (Eds.), Promoting purposeful discourse: Teacher research in mathematics classrooms (pp. 205–217). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  28. Huang, R., & Bao, J. (2006). Towards a model for teacher professional development in China: Introducing Keli. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang, R., Li, Y., & He, X. (2010). What constitutes effective mathematics instruction? A comparison of Chinese expert and novice teachers’ views. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10, 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaworski, B. (2006). Developmental research in mathematics teaching and learning: Developing learning communities based on inquiry and design. In P. Liljedahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3–16). Calgary, Canada: CMESG.Google Scholar
  31. Jaworski, B. (2008). Development of mathematics teacher educators and its relation to teaching development. In B. Jaworski & T. Wood (Eds.), The mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional (International handbook of mathematics teacher education) (Vol. 4, pp. 335–361). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Jaworski, B. (2011). Situating mathematics teacher education in a global context. In N. Bednarz, D. Fiorentini, & R. Huang (Eds.), International approaches to professional development of mathematics teachers (pp. 2–51). Ottawa, Canada: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
  33. Jaworski, B., Fuglestad, A.-B., Bjuland, R., Breiteig, T., Goodchild, S., & Grevholm, B. (2007). Learning communities in mathematics. Bergen, Norway: Caspar Forlag.Google Scholar
  34. Jaworski, B., & Goodchild, S. (2006). Inquiry community in an activity theory frame. In J. Novotná, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stelikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 353–360). Prague, Czech Republic: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  35. Jaworski, B., & Wood, T. (Eds.). (2008). The mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional (International handbook of mathematics teacher education) (Vol. 4). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707–762). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Kirshner, D., & Awtry, T. (2004). Visual salience of algebraic transformations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 224–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krainer, K. (2006). Action research and mathematics teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krainer, K. (2011). Teachers as stakeholders in mathematics education research. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 47–62). Ankara, Turkey: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  40. Krainer, K., & Llinares, S. (2010). Mathematics teacher education. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 7, pp. 702–705). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li, Y., Huang, R., Bao, J., & Fan, Y. (2011). Facilitating mathematics teachers’ professional ­development through ranking and promotion practices in the Chinese mainland. In N. Bednarz, D. Fiorentini, & R. Huang (Eds.), International approaches to professional development of mathematics teachers (pp. 72–87). Ottawa, Canada: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
  42. Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Education Research Journal, 19, 325–340.Google Scholar
  43. Makar, K., & O’Brien, M. (2012). Blurring the boundaries: The transformative nature of research participation. In W. Midgley, P. A. Danaher, & M. Baguley (Eds.), The role of participants in education research: Ethics, epistemologies, and methods. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Matz, M. (1982). Towards a process model for high school algebra errors. In D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 25–50). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Murata, A. (2011). Introduction: Conceptual overview of lesson study. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston, & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education. Learning together (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2010). Linking research and practice: The NCTM Research Agenda Conference Report. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2011). Strong performers and successful reformers in education. Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
  48. Pegg, J., & Krainer, K. (2008). Studies on regional and national reform initiatives as a means to improve mathematics teaching and learning at scale. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities and networks (International handbook of mathematics teacher education) (Vol. 3, pp. 255–280). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Pegg, J., Lynch, T., & Panizzon, D. (2007). An exceptional schooling outcomes project: Mathematics. Brisbane, Australia: Post Press.Google Scholar
  50. Pegg, J., & Panizzon, D. (2011). Collaborative innovations with rural and regional secondary teachers: Enhancing student learning in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal (special issue on “Mathematics Education in Rural Schools: Evidence-Based Approaches”), 23(2). doi: 10.1007/s13394-011-0009-0.
  51. Poirier, L., & Bacon, L. (1996). Interaction between children in mathematics class: An example concerning the concept of number. In H. M. Mansfield, N. A. Pateman, & N. Bednarz (Eds.), Mathematics for tomorrow’s young children: International perspectives on curriculum (pp. 166–174). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Poirier, L., Bourdage, N., & Bednarz, N. (1999). Un lien possible entre la recherche en didactique des mathématiques et la pratique de classe: la recherche collaborative. In F. Jacquet (Ed.), Les liens entre la pratique de la classe et la recherche en didactique des mathématiques. Actes de la CIEAEM 50 (pp. 193–197). Neufchâtel, Switzerland: Commission Internationale pour l’Etude et l’Amélioration de l’Enseignement des Mathématiques.Google Scholar
  53. Reynolds, D., Creemers, B., Stringfield, S., Teddlie, C., & Schaffer, G. (Eds.). (2002). World class schools. International perspectives on school effectiveness. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Sato, M. (1992). Japan. In H. B. Leavitt (Ed.), Issues and problems in teacher education: An international handbook. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London, UK: Temple-Smith.Google Scholar
  56. Shearer, B. A., Lundeberg, M. A., & Coballes-Vega, C. (1997). Making the connection between research and reality: Strategies teachers use to read and evaluate journal articles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 592–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Skovsmose, O., & Säljö, R. (2007). Report on the KUL-projects: Learning Communities in Mathematics and ICT in mathematics learning. Retrieved from http://www.navimat.dk/uploads/39600/Report-KULfinal_OSK_RS_okt07.pdf.
  58. Steinbring, H. (1994). Dialogue between theory and practice in mathematics education. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Sträßer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 89–102). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London, UK: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  60. Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering research-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.Google Scholar
  61. Zeuli, J. S. (1994). How do teachers understand research when they read it? Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn Kieran
    • 1
  • Konrad Krainer
    • 2
  • J. Michael Shaughnessy
    • 3
  1. 1.Université du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Alpen-Adria Universität KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  3. 3.Portland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations