Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers pp 189-208 | Cite as

# Boundary Objects Within a Replacement Unit Strategy for Mathematics Teacher Development

## Abstract

We recognise that, for instructional innovations to take root in mathematics classrooms, curriculum redesign and teachers’ professional development are two necessary and mutually-reinforcing processes: a redesigned curriculum needs to be seen as an improvement in order to facilitate teachers’ buy-in—an ingredient for effective professional development; on the other hand, teachers’ professional development content needs to be directed towards actual useable classroom implements through the enterprise of collaborative curriculum redesign. In this chapter, we examine the interaction between researchers and teachers in this collaborative enterprise through the metaphor of boundary crossing. In particular, we study a basic model of how “boundary objects” located within a “Replacement Unit” strategy interact to advance the goals of professional development.

## Keywords

Professional Development Mathematics Teacher Boundary Object Mathematics Classroom Lesson Study## References

- Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects.
*Review of Educational Research,**81*(2), 132–169. doi: 10.3102/0034654311404435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Dean, C. (2009). Conducting design experiments to support teachers’ learning: A reflection from the field.
*Journal of the Learning Sciences,**18*, 165–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities.
*Review of Research in Education,**24*, 249–305.Google Scholar - Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California.
*Teachers College Record,**102*(2), 294–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Dekker, T., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., de Lange, J., & Wijers, M. (2007). Problem solving as a challenge for mathematics education in the Netherlands.
*ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,**39*, 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Leong, Y. H., Tay, E. G., Quek, K. S., Toh, T. L., Toh, P. C., Dindyal, J., et al. (2014).
*Making mathematics more practical: Implementation in the schools*. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar - Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2006).
*Secondary mathematics syllabuses*. Singapore.Google Scholar - Mok, I. A. C., Cai, J., & Fung, A. T. F. (2005).
*Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Struggles a Hong Kong teacher faces*. Paper presented at the The 3rd East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education, Shanghai, China.Google Scholar - Pólya, G. (1945/1973).
*How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method*(2nd ed.). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar - Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.
*Social Studies of Science,**19*(3), 387–420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sztajn, P., Wilson, P. H., Edgington, C., Myers, M., & Teachers, P. (2014). Mathematics professional development as design for boundary encounters.
*ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,**46*, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Teong, S. K., Hedberg, J. G., Ho, K. F., Lioe, L. T., Tiong, J. Y. S., Wong, K. Y., Fang, Y., et al. (2009). Developing the repertoire of heuristics for mathematical problem solving, project 1: Establishing baseline data for mathematical problem solving practices in Singapore schools. Final technical report for project CRP 1/04 JH. Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.Google Scholar
- Toh, T. L., Quek, K. S., Leong, Y. H., Dindyal, J., & Tay, E. G. (2011).
*Making mathematics practical: An approach to problem solving*. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems.
*Organization,**7*(2), 225–246. doi: 10.1177/135050840072002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar