Abstract
In this afterword, I briefly summarize the documentational approach to didactics (DAD) since a number of authors have already comprehensively done so earlier in this volume. The 2018 Re(s)sources International Conference demonstrated the breadth, promise, and growth of DAD and how it allows the field to productively problematize the interactions between curriculum resources and those who use them. As a friendly outsider, I have explored DAD and grown increasingly familiar with it. Below, I explore key contributions of DAD and the strengths of its theoretical underpinnings. I then provide challenges and limitations of DAD before connecting it to my recent work in curriculum ergonomics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualizing resources as a theme for teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(3), 205–224.
Artigue, M. (this volume). Reflecting on a theoretical approach from a networking perspective: The case of the documentational approach to didactics. In L. Trouche, G. Gueudet, & B. Pepin (Eds.), The ‘resource’ approach to mathematics education. Cham: Springer.
Baron, M., Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (2007). Environnements informatisés et ressources numériques pour l’apprentissage: conception et usages, regards croisés. Paris: Hermès.
Choppin, J. (2011a). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9170-3.
Choppin, J. (2011b). The role of local theories: Teacher knowledge and its impact on engaging students with challenging tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-011-0001-8.
Choppin, J., Roth McDuffie, A., Drake, C., & Davis, J. (2018). Curriculum ergonomics: Conceptualizing the interactions between curriculum design and use. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 75–85.
Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9254-5.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettennen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.
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.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies, approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris: Armand Colin.
Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2005). Instruments et systèmes d’instruments. In P. Rabardel & P. Pastré (Eds.), Modèles du sujet pour la conception. Dialectiques activités développement (pp. 211–229). Octarès: Toulouse.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
Ruthven, K. (2007). Teachers, technologies and the structures of schooling. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth congress of the European Society for Research in mathematics education (pp. 52–67). Larnaca: University of Cyprus and ERME.
Sésamath. (2009). Le manuel Sésamath 6e (Génération 5 ed.). Chambéry: Sésamath.
Trouche, L. (2004). Managing 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.
Trouche, L. (this volume). Evidencing the missing resources of the documentational approach to didactics, towards new programs of research. In L. Trouche, G. Gueudet, & B. Pepin (Eds.), The ‘resource’ approach to mathematics education. Cham: Springer.
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 Academic Publisher.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 159–174). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Choppin, J. (2019). Afterword: Reflections on the Documentational Approach to Didactics. In: Trouche, L., Gueudet, G., Pepin, B. (eds) The ‘Resource’ Approach to Mathematics Education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20393-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20393-1_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20392-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20393-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)