Abstract
In this chapter, we investigate the notion of “teachers as curriculum designers” from the literature and from six international perspectives. This is done in order to (1) develop a deeper understanding of the concept, and (2) provide an international perspective and illustrations of the different facets of teacher design. Based on this investigation, we could identify different modes of teacher design: from teacher design activities at micro level (e.g., lesson preparation alone or in small groups), over those at meso level (e.g., D/designing in collectives of colleagues for the purpose of use by others), to Design at macro level (e.g., involvement in the design of national frameworks by professional design teams for the use of many others). More generally, we claim that the often casually used term of “teacher design” has different meanings in different contexts and that teacher design activities may be for different purposes and for different expected end results. A major distinction is whether the design is more oriented towards the process, or the product. We argue that the most promising form of teacher design might lie at the crossroads between product and process orientation, with connections between the two. This has implications for teacher education and professionalism.
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
References
Artigue, M. (2015). Perspective on design research: The case of didactical engineering. In A. A. Bikner, K. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 467–496). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany: SUNY Press.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Brousseau, G., Brousseau, N., & Warfield, G. (2014). Teaching fractions through situations: A fundamental experiment. Dordrecht: Springer.
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. 17–36). New York: Routledge.
Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice. Evanston: Centre for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (design brief).
Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2015). Supporting teachers’ use of research-based instructional sequences. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 47, 1027–1038.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher roles in designing technology-rich learning activities for early literacy: A cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 72, 68–79.
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.
Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study – A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fujii, T. (2015). The critical role of task design in lesson study. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education (pp. 273–286). Cham: Springer.
Gitirana, V., Teles, R., Bellemain, P.B., Castro, A., Andrade, Y., Lima, P., & Bellemain, F. (2013). Jogos com sucata na Educação Matemática. Recife-NEMAT: Editora Universitária da UFPE.
Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry. The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013). Collective work with resources: An essential dimension for teacher documentation. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 45(7), 1003–1016.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., Sabra, H., & Trouche, L. (2016). Collective design of an e-textbook: Teachers’ collective documentation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2), 187–203.
Huizinga, T. (2009). Op weg naar een instrument voor het meten van docentcompetencies voor het ontwikkelen van curricula [Towards an instrument to measure teacher competencies for the development of curricula]. Enschede: University of Twente.
Isoda, M., Stephens, M., Ohara, Y., & Miyakawa, T. (Eds.). (2007). Japanese lesson study in mathematics: Its impact, diversity and potential for educational improvement. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Jackson, K., Cobb, P., Wilson, J., Webster, M., Dunlap, C., & Applegate, M. (2015). Investigating the development of mathematics leaders’ capacity to support teachers’ learning on a large scale. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 47, 93–104.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Margolinas, C. (2014). Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of ICMI Study 22. ICMI Study 22, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2013. 978-2-7466-6554-5. Accessed October 2018 at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00834054v3/document
Matuk, C. F., Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional Science, 43(2), 229–257.
Miyakawa, T., & Winsløw, C. (2009). Didactical designs for students’ proportional reasoning: An “open approach” lesson and a “fundamental situation”. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 199–218.
Nieveen, N., & van der Hoeven, M. (2011). Building the curricular capacity of teachers: Insights from the Netherlands. In P. Picard & L. Ria (Eds.), Beginning teachers: Challenge for educational systems. CIDREE Yearbook 2011 (pp. 49–64). Lyon: ENS de Lyon, Institut Français de l’Éducation.
Penuel, W., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74.
Pepin, B. & Jones, K. (Eds.) (2016). Mathematics teachers as partners in task design. Double Special Issue of Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 19(2 &3).
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Re-sourcing teacher work and interaction: A collective perspective on resource, their use and transformation. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 45(7), 929–943.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, B., Yerushalmy, M., Trouche, L., & Chazan, D. (2016). E-textbooks in/for teaching and learning mathematics: A disruptive and potentially transformative educational technology. In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of research in mathematics education (3rd ed., pp. 636–661). London: Taylor & Francis.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2017a). Refining teacher design capacity: Mathematics teachers’ interactions with digital curriculum resources. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 49(5), 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0870-8.
Pepin, B., Xu, B., Trouche, L., & Wang, C. (2017b). Developing a deeper understanding of mathematics teaching expertise: An examination of three Chinese mathematics teachers’ resource systems as windows into their work and expertise. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9727-2.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2017). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University, 621 Skytop Rd., Suite 160, Syracuse, NY 13244–5290.
Ruthven, K. (2014). Frameworks for analysing the expertise that underpins successful integration of digital technologies into everyday teaching practice. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era (pp. 373–393). Dordrecht: Springer.
Silva, J. P., & Lima, I. M. S. (2017). Atividades Matemáticas propostas por Professores que ensinam na EJA Campo ? Ensino Médio. Revista Paranaense de Educação Matemática, 6, 246–268.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Tan, S., Fukaya, K., & Nozaki, S. (2018). Development of bansho (Board Writing) analysis as a research method to improve observation and analysis of instruction in Lesson Study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 7(3), 230–247.
Thijs, A., & Van den Akker, J. (2009). Curriculum in development. In Enschede. Dordrecht: SLO.
Trouche, L. (2016). Didactics of mathematics: Concepts, roots, interactions and dynamics from France. In J. Monaghan, L. Trouche, & J. Borwein (Eds.), Tools and mathematics: Instruments for learning (pp. 219–256). New York: Springer.
Trouche, L., Gitirana, V., Miyakawa, T., Pepin, B., & Wang, C. (2019). Studying mathematics teachers interactions with curriculum materials through different lenses: Towards a deeper understanding of the processes at stake. International Journal of Educational Research 93, 53–67, Retreived on February 21st at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.002.
Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Voogt, J., Laferrie’re, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R., Hickey, D., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9340-7.
Watanabe, T., Takahashi, A., & Yoshida, M. (2008). Kyozaikenkyu: A critical step for conducting effective lesson study and beyond. In F. Arbaugh & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Inquiry into mathematics teacher education (AMTE monograph series) (Vol. 5, pp. 131–142). San Diego: Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.
Yang, Y. (2009). How a Chinese teacher improved classroom teaching in teaching research group: A case study on Pythagoras theorem teaching in Shanghai. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 41(3), 279–296.
Yoshida, M. (2005). Using lesson study to develop effective blackboard practice. In P. Wang-Iverson & M. Yoshida (Eds.), Building our understanding of lesson study (pp. 93–100). Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
Yuan, Z., & Li, X. (2015). “Same content different designs” activities and their impact on prospective mathematics teachers’ professional development: The case of Nadine. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese teach mathematics. Perspectives from insiders (pp. 567–589). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
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
Pepin, B., Artigue, M., Gitirana, V., Miyakawa, T., Ruthven, K., Xu, B. (2019). Mathematics Teachers as Curriculum Designers: An International Perspective to Develop a Deeper Understanding of the Concept. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20393-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20392-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20393-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)