Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What does it mean to make implementation integral to research?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
ZDM – Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical stance on integrating implementation and research. Implementation should be made integral to research because viewing research and implementation as an integrated whole is a more useful perspective for educational research and practice. A consequence of this position is a marked blurring of the boundaries between researchers and practitioners and an expanding of the vision of the nature of the products of research and how they are shared. From this position, we conceptualize four characteristics of research in which implementation is integral, and we illustrate them with the example of a case study of a teacher learning to teach linear functions through problem posing. In particular, we highlight the notion of an artifact that embodies and provides space for the dynamic intertwining between implementation and research. This intertwining represents what we mean by implementation being integral to research, and it has implications that ultimately blur the boundaries between the roles of researchers and teachers. We conclude by raising several pressing questions about the conduct and communication of this kind of research in education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilar, M.S., Kuzle, A., Wæge, K., & Misfeldt, M. (2019). Introduction to the papers of TWG23: Implementation of research findings in mathematics education. In U.T. Jankvist, M. van der Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 4355–4362). Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute; Utrecht University; ERME.

  • Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcavi, A. (2000). Problem-driven research in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 141–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2020). Not just “implementation”: The synergy of research and practice in an engineering research approach to educational design and development. ZDM Mathematics Education.

  • Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2021). Teachers as redesigners of curriculum to teach mathematics through problem posing: Conceptualization and initial findings of a problem-posing project. ZDM Mathematics Education.

  • Cai, J., Hwang, S., Melville, M., & Robison, V. (2021). Theories for teaching and teaching for theories: Artifacts as tangible entities for storing and improving professional knowledge for teaching. In C. Charalambous, & A. Praetorious (Eds.), Theorizing Teaching. Springer (in press).

  • Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., & Hiebert, J. (2017). Making classroom implementation an integral part of research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(4), 342–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Jackson, K., & Sharpe, C. D. (2017). Conducting design studies to investigate and support mathematics students’ and teachers’ learning. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 208–233). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 4–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, B., & Penuel, W. (2018). Design-based implementation research. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 393–400). Taylor & Francis.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, S., & Cai, J. (2021). Hands, head, and heart (3H) framework for teacher professional learning: A journey of a teacher learning to teach mathematics through problem posing (in preparation).

  • Jaworski, B. (2003). Research practice into/influencing mathematics teaching and learning development: Towards a theoretical framework based on co-learning partnerships. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 249–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: Research lessons and the improvement of Japanese education. American Educator, 22(4), 14–17. 50–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfra, M. M. (2019). Action research and systematic, intentional change in teaching practice. Review of Research in Education, 43, 163–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., & Harris, C. J. (2013). Towards an evidence framework for design-based implementation research. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 112(2), 350–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merseth, K. K. (2016). The early history of case-based instruction: Insights for teacher education today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 243–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, A. K. (2012). Using “lack of fidelity” to improve teaching. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1(1), 71–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, A., & Koichu, B. (2021). Implementation of mathematics education research as crossing the boundary between disciplined inquiry and teacher inquiry. ZDM Mathematics Education.

  • Puntambekar, S. (2018). Design-based research (DBR). In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 383–392). Taylor & Francis.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E. A., & Lunsford, C. (2017). Linking research and practice in mathematics education: Perspectives and pathways. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 28–47). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (pp. 37–54). Morgan Kaufmann.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Henningsen, M. A., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, A., & McDougal, T. (2016). Collaborative lesson research: Maximizing the impact of lesson study. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48, 513–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., & Cai, J. (2021). Teaching mathematics through problem posing: Insights from an analysis of teaching cases. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53, 961–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge helpful discussions with James Hiebert, Charles Hohensee, and Anne Morris about the issues of integrating implementation as an integral part of research. We also would like to thank Gabriele Kaiser, Boris Koichu, and several anonymous reviewers who made valuable comments concerning an earlier version of this paper. Thanks also go to Ranran Xu and Yiling Yao for organizing the data related to the problem-posing teaching case included in the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Delaware, Newark, USA

    Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

Authors
  1. Jinfa Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinfa Cai.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cai, J., Hwang, S. What does it mean to make implementation integral to research?. ZDM Mathematics Education 53, 1149–1162 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01301-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01301-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation