Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 98, Issue 3, pp 231–252 | Cite as

From resource to document: scaffolding content and organising student learning in teachers’ documentation work on the teaching of series

  • Alejandro S. González-Martín
  • Elena Nardi
  • Irene Biza
Article

Abstract

We examine teachers’ use of resources as they prepare to teach the topic of numerical series of real numbers, in order to identify how their personal relationship with mathematical content—and its teaching—interacts with their use of a commonly used textbook. We describe this interplay between textbook and personal relationship, a term coined in the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (ATD, Chevallard, 2003), in terms of documentation work (resources, aims, rules of action, operational invariants), a key construct from the documentational approach (DA, Gueudet & Trouche, in Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 199–218, 2009). We do so in the case of five post-secondary teachers who use the same textbook as a main resource for teaching the topic. Documentational analysis of interviews with the teachers led to the identification of their aims and rules of action (the what and how of their resource use as they organise their teaching of the topic) as well as the operational invariants (the why for this organisation of their teaching). We describe the teachers’ documentation work in two sets of aims/rules of action: scaffolding mathematical content (series as a stepping stone to learning about Taylor polynomials and Maclaurin series), and organising student learning about series through drill exercises, visualisation, examples, and applications. Our bridging (networking) of theoretical constructs originating in one theoretical framework (personal relationship, ATD) with the constructs of a different, yet compatible, framework (documentation work, DA) aims to enrich the latter (teachers’ documentation work) with the individual agency (teachers’ personal relationships with the topic) provided by the former.

Keywords

Documentational approach Documentation work ATD Personal relationship Series Textbook use 

Supplementary material

10649_2018_9813_MOESM1_ESM.doc (74 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 74 kb)
10649_2018_9813_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (31 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 31.4 kb)

References

  1. Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualising resources as a theme for teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbé, J., Bosch, M., Espinoza, L., & Gascón, J. (2005). Didactic restrictions on the teacher’s practice: The case of limits of functions in Spanish high schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1), 235–268.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-5889-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher–tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work (pp. 17–36). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Charron, G., & Parent, P. (2004). Calcul intégral (3 e édition). Québec: Beauchemin.Google Scholar
  5. Chevallard, Y. (1989). Le concept de rapport au savoir. Rapport personnel, rapport institutionnel, rapport officiel, Séminaire de didactique des Mathématiques et de l’Informatique. Université J. Fourier, Grenoble, 211-235.Google Scholar
  6. Chevallard, Y. (2003). Approche anthropologique du rapport au savoir et didactique des mathématiques. In S. Maury & M. Caillot (Eds.), Rapport au savoir et didactiques (pp. 81–104). Paris: Fabert.Google Scholar
  7. González-Martín, A. S. (2015). The use of textbooks by pre-university teachers: An example with infinite series of real numbers. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrovà (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2124–2130). Prague: Charles University in Prague.Google Scholar
  8. González-Martín, A. S., Nardi, E., & Biza, I. (2011). Conceptually-driven and visually-rich tasks in texts and teaching practice: The case of infinite series. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(5), 565–589.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2011.562310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gueudet, G. (2013). Digital resources and mathematics teachers’ professional development at university. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser, & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2336–2345). Antalya: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  10. Gueudet, G. (2015). Resources, at the core of mathematics teachers’ work. In J. S. Cho (Ed.), Selected regular lectures from the 12 th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 235–251). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gueudet, G. (2017). University teachers’ resources systems and documents. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(1), 198–224.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-016-0034-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gueudet, G., Buteau, C., Mesa, V., & Misfeldt, M. (2014). Instrumental and documentational approaches: From technology use to documentation systems in university mathematics education. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 139–155.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2014.918349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 199–218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9159-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kajander, A., & Lovric, M. (2009). Mathematics textbooks and their potential role in supporting misconceptions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Love, E., & Pimm, D. (1996). “This is so”: A text on texts. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrik, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education: Part 1 (pp. 371–409). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Mesa, V., & Griffiths, B. (2012). Textbook mediation of teaching: An example from tertiary mathematics instructors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 85–107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9339-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nardi, E., Jaworski, B., & Hegedus, S. (2005). A Spectrum of pedagogical awareness for undergraduate mathematics: From “tricks” to “techniques”. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4), 284–316.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30035042 Google Scholar
  18. Nicol, C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 331–355.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5423-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pepin, B., Grevholm, B., & Sträßer, R. (2006). DG07: The mathematics textbook – A critical artefact? In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, p. 193). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  20. Raman, M. (2004). Epistemological messages conveyed by three high-school and college mathematics textbooks. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(4), 389–404.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Randahl, M. (2012a). First-year engineering students’ use of their mathematics textbook – Opportunities and constraints. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(3), 239–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0040-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Randahl, M. (2012b). Approach to mathematics in textbooks at tertiary level – Exploring authors’ views about their texts. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(7), 881–896.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2012.662299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weinberg, A., Wiesner, E., Benesh, B., & Boester, T. (2012). Undergraduate Students' self-reported use of mathematics textbooks. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 22(2), 152–175.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2010.509336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Didactique, Bureau D-522, Faculté des Sciences de l’ÉducationUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations