Concretisations: a Support for Teachers to Carry Out Instructional Innovations in the Mathematics Classroom

  • Leong Yew Hoong Email author
  • Tay Eng Guan 
  • Toh Tin Lam 
  • Quek Khiok Seng 
  • Romina Ann Soon Yap


We recognise that though teachers may participate in various forms of professional development (PD) programmes, learning that they may have gained in the PD may not always lead to corresponding perceivable changes in their classroom teaching. We offer a theoretical re-orientation towards this issue by introducing a construct we term “concretisation”. Concretisations are resources developed in PD settings which can be converted into tangible tools for classroom use. In theorising such resources, we contribute in informing the design process of teacher professional development for better impact into actual classroom practice. We purport principles of design which render concretisations effective. Subsequently, we test these principles by presenting a specific case of teaching mathematical problem solving.


Concretisations Instructional practices Mathematics teacher development Problem solving 

Supplementary material

10763_2017_9868_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1123 kb)


  1. Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological learning theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Chang, A. S. C., Kaur, B., Koay, P. L., & Lee, N. H. (2001). An exploratory analysis of current pedagogical practices in primary mathematics classrooms. The NIE Researcher, 1(2), 7–8.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498. Scholar
  7. Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). From convergence to divergence: The development of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore. ZDM, 39(5–6), 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foong, P. Y., Yap, S. F., & Koay, P. L. (1996). Teachers' concerns about the revised mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Educator, 1(1), 99–110.Google Scholar
  9. Hill, H. C. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 470–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaur, B., & Yap, S. F. (1998). KASSEL project report: Third phase. Singapore: Division of Mathematics, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.Google Scholar
  11. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Leong, Y. H., Dindyal, J., Toh, T. L. Quek, K. S., Tay, E. G., & Lou, S. T. (2011a). Teacher education for a problem-solving curriculum in Singapore. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 819–831.Google Scholar
  13. Leong, Y. H., Tay, E. G., Toh, T. L., Quek, K. S., & Dindyal, J. (2011b). Reviving Polya’s "look Back" in a Singapore school. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(3), 181–193.Google Scholar
  14. Leong, Y. H., Toh, T. L., Tay, E. G., Quek, K. S., & Dindyal, J. (2012). Relooking "Look Back": A student's attempt at problem solving using Polya’s model. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(3), 357–369.Google Scholar
  15. Leong, Y. H., Tay, E. G., Quek, K. S., Toh T. L., Toh, P. C., Dindyal, J., Ho, F. H., & Yap, R. A. S. (2013). Making mathematics more practical. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  16. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). California: Corwin.Google Scholar
  17. McNaught, M. D., Tarr, J. E., & Sears, R. (2010). Conceptualising and measuring fidelity of implementation of secondary mathematics textbooks: Results of a three-year study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Americal Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  18. Ministry of Education [MOE] (2006). Secondary mathematics syllabuses. Singapore: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Nipper, K., & Sztajn, P. (2008). Expanding the instructional triangle: Conceptualizing mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2000). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  22. Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). Problem solving in the United States, 1970-2008: Research and theory, practice and politics. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 537–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 607–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schoenfeld, A. H., Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (2000). The detailed analysis of an established teacher's non-traditional lesson. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 281–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sfard, A. (2005). What could be more practical than good research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(3), 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smylie, M. A. (1989). Teachers' views of effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stacey, K. (2005). The place of problem solving in contemporary mathematics curriculum documents. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on solving. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. Brussels, Belgium: International Academy of Education.Google Scholar
  32. Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices, and students achievement. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 573–596.Google Scholar
  33. Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (Eds.). (2015). Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Yeo, S. M., & Zhu, Y. (2005). Higher-order thinking in Singapore mathematics classrooms. Paper presented at the International education conference: Redesigning pedagogy: Research, policy and practice, Singapore.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics and Mathematics Education Academic Group, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations