Abstract
In this chapter, we present a conceptualisation of mathematics teaching and learning which we term realistic ambitious pedagogy. We locate this pedagogy within the domains of teaching goals and teaching enactment, and the interactions between them. We argue that it is a suitable pedagogy for use in teacher development enterprises because it takes into deliberate consideration the realistic constraints within which teachers work while pursuing ambitious goals of mathematics teaching. To illustrate, we provide an example taken from our work of redesigning a curriculum unit on simultaneous linear equations in two variables with some Year 8 mathematics teachers in Singapore.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Here, the lower case letters r and d are used to label the goals. This is to make a distinction between this set of goals and the goals listed in the previous section of this paper where they were labelled with capital letters R and D. The relationship between the r- and d-goals and the R- and D-goals respectively is roughly one of subordination. For example, fulfilling r1 within the teaching of this unit supports the fulfilment of some more broad-grained R-goals (such as R1).
- 2.
The task may appear at first look to be a repetition of contents taught in earlier lessons. In Lesson 4, the teacher has moved to teaching the method of elimination. Here, students were asked to use this newly learnt method to solve equations they would have solved in earlier lessons using the substitution method.
References
Amador, J., & Lamberg, T. (2013). Learning trajectories, lesson planning, affordances, and constraints in the design and enactment of mathematics teaching. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15(2), 146–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2013.770719.
Assude, T. (2005). Time management in the work economy of a class, a case study: Integration of Cabri in primary school mathematics teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1–3), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-5888-0.
Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051005006.
Charles, R. I. (2005). Big ideas and understandings as the foundation for elementary and middle school mathematics. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 7(3), 9–24.
Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York, NY: Macmiillan Publishing Company.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Education Researcher, 25(4), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025004012.
Jones, A. M. (2012). Mathematics teacher time allocation (Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT). Retrieved from http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4492&context=etd
Kazemi, E., Lampert, M., & Franke, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to support novice teacher’s ability to enact ambitious instruction. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing Divides: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Wellington, New Zealand (Vol. 1, pp. 11–29). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Keiser, J. M., & Lambdin, D. V. (1996). The clock is ticking: Time constraint issues in mathematics teaching reform. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 23.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312027001029.
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines (pp. 129–141). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Leong, Y. H., & Chick, H. L. (2007/2008). An insight into the ‘Balancing Act’ of teaching. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 9, 51–65.
Leong, Y. H., & Chick, H. L. (2011). Time pressure and instructional choices when teaching mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(3), 347–362.
Leong, Y. H., Chick, H. L., & Moss, J. (2007). Classroom research as teacher-researcher. The Mathematics Educator, 10(2), 1–26.
Leong, Y. H., Tay, E. G., Toh, T. L., Quek, K. S., Toh, P. C., & Dindyal, J. (2016a). Infusing mathematical problem snolving in the mathematics curriculum: Replacement Units. In P. Felmer, E. Perhkonen, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical problems: Advances and new perspectives (pp. 309–326). Geneva: Springer.
Leong, Y. H., Tay, E. G., Toh, T. L., Yap, R. A. S, Toh, P. C., Quek, K. S., & Dindyal, J. (2016b). Boundary objects within a replacement unit strategy for mathematics teacher development. In B. Kaur, O. N. Kwon, & Y. H. Leong (Eds.), Professional development of mathematics teachers: An Asian perspective (pp. 189–208). Singapore: Springer.
Lester, F. K. (Ed.). (2003). Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Prekindergarten - Grade 6. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Meek, C. (2003). Classroom crisis: It’s about time. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(8), 592.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994/2005). Prisoners of time: Report of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning. Washington, DC: Education Commission of the States.
Plank, S. B., & Condliffe, B. F. (2013). Pressures of the season: An examination of classroom quality and high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1152–1182. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213500691.
Schielack, J. F., & Chancellor, D. (2010). Mathematics in focus, K-6: How to help students understand big ideas and make critical connections. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Schoen, H. L. (Ed.). (2003). Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Grades 6-12. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing role of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859.
Wu, M., & Zhang, D. (2006). An overview of the mathematics curricula in the West and East. In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West (pp. 181–193). New York, NY: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leong, Y.H., Tay, E.G., Quek, K.S., Yap, S.F. (2019). Teaching Simultaneous Linear Equations: A Case of Realistic Ambitious Pedagogy. In: Toh, T., Kaur, B., Tay, E. (eds) Mathematics Education in Singapore. Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3573-0_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3573-0_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3572-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3573-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)