Skip to main content

Moving Toward Approximations of Practice in Teacher Professional Development: Learning to Summarize a Problem-Based Lesson

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Scripting Approaches in Mathematics Education

Part of the book series: Advances in Mathematics Education ((AME))

Abstract

This chapter describes a set of activities in a professional development intervention with in-service geometry teachers that engaged them in role-playing a lesson summary. The activities included discussion of animations of classroom instruction with examples of how to lead a summary of a problem-based lesson. The animations were representations of teaching that supported the development of shared knowledge about how to summarize a lesson. In addition, the teachers decomposed the practice of summarizing prior to their engagement in a role-play of a summary. This role-play constituted an approximation of practice that enabled the teachers to envision how a summary would unfold in real time and required the teacher leading the summary to make tactical decisions. Observations of a teacher leading a summary in his classroom provided evidence of teacher learning. Overall, the professional development included a sequence of activities that validated teachers’ knowledge and provided them with the capabilities for engaging in an authentic approximation of practice in a safe environment.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I use the term “teacher-character” in reference to the cartoon-based character that appeared in the animations .

  2. 2.

    The sessions were co-facilitated by a member of the research team who is the main facilitator (Facilitator 1) and the author who is also the project director (Facilitator 2). Unless noted, the transcripts refer to Facilitator 1.

  3. 3.

    This could be explained in relation to the teacher’s professional obligation to attend individual students (Herbst & Chazan, 2011).

  4. 4.

    Although the map provided to the students did not include streets, the teachers anticipated that the students would visualize a street.

  5. 5.

    Since there were more strategies than participating teachers in the study group , the session facilitators and other research team members that were in the room videotaping participated in the role-play. The participation of the facilitators and the research team was very limited and the teachers enacted the main roles.

  6. 6.

    I call the participants in the role-play “teacher-player” and “student-player” to emphasize their participation in the role-play and distinguish them from their actual participation as study group members.

  7. 7.

    I use […] to denote omitted text.

References

  • Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach and connecting professional learning to practice. American Educator, 35(2), 17–21. 38-39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, C. (1998). Mathematics teaching cases as catalyst for informed strategic inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boerst, T., Sleep, L., Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2011). Preparing teachers to lead mathematics discussions. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2844–2877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, R., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics PD. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des Mathematiques 1970–1990 (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Trans.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5–12. 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chazan, D., & Herbst, P. (2012). Animations of classroom interaction: Expanding the boundaries of video records of practice. Teachers College Record, 114(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chieu, V. M., Herbst, P., & Weiss, M. (2011). Effect of an animated classroom story embedded in online discussion on helping mathematics teachers learn to notice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 589–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, S., Oslund, J. A., & Parks, A. N. (2011). Imagining mathematics teaching practice: Prospective teachers generate representations of a class discussion. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(1), 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deal, J. T., & González, G. (2017). Developing teachers’ professional knowledge using video when engaging in the lesson revision process. In L. West & M. Boston (Eds.), National council of teachers of mathematics annual perspectives in mathematics education 2017: Reflective and collaborative practices to improve mathematics teaching. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeJarnette, A. F., & González, G. (2016a). Geometry students’ arguments about a 1-point perspective drawing. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeJarnette, A. F., & González, G. (2016b). Thematic analysis of students’ talk while solving a real-world problem in geometry. Linguistics and Education, 35, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeJarnette, A. F., González, G., Deal, J. T., & Rosado Lausell, S. L. (2016). Students’ conceptions of reflective symmetry: Opportunities for making connections with perpendicular bisector. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 43, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeJarnette, A. F., Rosado Lausell, S. L., & González, G. (2015). Shadow puppets: Exploring a context for similarity and dilations. The Mathematics Teacher, 109(1), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory. Malden, MA: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to PD: The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 393–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghousseini, H., & Herbst, P. (2016). Pedagogies of practice and opportunities to learn about classroom mathematics discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(1), 79–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, G. (2009). Mathematical tasks and the collective memory: How do teachers manage students’ prior knowledge when teaching geometry with problems? Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • González, G., & Deal, J. (2017). Using a creativity framework to promote teacher learning in lesson study. Thinking skills and creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.05.002

  • González, G., Deal, J. T., & Skultety, L. (2016). Facilitating teacher learning when using different representations of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(5), 447–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González, G., & DeJarnette, A. F. (2015). Designing stories for teachers to notice students’ prior knowledge. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • González, G., Skultety, L., Vargas, G. E., & Deal, J. T. (2016). Teacher noticing of student thinking during video club discussions of a problem about perpendicular bisectors. Poster presented the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, PME-NA XXXVIII, Tucson, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2003). Exploring the practical rationality of mathematics teaching through conversations about videotaped episodes: The case of engaging students in proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(1), 2–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2011). Research on practical rationality: Studying the justification of action in mathematics teaching. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(3), 405–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P., Chazan, D., Chieu, V. M., Milewski, A., Kosko, K., & Aaron, W. (2016). Technology-mediated mathematics teacher development: Research on digital pedagogies of practice. In M. Niess, K. Hollebrands, & S. Driskell (Eds.), Handbook of research on transforming mathematics teacher education in the digital age (pp. 78–106). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P., Chieu, V., & Rougee, A. (2014). Approximating the practice of mathematics teaching: What learning can web-based, multimedia storyboarding software enable? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol14/iss4/mathematics/article1.cfm

  • Herbst, P., & Miyakawa, T. (2008). When, how, and why prove theorems: A methodology to study the perspective of geometry teachers. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(3), 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P., Nachlieli, T., & Chazan, D. (2011). Studying the practical rationality of mathematics teaching: What goes into “installing” a theorem in geometry? Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 218–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO strategies for defeating the devil’s advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, K. D. (2001). Conceptually-oriented mathematics teacher development: Improvisation as a metaphor. For the Learning of Mathematics, 21(3), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on national standards in America (pp. 175–204). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, K. (2013). Zig Zag: The surprising path to greater creativity. San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M., & Han, S. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G., Linsenmeier, K., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Selecting video clips for teacher learning about student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, N., Pimm, D., & Skelin, M. (2012). Developing essential understanding of geometry for teaching mathematics in grades 9–12. Reston, VA: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skultety, L., González, G., & Vargas, G. (2017). Using technology to support teachers’ adaption of a lesson during lesson study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(2), 185–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyminski, A. M., Zambak, V. S., Drake, C., & Land, T. J. (2014). Using representations, decomposition, and approximations of practices to support prospective elementary mathematics teachers’ practice of organizing discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(5), 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Es, E. (2012). Examining the development of a teacher learning community: The case of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 182–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zazkis, R., Sinclair, N., & Liljedahl, P. (2013). Lesson play in mathematics education: A tool for research and professional development. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research described in this article was supported by a National Science Foundation grant to Gloriana González for the project entitled “CAREER: Noticing and Using Students’ Prior Knowledge in Problem-Based Instruction,” Grant No. DRL-1253081. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. I value the work of the members of the research team, Jason T. Deal, Lisa Skultety, and Gabriela E. Vargas. In addition, I appreciate the comments and valuable feedback of Jason T. Deal and Gabriela E. Vargas on earlier versions of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gloriana González .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Story 1

 

TEACHER:

Okay, you all did a great job with the problem. I was pretty happy with what I saw as I was walking around. I want us to take some time for us to share some of the things we discovered and wrap up the lesson. I’m going to give you two minutes to determine in your group what you want to share with the class. I can call anybody in the group so make sure that you are ready. Talk to your group mates and see what you want to share.

TEACHER:

All right, let’s start the discussion. Where are my notes? Oh, okay, here. Let’s start with group 1. Your strategy was very similar with what I saw in other groups. So, if group 1’s solution is like your group’s, keep a mental note about it and add your ideas at the end. Conrad, can you please share the work from group 1?

CONRAD:

Sure.

 

[CONRAD GOES TO THE BOARD]

TEACHER:

You can use the projected map and write there.

CONRAD:

So, like, we found the middle first.

TEACHER:

What do you mean by the middle?

CONRAD:

Right. So we looked at the two schools and found the midpoint.

TEACHER:

The midpoint of what?

CONRAD:

Like the midpoint of this segment.

TEACHER:

I see. Remember that we want to use correct vocab. It isn’t the midpoint of two locations, it’s the midpoint of a segment. Keep going.

CONRAD:

That was our first point. Then we found the other two possible places like above and below the midpoint.

 

[MARKS DIAGRAM]

TEACHER:

Does anybody have a question for Conrad? [Silence.] What do you think that I’m going to ask? Mariana?

MARIANA:

How did you pick the other points?

TEACHER:

Yes, that’s the question I would ask. Remember in Geometry we always want to know how, not just what. You should be able to say HOW you found the points so that others can follow the same method. Can you tell us how you decided to pick the other points?

CONRAD:

Well, I think we just looked a little bit on each side and that’s it.

TEACHER:

Okay, thanks. That was a pretty common strategy. Now, how did you know that those points were fair? What did your group have as an idea of what’s fair?

CONRAD:

It’s fair because it’s very close to the midpoint, and we knew that the midpoint was fair.

TEACHER:

Can anybody add to this? Maybe another group with a similar approach?

MARIANA:

Well, we were thinking like if this was a real map and there was something there like a gas station or something, then moving a little bit would be alright because it’s the closest you can move away from the midpoint.

TEACHER:

So you were thinking about what other actual buildings would be there, and you want to get away from those buildings. I see your point. Now, how do you know that those points are actually “fair”? I was talking to group 5 and they had a strategy to check if the points are fair to both schools. Audrey, do you want to talk about your strategy? Thanks Conrad. You can go back to your seat.

 

[CONRAD GOES BACK TO SEAT]

AUDREY:

Well, we did it like that group, only we started measuring so that it would be the same to both schools.

TEACHER:

Can you come up to the board and show what you measured?

 

[AUDREY GOES TO BOARD]

AUDREY:

So, here it’s obviously the same distance away from both schools.

TEACHER:

The midpoint.

AUDREY:

Yes, the midpoint. But then if we moved the ruler a little bit, then we have like this is the same distance from one school to this point and from the other school to that point. And we found a bunch of other points with that strategy.

TEACHER:

Okay, that’s interesting. And I have to say that when you are measuring you get to be more precise and you can be sure you have the right location. So you are looking at these points (adding markings, and this is the same as this, this is the same as this, and so forth…). Everyone agrees with this? Do you see the strategy?

STUDENTS:

STUDENTS MUMBLE, “OH YEAH”, “I KIND OF SEE THAT”, “YOU’RE RIGHT”, ETC.

 

[AUDREY GOES BACK TO SEAT]

TEACHER:

Take some time and talk to your group now and see if you notice something interesting about this line. What’s special about this line?

STUDENTS:

TALKING IN GROUPS. “I DON’T SEE ANYTHING, “WHAT’S INTERSTING?” “IT CROSSES AT THE MIDDLE.”

TEACHER:

Okay, what do you notice about the line? Eric?

ERIC:

It’s like going through the middle.

TEACHER:

Yes, going through the middle. What do we call that?

ERIC:

Bisecting?

TEACHER:

A bisector. What else?

MARIANA:

It looks perpendicular.

TEACHER:

It looks perpendicular? How do we know?

MARIANA:

We can measure.

TEACHER:

Did anybody measure?

ERIC:

We did. It’s 90.

TEACHER:

Yes, so, it’s a line that goes through the midpoint, so it’s a bisector, and it’s also perpendicular to the segment. We call it the perpendicular bisector. Two words, because it has two characteristics—it bisects a segment and it’s perpendicular.

TEACHER:

Ah…let’s do this, since we are running out of time. I am giving you a couple of problems for homework. Here, you need to determine what kind of line you have from some possibilities—a perpendicular bisector, a median, or an altitude. Review your notes and see what’s similar or different. Now, you need to be careful, because in some cases, it can be more than one thing, and that’s okay.

Story 2

 

TEACHER:

Okay, everyone, let’s get started with presentations of the work and wrapping up what you did. You all did a great job. I asked some people to come up and present. Let’s start with Leah. Can you come up and show what your group did? Remember that we want to show not just the location of the points but how we knew that the points are fair.

 

[LEAH COMES TO BOARD]

LEAH:

We started with the midpoint because that’s fair to both schools. But then we were thinking about the other two points and so we made sort of a square, well, like a rhombus. All the sides equal, so, yeah, a rhombus.

TEACHER:

And how is that fair?

LEAH:

It’s fair because you are moving the same distance to the schools, it doesn’t matter where you are. Like this and this and this and this…is the same, they are all the same.

TEACHER

That’s an interesting strategy and very unique. Thanks Leah. Let’s leave it up there for now. You can go back to your seat.

 

[LEAH GOES BACK TO SEAT]

TEACHER:

So, let me ask everyone, do you think that their solution is fair? And why?

JACKSON:

Well, I think it is, because you are moving the same distance away. We didn’t do it that way though.

TEACHER:

Yes, Jackson, hold on for a minute. I know that your group did something different, but I want to stay with this for a while. How do we know that this is fair? That’s the question that I want you to answer, and what is fair for them? Think about it for a little bit. They say that if you move the same distance and make a rhombus, then you get “fair locations.” How do I know that’s fair?

NATALIA:

We can measure.

TEACHER:

We can measure what?

CONRAD:

Like the midpoint of this segment.

NATALIA:

We can measure the distances and they all will be the same.

TEACHER:

That’s right. If we measure from-let me put some labels, Catalina High School to X and Tyrian High School to X is the same as Catalina to Y, and Tyrian to Y. Now, let’s consider group 3. Can you show your solution? Elijah?

ELIJAH:

We actually have something that doesn’t look like a rhombus.

TEACHER:

Exactly, that’s why I want you to show that. So what does that look like?

ELIJAH:

It’s more like a kite.

TEACHER:

A kite. And when we have something like a kite, you said, what things are equal.

ELIJAH:

These two are equal and these other two are equal.

TEACHER:

Okay, so let’s say I have Catalina to point, let me call it A and Tyrian to A is the same. But then Tyrian to B and Catalina to B are the same. Do you see where this is going? Not all the four distances are equal, but each pair is equidistant-the same distance.

TEACHER:

We are running out of time. I want you to think about this—are these locations that make a kite, fair? And also, are these locations that make a dart fair? [Teacher shows a dart.] You should provide an answer in your journal and then we’ll talk more about the wrap up to this lesson tomorrow. I’m sorry that we are running out of time, but it’s better to look at this closely tomorrow. Thanks all for your hard work.

Story 3

 

TEACHER:

Okay, let’s start talking about what you did in the problem. In this class it’s important that we share our mistakes so that we learn from them. Group 5 agreed to come up and talk about how they corrected their mistake and show their solution. Trey can you come to the board?

 

[TREY GOES TO BOARD]

TREY:

So, we thought first that we needed to pick an area, so we did like two circles here and here and then we said, any points here would make it.

TEACHER:

And how did you realize that this was a mistake?

TREY:

Because you told us.

TEACHER:

Okay, but what was the problem of that answer.

TREY:

Well, that the points are like all over the place and it’s like too many points.

TEACHER:

Actually, I don’t think that having too many points is a problem. Let’s look at this again. So let’s say that I choose this point that is in the area, would it be fair to both schools?

STUDENTS:

“NO.” “NOT EVEN CLOSE.” “MAYBE?”

TEACHER:

Why not?

RAQUEL:

It’s obviously closer to Catalina.

TEACHER:

Yes, and Tyrian High School would complain, right? So, just by being in one area doesn’t mean that it’s fair. Okay, so Trey, what did you do to correct the mistake?

TREY:

We looked at the intersecting points and they are fair because it’s same, same, same, same.

TEACHER:

Same, same…, you mean, equidistant?

TREY:

Yeah, that.

TEACHER:

Okay, so what made you look at the intersection points?

TREY:

It was Elijah’s idea, it’s like the radius is the same.

TEACHER:

Radii—congruent radii. That’s a good point. And let’s draw it here. Let’s go back a little bit. What do we know about these circles? How did you construct them?

TREY:

They are the same—congruent—like they have the same radius.

TEACHER:

So then we have this is a radius, this is the radius, and the same. That’s a good point. How did you choose the radius?

TREY:

I don’t know.

TEACHER:

Let me ask you another way, what if you choose another radius like let me draw this with a bigger one? And you can go back, thanks. I don’t want to put you on the spot, this is for the whole class. Yes, Taylor.

 

[TREY GOES BACK TO SEAT]

TAYLOR:

I wanted to say that we didn’t do it that way. We didn’t even use a compass.

TEACHER:

Yes, I know, and I’ll get to your method soon. Let’s finish with group 5. So, if I have another pair of congruent circles, would these points be equidistant? Let’s try it.

TEACHER:

Why are these equidistant?

JAMAL:

Same radius. The same. As long as the two circles are the same you are set.

TEACHER:

Yes, exactly. Now I want to go to group 3. Taylor, what was your method?

TAYLOR:

We measured. So it would be the same and the same here. And then the same and the same here…

TEACHER:

That sounds very good. Now, how similar is this to the circle method?

TAYLOR:

Oh, I guess you can make circles too—I see.

TEACHER:

Can you say it again?

TAYLOR:

We didn’t use a compass, but you can actually do it with a compass, like this.

TEACHER:

Can anybody summarize the main idea here? Why are these new locations fair?

RAQUEL:

They are fair because you are the same like the same, like moving the same from each school.

TEACHER:

Okay, so let’s see if there’s a pattern here. What if I choose these two points, or these two points, or these two points? What do I see with all the points?

JAMAL:

They are in a line.

TEACHER:

Yes, they are in a line—and that line is very important. So it doesn’t matter what radius you choose, the two circles will always intersect on that line.

RAQUEL:

What if you choose something too small?

TEACHER:

Yes, I mean as long as it actually makes two intersecting circles. That’s a good point. If you choose a radius that is too small it’s not going to even intersect.

TEACHER:

So, alright, this is actually a theorem and for homework you need to summarize in your own words the relationship. Look closely at the diagram and try to figure what’s the theorem. We want to say something about that line in relation to the segment.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

González, G. (2018). Moving Toward Approximations of Practice in Teacher Professional Development: Learning to Summarize a Problem-Based Lesson. In: Zazkis, R., Herbst, P. (eds) Scripting Approaches in Mathematics Education . Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62692-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62692-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62691-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62692-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics