Abstract
With the emergence of e-textbooks, along with expectations to integrate technology in instruction, teachers are becoming significant co-designers of the curriculum. Informed selection and sequencing of learning resources requires sensitivity to didactic nuance, and tools to support development and application of such sensitivity. Teachers’ practices are constrained by the aspects of resources that are “searchable,” which are limited using standard search engines, and the selection of tasks is influenced by the engines’ ranking of search results, reflecting their popularity. We are developing and researching a coupled pair of tools to support mathematics teachers in making informed curricular decisions—a tool for tagging learning resources with prescribed categories of didactic metadata and a dashboard for browsing collections of resources according to this tagged metadata. In this article, we investigate affordances of these tools for the professional development of mathematics teachers—both practicing and pre-service teacher candidates. Viewing the dashboard, along with the metadata that it encodes, as a boundary object between the teachers’ and the researchers’ perspectives on curricular design, we show how teachers learned through acts of boundary crossing, conceived as transitions and interactions between the two communities’ curricular discourses. We show how using the dashboard in a task-selection assignment encouraged teachers to reflect on their practice—making explicit the tacit considerations that they apply to curricular decisions and articulating them from the researchers’ perspective. We also describe the emergence of “hybrid” search strategies, integrating multiple perspectives to create practices that are both didactically informed and practically relevant for instruction.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramovich, S., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2013). The role of evaluative metadata in an online teacher resource exchange. Educational Technology Research and Development,61(6), 863–883.
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research,81(2), 132–169.
Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science,6, 350–372.
Candlin, C. N., & Maley, Y. (1997). Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the discourse of alternative dispute resolution. In B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linnel, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 201–222). New York: Routledge.
Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (2003). On appreciating the cognitive complexity of school algebra: Research on algebra learning and directions of curricular change. In J. Kilpatrick, D. Schifter, & G. Martin (Eds.), A research companion to the principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 123–135). Reston: NCTM.
Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (2014). The future of mathematics textbooks: Ramifications of technological change. In M. Stocchetti (Ed.), Media and education in the digital age: A critical introduction. New York: Peter Lang.
Cooper, J., & Olsher, S. (2018). Boundary crossing in design based research—Lessons learned from tagging didactic metadata. In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg, & L. Sumpter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 299–306). Umeå: PME.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Karkkainen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction,5, 319–336.
Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM Mathematics Education,45(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0539-x.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013). Collective work with resources: An essential dimension for teacher documentation. ZDM Mathematics Education,45(7), 1003–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0527-1.
Hasselbring, T. G., & Glaser, C. H. W. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The Future of Children: Children and Computer Technology,10(2), 102–122.
Hooper, M., Mullis, I. V., & Ma, M. O. (2015). TIMSS 2015 context questionnaire framework. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/downloads/T15_FW_Chap3.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2019.
Konkola, R., Tuomi-Grohn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work,20, 211–228.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., Yerushalmy, M., Trouche, L., & Chazan, D. (2015). e-textbooks in/for teaching and learning mathematics: A disruptive and potentially transformative educational technology. In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (3rd ed., pp. 636–661). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Remillard, J. T. (2016). Keeping an eye on the teacher in the digital curriculum race. In M. Bates & Z. Usiskin (Eds.), Digital curricula in School Mathematics (pp. 195–204). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Schwartz, J. L., Kenney, J., Ilias, S., Kelly, K., Sienkiewicz, T., Sivan, Y., et al. (1995, September). BA—Assessing mathematical understanding and skills effectively (AMUSE). Retrieved from Balanced assessment: http://hgse.balancedassessment.org/amuse.html.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siedel, H., & Stylianides, A. J. (2018). Teachers’ selection of resources in an era of plenty: An interview study with secondary mathematics teachers in England. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources (pp. 119–144). Cham: Springer.
Sinclair, N., & Jakiw, N. (2005). Understanding and projecting ICT trends in mathematics education. In S. Johnston-Wilder & D. Pimm (Eds.), Teaching secondary mathematics with ICT (pp. 235–251). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
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). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science,19, 387–420.
Usiskin, Z. (2010). The current state of the school mathematics curriculum. In B. Reys, R. Reys, & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future direction, 72nd Yearbook (pp. 25–39). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebra word problems with graphing software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.,37(5), 356–387.
Yerushalmy, M. (2016). Inquiry curriculum and e-textbooks: Technological changes that challenge the representation of mathematics pedagogy. In M. Bates & Z. Usiskin (Eds.), Digital curricula in School Mathematics (pp. 87–106). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2008). Technology and curriculum design: The ordering of discontinuities in school Algebra. In L. English (Ed.), Second handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 806–837). London: Taylor & Francis.
Yerushalmy, M. (1996). Analysis—Computer-supported investigations for high school, 4 and 5 study units (experimental ed.). Haifa: University of Haifa.
Yerushalmy, M., Shternberg, B., & Katriel, H (2002, revised 2015). Products of linear functions. Retrieved from VisualMATH—functions and algebra: http://visualmath.haifa.ac.il/en/quadratic/products_of_linear_functions. Accessed January 1, 2018.
Acknowledgements
The work reported herein was supported by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Space, Grant Number 3-12946.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cooper, J., Olsher, S. & Yerushalmy, M. Didactic metadata informing teachers’ selection of learning resources: boundary crossing in professional development. J Math Teacher Educ 23, 363–384 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09428-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09428-1