Skip to main content
Log in

Didactic metadata informing teachers’ selection of learning resources: boundary crossing in professional development

  • Published:
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research,81(2), 132–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science,6, 350–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J. L., Kenney, J., Ilias, S., Kelly, K., Sienkiewicz, T., Sivan, Y., et al. (1995, September). BAAssessing 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerushalmy, M. (1996). Analysis—Computer-supported investigations for high school, 4 and 5 study units (experimental ed.). Haifa: University of Haifa.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work reported herein was supported by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Space, Grant Number 3-12946.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Cooper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09428-1

Keywords

Navigation