한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구 (Research in Mathematical Education)

  • 제22권3호
  • /
  • Pages.223-243
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1226-6191(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9943(eISSN)
한국수학교육학회 (Korean Society of Mathematical Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Voice of Mathematics Teacher Guides from Their Use of Pronouns, Modality, and Imperatives

  • Suh, Heejoo (Department of Mathematics Education, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • 투고 : 2019.08.29
  • 심사 : 2019.09.30
  • 발행 : 2019.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Researchers have been attending to the potential of curriculum materials as resources for professional development. In order for a curriculum material to fulfil such purpose, curriculum authors should intentionally attend to educativeness of the material. A feature of educative material is that its voice speaks to teachers. In this study, I explore educativeness of Algebra teacher guides by attending to their voice. In particular, I focused on the use of pronouns, modality, and imperatives. Findings indicate that some teacher guides have more educative voice than the others and that the amount each guide talk to teachers were less than sufficient. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ahl, L., Koljonen, T., & Helenius, O. (2017). The voice of curriculum developers in teacher guides. For the Learning of Mathematics, 37(2), 35-39.
  2. Alshwaikh, J. (2016). Investigating the geometry curriculum in Palestinian textbooks: towards multimodal analysis of Arabic mathematics discourse. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1177580
  3. Ball, L., & Cohen, K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177151
  4. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001
  5. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Using educative curriculum materials to support preservice elementary teachers’ curricular planning: A comparison between two different forms of support. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(5), 679-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2009.00464.x
  6. Brown, S., Breunlin, R., Wiltjer, M., Degner, K., Eddins, S., Edwards, M., ... Usiskin, Z. (2008). The University of Chicago School Mathematics Project: Algebra. Teacher's Edition. Chicago: McGraw-Hill.
  7. Buschang, R. E., Chung, G. K. W. K., Delacruz, G. C., & Baker, E. L. (2012). Validating measures of algebra teacher subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Assessment, 17(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2012.697847
  8. Bush, S. B., & Karp, K. S. (2013). Prerequisite algebra skills and associated misconceptions of middle grade students: A review. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 613-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.07.002
  9. Charles, R., Hall, B., Kennedy, D., Bellman, A., Bragg, S., Handlin, W., ...Wiggins, G. (2015). Algebra 1 Common Core. Teacher's Edition. New Jersey: Pearson.
  10. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 287-311. https://doi.org/10.1086/499727
  11. Cooper, K., & Olson, M. R. (1996). The multiple 'I's' of teacher identity. In M. Kompf, W. R. Bond, D. Dworet, & R. T. Boak (Eds.), Changing research and practice: Teachers professionalism, identities and knowledge (pp. 78-89). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
  12. Davis, K. S. (2002). “Change is hard”: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10037
  13. Davis, A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  14. Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293-304. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17727502
  15. Deemer, S. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000178836
  16. Dowling, P. (1996). A sociological analysis of school mathematics texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(4), 389-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00369156
  17. Doerr, H. M. (2004). Teachers' knowledge and the teaching of algebra. In The Future of the Teaching and Learning of Algebra The 12th ICMI Study (pp. 265-290). Springer, Dordrecht.
  18. Drake, C., Land, J., & Tyminski, M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers' knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154-162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528039
  19. Even, R. (1993). Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective secondary teachers and the function concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(2), 94-116. https://doi.org/10.2307/749215
  20. Gamoran, A., & Hannigan, E. C. (2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of college-preparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(3), 241-254. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737022003241
  21. Geary, D. C., Boykin, A. W., Embretson, S., Reyna, V., Siegler, R., Berch, D. B., & Graban, J. (2008). The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
  22. Great Minds (2017). Eureka Math. Eureka Basic Curriculum Files. Algebra I. Retrieved from https://greatminds.org/download_pages/eurekabasicfiles?opened_product_id=92
  23. Gumperz, J. J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In M. Saville-Troike (Ed.), Linguistics and anthropology (pp. 191-211). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
  24. Haimes, D. H. (1996). The implementation of a “function” approach to introductory algebra: A case study of teacher cognitions, teacher actions, and the internded curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(5), 582-602. https://doi.org/10.2307/749849
  25. Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Hodder Arnold.
  26. Hand, V., & Gresalfi, M. S. (2015). The joint accomplishment of identity. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075401
  27. Harre, R. (2012). Positioning theory: Moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 191-206). NY: Oxford University Press.
  28. Herbel-Eisenmann, A. (2007). From intended curriculum to written curriculum: Examining the “voice” of a mathematics textbook. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(4), 344-369.
  29. Herbel-Eisenmann, A., Kristmanson, P., & Wagner, D. (2011). Modality in French immersion mathematics. In M. Setati, T. Nkambule, & L. Goosen (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI Study Mathematics and language diversity (pp. 144-152). Sao Paulo, Brazil.
  30. Hermans, H. J. M. (2013). The dialogical self in education: Introduction. Journal of ConstructivistPsychology, 26(2), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2013.759018
  31. Izsak, A., Caglayan, G., & Olive, J. (2009). Meta-representation in an Algebra I classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(4), 549-587. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903191912
  32. Koljonen, T., Ryve, A., & Hemmi, K. (2018). Analysing the nature of potentially constructed mathematics classrooms in Finnish teacher guides - the case of Finland. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 295-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2018.1542338
  33. Lappen, G., Phillips, E., Fey, J., & Friel, S. (2014). Connected mathematics 3 teacher's guide. Boston: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  34. Liang, J. H., Heckman, P. E., & Abedi, J. (2012). What do the California standards test results reveal about the movement toward eighth-grade algebra for all? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 328-343. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712443307
  35. McCrory, R., Floden, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Reckase, M., & Senk, S. (2012). Knowledge of algebra for teaching: A framework of knowledge and practices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(5), 584-615. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.5.0584
  36. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
  37. Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Teachers’ and researchers’ beliefs about the development of algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 168-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/749750
  38. Parks, A. N. (2010). Metaphors of hierarchy in mathematics education discourse: The narrow path. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270903167743
  39. Parks, A. N., & Wager, A. (2015). What knowledge is shaping teacher preparation in early childhood mathematics? Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 36(2), 124-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2015.1030520
  40. Peercy, M. M., Martin-Beltran, M., Silverman, R. D., & Daniel, S. (2015). Curricular design and implementation as a site of teacher expertise and learning. Teachers and Teaching, 21(7), 867-892. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.995486
  41. Reyes, X. A., & Rios, D. I. (2003). Imaging teachers: In fact and in the mass media. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532771XJLE0201_2
  42. Roth McDuffie, A. M., & Mather, M. (2006). Reification of instructional materials as part of the process of developing problem-based practices in mathematics education. Teachers and Teaching, 12(4), 435-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13450600600644285
  43. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00130
  44. Remillard, T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331-350. https://doi.org/10.1086/499645
  45. Remillard, T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
  46. Rennert-Ariev, P. (2008). The hidden curriculum of performance-based teacher education. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 105-138.
  47. Reyes, X. A., & Rios, D. I. (2003). Imaging teachers: In fact and in the mass media. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532771XJLE0201_2
  48. Reynolds, C. (1996). Cultural scripts for teachers: Identities and their relation to workplace landscapes. In M. Kompf, W. R. Bond, D. Dworet, & R. T. Boak (Eds.), Changing research and practice: Teachers professionalism, identities and knowledge (pp. 69-77). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
  49. Rotman, B. (1988). Towards a semiotics of mathematics. Semiotica, 72(1/2), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1988.72.1-2.1
  50. Rowland, T. (2005). The pragmatics of mathematics education. Taylor & Francies e-Library.
  51. Sanchez, V., & Llinares, S. (2003). Four student teachers' pedagogical reasoning on functions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022123615355
  52. Shkedi, A. (1998). Can the curriculum guide both emancipate and educate teachers? Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 209-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00085
  53. Smith, J. B. (1996). Does an extra year make any difference? The impact of early access to algebra on long-term gains in mathematics attainment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(2), 141-153. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737018002141
  54. Spielhagen, F. R. (2006). Closing the achievement gap in math: The long-term effects of eighthgrade algebra. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(1), 34-59. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2006-344
  55. Stein, M. K., & Baxter, J. A. (1990). Subject-matter knowledge and elementary instruction: A case from functions and graphing. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 639-663. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312027004639
  56. Stein, M. K., Kaufman, J. H., & Sherman, M. (2011). Algebra a challenge at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 453-492. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311423025
  57. Stump, S. L. (2001). Developing preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of slope. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(2), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00071-2
  58. Sugrue, C. (1997). Student teachers' lay theories and teaching identities: Their implications for professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20(3), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976970200302
  59. Taylor, P. C. (1996). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(1-2), 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143930
  60. Wilson, M. R. (1994). One preservice secondary teacher's understanding of function: The impact of a course integrating mathematical content and pedagogy. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(4), 346-370. https://doi.org/10.2307/749238
  61. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-181. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_1
  62. Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 469-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00007-5