Exploratory Study on Taiwanese Secondary Teachers’ Critiques of Mathematics Textbooks

Kai-Lin Yang; Xin-Yi Liu

doi:10.29333/ejmste/99515

Full Text (PDF)

Kai-Lin Yang ¹ ^* , Xin-Yi Liu ¹

More Detail

¹ National Taiwan Normal University, TAIWAN
^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study explores Taiwanese mathematics teachers’ critiques of a series of geometry textbooks for grades 8 and 9. Two hundred seventy-four critiques from 143 mathematics teachers were analyzed by referring to six attributes of abstraction. Through analysis and interpretation of these critiques, the meaning of each attribute was refined, and their features were revealed. Possible beliefs-in-critiquing related to the features were discussed. This study contributes to the literature by advancing understanding of mathematics teachers’ critiques of textbooks. We conclude with a discussion of the methodological and educational implications of teachers’ critiques as well as how critiques of teaching materials can influence teacher education.

Keywords

geometry
mathematics teacher
teacher critique
textbook

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/99515

EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed, 2019 - Volume 15 Issue 1, Article No: em1655

Publication date: 01 Nov 2018

Article Views: 263

Article Downloads: 171

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Artzt, A. F., Armour-Thomas, E., Curcio, F. R., & Gurl, T. J. (2015). Becoming a reflective mathematics teacher: A guide for observations and self-assessment. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315776941.
Atkinson, B. M. (2012). Rethinking Reflection: Teachers’ Critiques. The Teacher Educator, 47(3), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.685796.
Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96(1), 130-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20466.
Bryan, C. A., Wang, T., Perry, B., Wong, N. Y., & Cai, J. (2007). Comparison and contrast: similarities and differences of teachers’ views of effective mathematics teaching and learning from four regions. ZDM, 39(4), 329-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0035-2.
Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 443-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.650215.
Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 14(5), 331-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9170-3.
Colestock, A., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Teachers’ sense-making strategies while watching video of mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 7-29.
Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20110.
Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Developing curriculum vision and trust. Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction, 321-337.
Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century: An ICMI study (pp. 37-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., Cañadas, G. R., & Contreras, J. M. (2017). Linking inquiry and transmission in teaching and learning mathematics and experimental sciences. Acta Scientiae, 18(4).
Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9159-8.
Hoyles, C. (1996). Modelling Geometrical Knowledge: The Case of the Students. Nato Asi Series F: Computer and System Sciences, 117, 94-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60927-5_7.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.
Jacobs, J. K., Yoshida, M., Stigler, J. W., & Fernandez, C. (1997). Japanese and American teachers’ evaluations of mathematics lessons: A new technique for exploring beliefs. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(97)90004-3.
Koichu, B., Zaslavsky, O., & Dolev, L. (2016). Effects of variations in task design on mathematics teachers’ learning experiences: a case of a sorting task. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(4), 349-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9302-2.
Lloyd, G. M., & Behm, S. L. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers’ analysis of mathematics instructional materials. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2005.10463342.
Lloyd, G., Remillard, J. T., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum materials: An emerging field. In J. T. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 3–14). New York: Routledge.
Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5423-y.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Re-sourcing teachers’ work and interactions: A collective perspective on resources, their use and transformation. ZDM, 45(7), 929-943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0534-2.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Remillard, J. (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.
Remillard, J. (2012). Modes of engagement: Understanding teachers’ transactions with mathematics curriculum resources. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 105–122). New York: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1966-8_6.
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.
Rezat, S. (2006). A model of textbook use. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 409-416). Prague, Czech Republic: PME.
Rezat, S. (2009). The utilization of mathematics textbooks as instruments for learning. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1260-1269). Lyon, France: INRP.
Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform‐based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802696115.
Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832714.
Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 11(2), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9063-7.
Taylor, M. W. (2013). Replacing the ‘teacher-proof’curriculum with the ‘curriculum-proof’teacher: Toward more effective interactions with mathematics textbooks. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 295-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.710253.
Tso, T.-Y., et al. (2011) (Ed.). Junior High School Mathematics. Taipei, Taiwan: Nani Publishers (In Chinese).
Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-595.
Vergnaud, G. (1998). Towards a cognitive theory of practice. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 227-240). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5190-0_14.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1990) An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph Vol. 4, Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19-29). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. http://doi.org/10.2307/749910.
Weinberg, A., & Wiesner, E. (2011). Understanding mathematics textbooks through reader-oriented theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9264-3.
Yang, K. L. (2013). A framework for analyzing textbooks based on the notion of abstraction. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(1), 33-39.
Yang, K. L. (2016). Analyzing mathematics textbooks through a constructive-empirical perspective on abstraction: The case of Pythagoras’ theorem. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(4), 913-930. http://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1237a.
Zaslavsky, O. (2005). Seizing the opportunity to create uncertainty in learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(3), 297-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-0606-5.
Zodik, I., & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Characteristics of teachers’ choice of examples in and for the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9140-6.

How to cite this article

Vancouver

Yang K, Liu X. Exploratory Study on Taiwanese Secondary Teachers’ Critiques of Mathematics Textbooks. EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed. 2019;15(1):em1655. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/99515

APA

Yang, K., & Liu, X. (2019). Exploratory Study on Taiwanese Secondary Teachers’ Critiques of Mathematics Textbooks. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(1), em1655. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/99515

AMA

Yang K, Liu X. Exploratory Study on Taiwanese Secondary Teachers’ Critiques of Mathematics Textbooks. EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed. 2019;15(1), em1655. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/99515

Chicago

Yang, Kai-Lin, and Xin-Yi Liu. "Exploratory Study on Taiwanese Secondary Teachers’ Critiques of Mathematics Textbooks". EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2019 15 no. 1 (2019): em1655. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/99515

Harvard

Yang, K., and Liu, X. (2019). Exploratory Study on Taiwanese Secondary Teachers’ Critiques of Mathematics Textbooks. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(1), em1655. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/99515

MLA

Yang, Kai-Lin et al. "Exploratory Study on Taiwanese Secondary Teachers’ Critiques of Mathematics Textbooks". EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 1, 2019, em1655. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/99515