Abstract
We recognise that, for instructional innovations to take root in mathematics classrooms, curriculum redesign and teachers’ professional development are two necessary and mutually-reinforcing processes: a redesigned curriculum needs to be seen as an improvement in order to facilitate teachers’ buy-in—an ingredient for effective professional development; on the other hand, teachers’ professional development content needs to be directed towards actual useable classroom implements through the enterprise of collaborative curriculum redesign. In this chapter, we examine the interaction between researchers and teachers in this collaborative enterprise through the metaphor of boundary crossing. In particular, we study a basic model of how “boundary objects” located within a “Replacement Unit” strategy interact to advance the goals of professional development.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Pseudonyms are used for the names of the school and school personnel cited in this paper.
- 2.
Collaborative meetings between the researchers and teachers were conducted in Eastpark Secondary School during the school’s designated period for “PLC meetings”—a one-hour slot per week for teachers to discuss professional issues. Such a practice is becoming a norm in Singapore schools in line with the effort to develop professional learning communities (PLCs).
- 3.
In the rest of this chapter, the plural personal pronoun is used to refer to the researchers, where applicable, for ease of reading.
- 4.
Some of the problems as proposed during the pre-design meeting are given in Appendix B.
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. doi:10.3102/0034654311404435.
Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Dean, C. (2009). Conducting design experiments to support teachers’ learning: A reflection from the field. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 165–199.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343.
Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Dekker, T., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., de Lange, J., & Wijers, M. (2007). Problem solving as a challenge for mathematics education in the Netherlands. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 405–418.
Leong, Y. H., Tay, E. G., Quek, K. S., Toh, T. L., Toh, P. C., Dindyal, J., et al. (2014). Making mathematics more practical: Implementation in the schools. Singapore: World Scientific.
Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2006). Secondary mathematics syllabuses. Singapore.
Mok, I. A. C., Cai, J., & Fung, A. T. F. (2005). Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Struggles a Hong Kong teacher faces. Paper presented at the The 3rd East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education, Shanghai, China.
Pólya, G. (1945/1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
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(3), 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.
Sztajn, P., Wilson, P. H., Edgington, C., Myers, M., & Teachers, P. (2014). Mathematics professional development as design for boundary encounters. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46, 201–212.
Teong, S. K., Hedberg, J. G., Ho, K. F., Lioe, L. T., Tiong, J. Y. S., Wong, K. Y., Fang, Y., et al. (2009). Developing the repertoire of heuristics for mathematical problem solving, project 1: Establishing baseline data for mathematical problem solving practices in Singapore schools. Final technical report for project CRP 1/04 JH. Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
Toh, T. L., Quek, K. S., Leong, Y. H., Dindyal, J., & Tay, E. G. (2011). Making mathematics practical: An approach to problem solving. Singapore: World Scientific.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A: A compressed version of the Practical Worksheet Used in Eastpark Secondary School
-
Instructions
-
1.
You may proceed to complete the worksheet doing stages I–IV.
-
2.
If you wish, you have 15 min to solve the problem without explicitly using Polya’s model. Do your work in the space for Stage III.
-
If you are stuck after 15 min, use Polya’s model and complete all the stages I–IV.
-
If you can solve the problem, you must proceed to do stage IV—Check and Expand.
-
You may have to return to this section a few times. Number each attempt to understand the problem accordingly as Attempt 1, Attempt 2, etc.
-
-
1.
-
Stage I: Understand the Problem
-
(a)
Use some heuristics such as Draw a Diagram, Restate the problem, Use Suitable Numbers, etc., to help you.
-
(b)
I have understood the problem. (Circle your agreement below)
-
Stage II & III: Devise a Plan and Carry it out
-
(a)
State your plan clearly, for example: (i) Use suitable Numbers and Look for Patterns; or (ii) Find the areas of all smaller triangles and work out their ratios.
-
(b)
Number each plan as Plan 1, Plan 2, etc.
-
(c)
Carry out the plan that you have stated.
-
(d)
Write down in the Control column, the key points where you make a decision or observation, for e.g. go back to check, try something else, look for resources or totally abandon the plan.
-
Stage IV: Check and Expand
-
(a)
Write down how you checked your solution.
-
(b)
Write down a sketch of any alternative solution(s) that you can think of.
-
(c)
Give one or two adaptations, extensions or generalisations of the problem. Explain succinctly whether your solution structure will work on them.
Appendix B
Some of the specific problems suggested during the RU strategy
Problem name | Problem details |
---|---|
Choose a number | Write down an integer between 1 and 200. What is the probability/chance that there is a match? |
Three children | Given a family with three children, what is the probability that the family has three boys? |
Passenger seat | Mr. and Mrs. Tay and their son John goes into their family car. Mr. and Mrs. Tay can drive but John cannot. What is the probability of Mr. Tay sitting in the passenger seat? (Apart from the driver seat that must be filled, the other passengers can choose to sit in any of the remaining seats in the car.) |
Loaded die | In an unbiased die, three faces are painted “1”, two faces are painted “2”, and the last face is painted “3”. Find the probability that when the die is rolled, “2” is obtained |
Phoney Russian roulette | Two bullets are placed in two consecutive chambers of a 6-chamber revolver. The cylinder is then spun. Two persons play a safe version of Russian Roulette. The first points a gun at his hand phone and pulls the trigger. The shot is blank. Suppose you are the second person and it is now your turn to point the gun at your hand phone and pull the trigger. Should you pull the trigger or spin the cylinder another time before pulling the trigger? |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leong, Y.H. et al. (2017). Boundary Objects Within a Replacement Unit Strategy for Mathematics Teacher Development. In: Kaur, B., Kwon, O., Leong, Y. (eds) Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers. Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2598-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2598-3_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2596-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2598-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)