Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (2006) 9:109–128 Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10857-006-0003-8
MERCEDES GARCÍA, VICTORIA SÁNCHEZ, ISABEL ESCUDERO
and SALVADOR LLINARES
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND
PRACTICE IN MATHEMATICS TEACHER EDUCATION
ABSTRACT. This paper addresses issues linking research in student teacher learning
with reflection on practice in mathematics teacher education. From a situated per-
spective on learning and practice, we explore our own practice as teacher educators
while researching student teacher learning in our classrooms. We describe a study on
student teacher learning, considering student teacher learning as a ‘‘process of
becoming’’, and how the results of this research have affected our development as
mathematics teacher educators and members of a community of inquiry. Our work
shows how in the mathematics teacher education context the relationship between
theory and practice becomes an element of both teacher educator and researcher
development.
KEY WORDS: Situated perspective on learning and practice, use of tools of practice,
relationship between research and practice in mathematics teacher education, community
of inquiry
INTRODUCTION
A few years ago, Lerman (2001a) suggested the need to incorporate
theories of teacher learning which draw on notions of developing indi-
vidual teacher identities within a social context, including learning
about teaching as a socio-cultural activity, into research on mathemat-
ics teacher education. For Lerman, ‘‘the classroom and seminar room
are complex sites of political and social influences, socio-cultural inter-
actions, and multiple positioning involving class, gender, ethnicity,
teacher–student relations, and other discursive practices in which pow-
er and knowledge are situated’’ (Lerman, 2001a, p.44). He pointed out
that individualistic accounts cannot explain all these forces.
Focusing on Lave’s work (Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991),
Lerman indicated that ‘‘there are aspects of her theories that need
110 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
work by researchers, such as that student teachers are learning about
teaching from a teacher educator in a university setting, not a school
setting. The teacher educator is not the master of the teaching prac-
tice, and some elaboration is required in terms of models of mastery
being offered rather than the practices of the master’’ (Lerman, 2001a,
p. 46).
The need for teacher educators to construct research frameworks
for analysing teacher learning from situated perspectives involves the
creation of a research framework that analyses their own practice. The
aspect of teacher educator practice considered here is the work with
primary school1 student teachers in teacher education programmes.
Consequently, our understanding of student teacher learning must be
made explicit. We assume that student teacher learning is a process
during which knowledge and modes of reasoning similar to those of
the experienced teacher should be acquired. Some features of this pro-
cess are:
– it occurs through active participation in a context defined by
‘‘authentic activities’’ understood as ordinary cultural practices;
– learning is based on developing a way of participating in a commu-
nity of practice;
– activity acquires full meaning from previous knowledge and beliefs,
and by positioning the student teacher in that practice (his/her goals,
needs, and so forth) (Llinares, 2002); and
– participation in the activity can increase and/or modify the meaning
of conceptual tools used.
We also think that social practice is an integral and inseparable
part of learning. With regard to social practice, Hanks’ Foreword to
Lave and Wenger (1991) considers legitimate peripheral participation
to be a basic concept: ‘‘this central concept [legitimate peripheral par-
ticipation] denotes the particular mode of engagement of a learner
who participated in the actual practice of an expert, but only to a lim-
ited degree and with limited responsibility for the ultimate product as
a whole’’ (p. 14).
Participation takes place in ‘communities of practice’ that portray a
social group in which its members share a given activity (goals,
purpose, ends, means, etc.). Although we are aware that student teachers
do not initially belong to the ‘community of practice’ of mathematics
teachers, we do acknowledge that teacher education programmes must
provide the means for qualifying student teachers for becoming mem-
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 111
bers of that community, and favouring student teacher participation in
what are called ‘communities of learning’ (Garcı́a, 2000, 2003).
In this article, we describe how we have used theoretical constructs
taken from situated perspectives to characterize the dialectical relation-
ship that is established between research into student teacher learning
and mathematics teacher educator development. From our point of
view, the situated perspectives provide referents, such as the notion of
‘learning through the use of conceptual tools’, with which we can
examine the relationship between research on teacher learning and
development of mathematics teacher educators. We assume that, in
teacher education, there are two communities of practice, a commu-
nity of future mathematics teachers (community of learning) and a
community of mathematics teacher educators. In some cases, and spe-
cifically in our case, the community of practice of teacher educators
could be considered a community of inquiry, in which there are differ-
ent roles: mathematics teacher educators, researchers and researchers/
mathematics teacher educators. In such a community, a co-learning
situation emerges (Jaworski, 2003a, b). Researchers, such as Jaworski
(2003b), have started to develop theoretical frameworks for studying
and analysing the relationships in communities of inquiry.
The first part of the article focuses on how we understand mathe-
matics teacher education practice. In the following sections, we de-
scribe a study on student teacher learning, and discuss how the results
of this research have affected our development as mathematics teacher
educators, members of a community of inquiry. The article ends with
some conclusions and implications for future research in the field.
A WAY OF CONSIDERING MATHEMATICS TEACHER
EDUCATION PRACTICE
Efforts made in recent years to articulate mathematics teacher educa-
tion programmes have come up against several problems, among them
being a lack of tradition in the coordination of those programmes and
teacher learning research. To grapple with this issue, we focus on math-
ematics teacher education practice from the point of view of a commu-
nity of inquiry. We assume that reflective practice is a characteristic of
this community (Tzur, 2001; Zaslavsky & Leikin, 2004). In our com-
munity of inquiry, student teacher learning is an object of reflection.
We conceptualize our learning as members of that community, using
the same theoretical constructs as for student teacher learning. Both in
112 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
the community of learning and in the community of inquiry, learning is
regarded as increased participation in the practice of a community.
For us, ‘‘becoming a primary teacher’’ may be understood as the
process of pre-service primary school teachers being introduced into
the community of practice of those teachers, and acquiring an under-
standing of the teaching of mathematics. Learning to teach is seen as
the identification and use of conceptual and technical tools in solving
professional tasks (Garcı́a, Sánchez, Escudero & Llinares, 2003b). This
implies:
– learning to carry out teaching tasks,
– learning to use and justify the tools involved in tasks like planning
(task design, choice of textbook and curricular materials), assess-
ment, and handling students’ mathematical communication.
In this sense, student teacher learning could be understood as pro-
gressive participation in the community of practice through the use of
conceptual tools, which permit student teachers to understand and
undertake professional tasks. For us, the term ‘tool’ not only denotes
a physical object, but is extended to concepts and reasoning, etc.,
which enable and influence interaction within a community. Such tools
may be classified as either technical or conceptual tools. Technical tools
are those tools used in the ‘practice’, such as teaching materials and
software, techniques for managing discussion of procedures, answers
to problems, and so on. Conceptual tools are understood as those con-
cepts and theoretical constructs that have been generated from re-
search in teaching and mathematics learning leading to understanding
and handling the situations in which mathematics is taught and
learned.
To articulate the ideas above, we organized our practice according
to a ‘teaching–learning trajectory’ (see Figure 1).
These trajectories are our way of making operative the notion of a
reproductive cycle (Lave & Wenger, 1991), in which knowledge is inte-
grated into the activity. According to Lerman (2001b), we assume that
practices in teaching–learning trajectories ‘‘should be seen, therefore,
as discursive formations within which what counts as valid knowledge
is produced and within which what constitutes successful participation
is also produced’’ (p. 100).
In these trajectories, meanings related to the skills and tools neces-
sary to teach mathematics may be shared, discussed and negotiated
with the different groups of students that are formed in the classroom
(Sánchez, 1997). We try to generate learning environments, the goal of
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 113
Situation
/Task
Work in small groups
Elaboration of reports
Collective Analysis/Discussion
of reports
Conceptual tools
Collective Discussion/Analysis
of the new questions
Reflection
(What have I learnt?)
New tasks
Assessment
Figure 1. Teaching–learning trajectory (Garcı́a, 2000. p. 63).
which is that student teachers progressively take part in professional
teaching tasks, but without a teacher’s responsibility (Garcı́a, 2000,
2003). In addition, student teachers are encouraged to think of them-
selves as teachers, and share their comments and opinions with the
group. The theoretical information providing student teachers with ac-
cess to conceptual tools can be found in videos, articles from the liter-
ature on mathematics education, or information given by teacher
educators (Garcı́a & Sánchez, 2002).
An essential part of our classes is establishing a collaborative and
cooperative atmosphere in which all the participants must contribute
(Sánchez, 2003), making decisions grounded in their knowledge of
teaching. In this sense, when the student teachers begin teaching
practice, the regulating effect of that practice positions them in it.
Following Llinares (2002), we believe that the regulating effect of
teaching practice is a way of student teachers becoming teachers by
developing their own identities as teachers. From this perspective, a
teaching–learning trajectory is founded on the notion of ‘‘person-in-
practice’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991). According to Lerman (2001b), this
theoretical construct includes the student teacher’s previous experi-
ence, the ways in which his or her social relationships have been
framed, how the teaching activities have been framed by teacher
educators, the texts, and the histories and functions of didactic
mathematics artefacts. We extend this construct to mathematics tea-
cher educators.
114 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
Below, we make use of a study on student teacher learning to de-
scribe the processes by which our reflection is evidence of our own
learning as teacher educators. In particular, the following question is
addressed: How do the results of mathematics teacher educator reflec-
tions on student teacher learning in a community of inquiry contribute
to teacher educators’ own growth? In this sense, we have extended the
ideas expressed by Zaslavsky and Leikin, ‘‘it follows that the commu-
nity of mathematics educators (i.e. teachers and teachers educators)
can be seen as learners who reflect continuously on their work and
make sense of their histories, their practices, and other experiences’’
(Zaslavsky & Leikin, 2004, p. 6) from a community of mathematics
educators to a community of inquiry.
A STUDY ON STUDENT TEACHER LEARNING
A problem that arises from our practice as mathematics teacher educa-
tors can be turned into an object of research within our community of
inquiry. In particular, as teacher educators, student teacher learning is
one of our main issues. From here, how student teachers learn –
understood as student teacher use of the conceptual tools provided in
teacher-learning trajectories—becomes a research problem within that
community (Escudero, Garcı́a, Llinares & Sánchez, 2002; Garcı́a, Sán-
chez & Escudero, 2003a). In our study, this problem is expressed as
the research question: How do student teachers use the conceptual
tools to solve ‘‘professional teaching tasks’’ in the context of a trajec-
tory? For us, the student teachers’ use of conceptual tools is under-
stood as ‘‘simultaneously setting in motion different tools, interaction
and communication of the information coming from them, leading to
reasonable decisions’’ (Garcı́a et al., 2003b, p. 3).
From the different professional teaching tasks in our mathematics
teacher education course that are the starting point of the various
teaching–learning trajectories, we have chosen the planning process,
and in particular, curricular analysis of the textbooks and teaching
materials (a typical primary school teacher task). Specifically, this
analysis focused on multiplicative structure problems (Greer, 1992).
We prepared two abridged books for the design of this professional
task. We chose two collections of textbooks, corresponding to all the
primary courses, from different publishers that were very popular
among primary teachers (labelled Publisher 1 (P1) and Publisher 2
(P2)). Although the texts chosen were not thoroughly analysed, some
marked features were considered:
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 115
– Inclusion or not of certain characteristics in line with the traditional
culture of primary school mathematics practice (subject revisions,
recapitulations, etc.)
– Inclusion or not of supporting illustrations in the introduction of
concepts and problems
– Integration of cross contents (other subjects or other mathematics
topics).
The content of the textbooks was reviewed and all the pages relat-
ing to multiplicative-structure problems were selected. These pages
were used to prepare the two abridged books, one from each pub-
lisher. Student teachers had to make a decision as to which book they
would choose to use in their teaching. The first page of the abridged
book described the professional task (a teacher must choose the text-
book or published teaching material for his/her students) and posed
several questions: What were the assessment criteria that you used to
make your decisions? Do you agree with the content? Do you agree
with the organization and presentation of that content? and so on.
The purpose of the first page was to summarize the characteristics of a
situation that is habitual in primary teaching practice and to stimulate
thought about that situation with the questions proposed. The task
was designed to allow the student teachers to situate themselves both
personally and socially.
In addition to the task, as part of the teaching–learning trajectory,
the student teachers were provided by the teacher educator with theo-
retical ideas, through articles, videos and other information, as
conceptual tools. These tools included different multiplicative-structure
problem typologies with different perspectives of analysis (Nesher,
1992; Vergnaud, 1991) of learning difficulties associated with these
problems, and on the relationship between problem comprehension
and the use of mathematical symbols. These conceptual tools thus
gave student teachers a specific language, meanings, and connections
that would allow them to think and speak as teachers.
Development of the study
The study included 130 primary school student teachers who were
enrolled in two groups of our mathematics methods course. This four
month course of four hours per week was part of the primary teacher
education programme at the University of Seville. The specific trajec-
tory that was object of our study took two weeks. In this paper, the
data come from this trajectory. The student teachers were grouped
116 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
into 23 small groups of 4–7 students. They were provided with the two
‘‘abridged books’’ referred to above and the conceptual tools, which
were part of the trajectory. In addition, a list of five addition and five
multiplication word problems of varying characteristics was also pro-
vided to each student. The student teachers were asked to identify the
structure of the ten word problems that were presented in random or-
der. They had to provide a justification of their answers.
With respect to the use of abridged textbook, although the task
was initially introduced in the classroom, the different groups of stu-
dent teachers carried out the work by meeting as many times as they
considered necessary to discuss their decisions and negotiate their
meanings. When the analysis was finished, each group had to write a
final report including their decisions and arguments.
The discursive nature of their justifications (included in the individ-
ual answers) and the student teachers’ group reports provided us with
the data. From this data, we could see how student teachers use the
theoretical constructs as tools in developing a professional task. On
one hand, the individual answers identifying the set of problems were
classified as to whether the student had identified the type of structure
or not. When the identification was correct, we observed whether iden-
tification had been based on conceptual tools involved. On the other
hand, the group reports were analysed by the following inductive pro-
cess. First, units of analysis were identified and classified into the
following sections:
• Criteria mentioned
• Elements considered basic
• Presence of the theoretical information in previous elements
• How difficulties (if any) are considered in the sequence set out in
the introductions to the texts
• Relationships established (or not) between the types of problems/
difficulties in that sequence
• Relationships of cross contents.
The individual answers showed that 99 of 130 students were able to
identify the type of structure in all the sets of problems proposed. Of
the students that identified the five multiplicative-structure problems
correctly, 52 of 130 classified them properly according to the classifica-
tion they has chosen (Nesher, 1992; Vergnaud, 1991), but only 50
students correctly analysed the elements involved in their classification.
These results led us to delve into the origin of this low rate of identifi-
cation. We found that a problem of multiplicative comparison, which
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 117
accumulated the greatest number of mistakes, was the cause. The par-
ticularities of multiplicative-comparison problems have been reference
by Greer (1992), with respect to children from different countries. Our
findings have confirmed these particularities in Spanish-speaking
student teachers.
The group reports also differed in their use of the conceptual tools
for decision-making. Considering how student teachers made their
choices, and used the theoretical constructs, we identified four different
levels (see Table I).
On the first level, the student teachers are clearly situated at a per-
sonal stage, and base their decisions on previous experiences. They do
not identify the conceptual tools as useful in carrying out this task. A
detailed analysis of the reports by these groups allowed us to distin-
guish what characteristics of the abridged books, such as initial check
of previous ideas, presence of drawings, final check, and criteria of
what, how and what for in judging the contents, that is, aspects that
they had found ‘useful’ in their student teaching experience, may have
influenced their decisions. The comments quoted below illustrate these
ideas:
‘Our choice is supported by the following:
– Problem structure. In general, problems are illustrated by drawings that facili-
tate visual comprehension
– The final revision is rather detailed and constructive
– The content is developed at length and there is a brief summary at the begin-
ning’ (Group 2)
On a second level, student teachers were able to state that certain
elements ‘appeared’ and detected when they ‘did not appear’, but they
TABLE I
Levels in the use of conceptual tools
Conceptual tools not identified LEVEL 1
Conceptual tools identified, but not related to decisions LEVEL 2
Conceptual tools provided are identified and applied LEVEL 3
A. Difficulties and characteristics in the sequence
are related to the difficulty of the specific mathematics content
B. Difficulties and characteristics in the sequence
are related to the conceptual level of pupils
Conceptual tools are identified, applied and included LEVEL 4
in a more general framework
118 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
did not relate the presence/absence to anything else. The following
response of a group of student teachers is representative of this level:
‘In general, we think that some content is missing in P1. All types of problems
appear except for the following: quotative division, Cartesian multiplication and
multiple proportions. At first, this led us to think that the other publisher (P2)
was better, since we found all the types of multiplicative structure problems. How-
ever, the problem presentation (the drawings) and organization (pages with too
many problems) led us to choose the first Publisher (P1)’ (Group 5).
In this level, we observed that some groups used information ac-
quired from other sources, such as educational psychology. This can
be considered positive, since it represents the presence of transverse
knowledge, which has been transferred from other subject matter.
Nevertheless, just as in the case of the different types of arithmetic
problems, criteria for classification, pupils’ strategies, and conceptual
tools provided in our teaching–learning trajectory, their use does not
go beyond their identification. Most of the groups (eleven) were found
to be in this level.
On the third level, considering the basis of the choice of the student
teachers, we might identify two subcategories, related to how the diffi-
culty of arithmetic problems was considered. In one sublevel, student
teachers related problem difficulties to semantic characteristics of the
multiplicative structure problems.
‘... we assessed the problems’ quantity, quality and difficulty. Regarding quantity,
we considered it to be positive that the textbook includes a greater number of
problems. As for quality, we valued as positive that the textbook includes a wider
variety of problems ... mapping rule, Cartesian multiplication, and multiplicative
comparison. With respect to difficulties, we judged as positive the order of presen-
tation by the difficulty of the different types of problems [following the Nesher’s
Semantic Analysis]...’ (Group 21)
The student teachers in the other sublevel related the problem
difficulties to the hypothetical conceptual development of the pupils, a
broader idea that would include both the multiplication and addition
structures. The following is representative of the student teachers’
explanations:
‘.. in Publisher P2 ... problems are introduced to make students transform addition
into multiplication by using direct modelling, since they are urged to use coun-
ters...’(Group 12)
In the above-mentioned quotations, conceptual tools related to
problem typology, learning difficulty and features facilitating the problem
solving process are integrated in the decisions made in the professional
task of analysing teaching artefacts (the problems) for teaching arithmetic
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 119
problem solving. All student teacher groups that used these criteria
chose the abridged book from P2.
Finally, those student teacher groups that identified the conceptual
tools and used them to make a decision were placed on the fourth le-
vel. The way in which these groups reported their decisions might be
considered a way of incorporating relationships between different con-
ceptual tools in a more general framework.
‘We did not choose Publisher 1 because:
– Some of the problems mentioned by the Nesher documents were not present ...
the order of difficulty of the problems is not considered, given that the limited
problems implying multiplicative comparison and Cartesian multiplication are
treated superficially and not systematically. In other words, the Publisher con-
siders them to be secondary problems and mere curiosities.
– The language used is complex and abstract.
– The exercises suggest an individual-oriented work methodology, obviating the
advantages of students working in groups.
– Mental arithmetic is not sufficiently fostered.’ (Group 9)
This group, which integrated problem typologies, learning difficulty,
issues from language, how the textbooks integrated mental arithmetic
in problem solving, etc., chose Publisher P2.
It is important to underline that the choice of abridged book
made by the groups changed from P1 to P2 as level progressed.
This may show that greater integration of conceptual tools in the
‘‘practice of analysing teaching resources’’ influences decision-mak-
ing. 16 of the 23 groups were able to identify the type of multiplica-
tion problems in the abridged books and to some extent, considered
the inclusion of different types of problems important. Nevertheless,
only five of these groups established relationships among the differ-
ent conceptual tools. We think that establishing relationships in the
teachers’ instructional practice is very important. Furthermore, it
should be pointed out that the conceptual tool related to the differ-
ent typologies and perspectives of analysis of multiplicative structure
arithmetic problems were the ones that the student teachers identi-
fied best.
Our analysis of student teacher reports has shown the difficulty in
establishing relationships among different conceptual tools when they
are used in solving a task. Programme configuration through teach-
ing–learning trajectories might enable student teachers to integrate
concepts, ideas and ways of reasoning in the process of professional
task solving as a way of becoming a teacher by peripheral participa-
tion in teaching practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
120 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
In the following, we try to show how the results of this research
have affected our development as mathematics teacher educators and
researchers, members of a community of inquiry.
FOCUSING ON OUR DEVELOPMENT AS MEMBERS
OF A COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY
As teacher educators, the interpretation of the research on student tea-
cher learning and its results involved the negotiation of meanings
within our community of inquiry. Reflection on student teacher
productions allowed us to add new characteristics to the design of
teaching-learning trajectories. Analysing the written reports, we
became more aware of the role played by the different aspects of the
teaching–learning trajectories and the different uses of the conceptual
tools. The task, as it was presented to the student teachers, required
group work and the need to agree on their criteria through interac-
tion. These aspects were important with regard to what learning was
generated. The different positions adopted by the groups on the pro-
posed task underlined its potential as an ‘‘authentic activity’’ in the
community of learning, in the sense that it allowed student teachers to
show their learning in different ways. Concerning the use of concep-
tual tools, the identification of different levels allowed us to examine
the student teachers’ different positions, needs and goals in depth. In
our case, as teacher educators, the identified levels were tools that
allowed us to assess student teacher learning.
The initial definition of learning (identification and use of tools)
was extended to the characterization of differentiated uses of the tools
(identified levels). This process enabled us to think about the use of
these levels in the design (i.e., new tasks and other tools) and analysis
of new trajectories, and in the assessment of student learning in these
new situations. All of this led us to consider our development as math-
ematics teacher educators. As researchers, the identification and inte-
gration of different learning levels in our theoretical framework raised
new research questions. These questions were related to better charac-
terization of learning levels and their relationship with the develop-
ment of different professional tasks, adding new aspects to the
theoretical characterization of this learning. In this sense, we started to
develop new research projects that have extended this characterization
(Garcı́a et al., 2003a; Sánchez, Garcı́a & Escudero, 2004), contributing
to our development as researchers. The combined development as
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 121
teacher educators/ researchers is a characteristic of our community of
inquiry.
DISCUSSION
Our study focused on two different levels, teacher education practice,
and research on student teacher learning. For each, the notion of ‘‘the
person-in-practice’’ was the unit of analysis describing the dialectical
relationship between those levels, underlining the social aspects in
them. This unit of analysis was made operative by considering the
progressive integration of ‘‘conceptual tools’’ in solving professional
tasks in each community of practice (community of inquiry and com-
munity of learning) as an evidence of learning.
The idea of person-in-practice was applied to:
– our own practice as teacher educators, and
– the discourse generated by student teachers grappling with professional
tasks.
In the following discussion, the focus is on mathematics teacher
educator development, assuming that as teacher educators, we learn
through the analysis of student teacher practice in teaching–learning
trajectories. In addition, we reflect on the student teacher learning as a
growing use of conceptual tools in professional tasks. Finally, we show
the relationship between research on student teacher learning and our
development as members of a community of inquiry.
Development of mathematics teacher educators through their practice
Reflection about one’s own practice as a teacher educator is a charac-
teristic of our professional development that has been recognized by
different authors (Doecke, 2004; Llinares, 2003; Tzur, 2001; Zaslavsky
& Leikin, 2004). In our case, through the reflection on how our stu-
dents use the theoretical ideas provided them from mathematics tea-
cher education, considered as a scientific field, we have developed our
own identity as teacher educators and have developed the way we
participate in our community (Jaworski, 2003b; Wenger, 1998). As
a consequence of such reflection, our practice as teacher educators
started to be modified.
Our own learning was described in the early sections, when we
showed how the information from our research about student teacher
122 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
learning amplified the referents that we had used for articulating our
practice. This provides evidence of our professional development as
mathematics teacher educators through our engagement in our own
practice.
The process followed was similar to that of the application by
Zaslavsky and Leikin (2004) of the mathematics teaching and learning
model proposed by Steinbring (1998). As teacher educators, we design
teaching–learning trajectories in which student teachers can develop
ways of participating in the community of learning, through their
increasing use of conceptual tools in developing professional tasks. In
our study, awareness of student teacher learning through these itiner-
aries led to a new understanding about how they learn. This new
understanding has led us to modify the trajectories, making them more
appropriate for the student teacher. Those changes, based on our
analysis of the relationship between teaching–learning trajectories and
their effects on student teacher learning, may be seen as aspects of our
own development.
Student teacher learning as a growing use of conceptual tools
in professional tasks
As teacher educators, we see student teacher learning as the use and
integration of conceptual tools during the performance of a profes-
sional task (textbook analysis). Other researchers (Goffree & Oonk,
2001) have also provided insight into knowledge construction from
different perspectives (e.g., assimilation, adaptation, integration and
theorizing). We also raised Goffree and Oonk’s questions, ‘‘how can
you observe the construction of practice knowledge? Since research
does not extend to the fieldwork of student teachers, where practice
knowledge in action could be observed?’’ (Goffree & Oonk, 2001,
p. 138). We have to rely on student teachers’ written reports and dis-
cussions, generated in the development of a trajectory. For us, the
characteristic of ‘authentic activity’ of the proposed task and the activ-
ity that student teachers develop in the trajectory allow us to approach
their practical knowledge in action.
This approach to how student teachers learn to teach considers
their growing participation in a community of practice as a discur-
sive practice. From this point of view, the negotiation of meanings
associated with the conceptual tools that the students use, is related
to how they participate in the community of learning (Llinares,
2002). The growing use of the conceptual tools in the tasks carried
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 123
out by the group can then be considered a modification of student
teacher practice, and a manifestation of the process of becoming a
teacher.
Relationship between research on student teacher learning
and our development as members of a community of inquiry
The characteristics of our community of inquiry lead to further reflec-
tion about the co-learning situation generated in that community. In
the following, we use the four-dimension framework proposed by
Jaworski (2003b) for showing the relationship between mathematics
teacher educators (insiders), researchers (outsiders) and mathematics
teacher educators/researchers (insider researchers). In this sense, we ex-
tend this framework to the context of mathematics teacher education,
contributing to its characterization.
Knowledge and learning
Mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge was apparent in the design
(tasks/situation, conceptual and technical tools, etc.), implementation
and assessment of the trajectories. The evidence of their professional
development was shown in the decisions made with respect to the sub-
sequent design of new trajectories (Garcı́a et al., 2003a; Sánchez et al.,
2004). The new designs were a result of the discussions generated by
mathematics teacher educators and researchers in the community of
inquiry. Teacher educator learning was observed in the assessment of what
happened in the trajectories (student group briefs, development of the
work groups).
The knowledge of researchers (outsiders) was made explicit through
their knowledge of scientific production in the field related to both
mathematics teacher education and student teacher learning. This
knowledge made possible the identification of theoretical elements (in
particular, situated learning—understood as the use of conceptual
tools—and the characterisation of conceptual tools) within the com-
munity of inquiry, and their use in the design of the study on student
teacher learning. Learning by researchers was developed through
reflection in the community of inquiry on the results of the study. This
enabled identification and characterization of student teacher learning
levels (Garcı́a et al., 2003b), which then become a new tool for the
members of the community. The members considered this new tool
from different perspectives, as a consequence of their different theoreti-
cal referents.
124 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
Inquiry and Reflection leading to development
Both teacher educators and researchers were inquiring. The teacher
educators inquired into their use of the trajectories and their reflection
contributed to enlargement and modification of some trajectory ele-
ments. As the study developed, the researchers inquired into student
teachers’ learning. Reflection on the results led to the inclusion of new
theoretical elements in the conceptualization of this learning. This
inclusion generated new research studying their validity and coherence.
As insider researchers, reflection allowed us to improve the mathematics
teacher education course.
Insider/outsider research(ers)
Insider researchers and outsiders conducted the study developed for
the purpose of finding answers to a problem in mathematics teacher
education practice, specifically, the characterisation of student teacher
learning. The mathematics teacher educators learnt, through reflection
with the other members of the community, about the process and its
results, while the outsider learned from the study and from reflection
on the learning of the insider researchers and insiders. This learning
originates and produces results in the community of inquiry, raising
new questions about student teacher learning and the professional
development of teacher educators.
Individual/community
Individual mathematics teacher educators, researchers and mathemat-
ics teacher educators/researchers were the individual learners in the
context of mathematics teacher education. A problem—students learn-
ing in a specific classroom—that emerged in our work as mathematics
teacher educators relates to our community of inquiry. In this commu-
nity, due to its inherent characteristics, it was considered a problem
for research. This does not occur in other communities of inquiry in
which mathematics teacher educators may be members. The research-
ers, as individuals, design the research project, which is developed
within the community out of discussion among the members, who
have their own individual referents with respect to the problem. Devel-
opment of the project in a mathematics teacher education course
allows individual mathematics teacher educators to develop his/her
own professional work. In addition, the combined reflection in the
community on the discourse generated by student teachers provided us
with some results that have been assumed by the different members
from the perspective of their individual identities. The relationship be-
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 125
tween individual and community established in this way contributes to
showing its potential as a learning tool that favours co-learning in a
community.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In conclusion, we would like to underline several points. First is the
necessary coherence that has to exist between the way student teacher
learning and teacher educator learning are conceived. We have shown
how the use of the ‘‘person-in-practice’’ as the unit of analysis, viewed
through the successive incorporation of conceptual tools in the devel-
opment of the practice, can provide new perspectives on the dialectic
relationship between research on student teacher learning and practice
in mathematics teacher education.
Consideration of student teacher learning as a process, viewed
through the increasing use of the conceptual tools in the performance
of professional activities at the university, provides the context in
which the teacher educator can design new activities. The relationship
between the analysis of the practice as mathematics teacher educators
and what this practice favours (student teacher learning) is the centre
of teacher educator development, what Tzur (2001) calls ‘‘orienting
reflection on activity-effect relationships’’.
Reflection on the relationship between the activities designed (in
our case, teaching–learning trajectories) and the nature of student
teacher learning generated (e.g., the identification of different levels of
usage of conceptual tools in the development of a professional task)
becomes an element of teacher educator development. In this work, a
co-learning community as described by Jaworski (2003b) has been
characterized through a community of inquiry and three learning
groups (mathematics teacher educators, researchers and mathematics
teacher educators/researchers). Our study is related explicitly to research
in the education of mathematics teachers, and concerns research on
the crucial relationship between theory and practice. In these pages we
have tried to show how the analysis and organization of mathematics
teacher educator practice as a community of inquiry can generate a
relationship between theory and practice in mathematics teacher
education.
126 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
NOTE
1
Primary school in Spain includes students aged 6–12.
REFERENCES
Doecke, B. (2004). Professional identity and educational reform: confronting my
habitual practices as a teacher educator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 203–
215.
Escudero, I., Garcı́a, M., Llinares, S. & Sánchez, V. (2002). Evolución de un
proyecto de innovación educativa en la formación inicial de maestros: Situación
actual. Actas de las III Jornadas Andaluzas de calidad en la Enseñanza Univers-
itaria. Sevilla: ICE.
Garcı́a, M. (2000). El aprendizaje del estudiante para profesor de matemáticas desde
la naturaleza situada de la cognición: Implicaciones para la formación inicial de
maestros. In C. Corral, & E. Zurbano (Eds.), Propuestas metodológicas y de
evaluación en la Formación Inicial de los Profesores del Área de Didáctica de las
Matemáticas (pp. 55–80). Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo.
Garcı́a, M. (2003). La formación inicial de profesores de matemáticas: Fundamentos
para la definición de un curriculum. In D. Fiorentini (Ed.), Formaçao de profesores
de matemática. Explorando novos caminhos com outros olhares (pp. 51–86).
Campinas: Mercado de Letras.
Garcı́a, M. & Sánchez, V. (2002). Una propuesta de formación de maestros desde la
Educación Matemática: adoptando una perspectiva situada. In L.C. Contreras, &
L. Blanco (Eds.), Aportaciones a la formación inicial de maestros en el Área de
Matemáticas: Una mirada a la práctica docente (pp. 59–88) Badajoz: Servicio de
Publicaciones, Universidad de Extremadura.
Garcı́a, M., Sánchez, V., & Escudero, I. (2003a). Una tarea profesional en la
formación de maestros: el análisis de libros de texto de matemáticas. In La
universidad de Sevilla y la innovación docente. Colección innovación y desarrollo de
la calidad de la enseñanza universitaria, no. 5 (pp. 41–47). Sevilla: Universidad de
Sevilla, Servicio de Publicaciones.
Garcı́a, M., Sánchez, V., Escudero, I., & Llinares, S. (2003b). The dialectic
relationship between theory and practice in Mathematics Teacher Education. In
CERME3 (Group 11) Bellaria, Italy: http://www.dm.unipi.it/~didattica/CER-
ME3.
Goffree, F. & Oonk, W. (2001). Digitalizing Real Teaching Practice for Teacher
Education Programmes. The MILE Approach. In F. Lin, & T. Cooney (Eds.),
Making Sense of Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 111–146). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. (pp.
276–295) NY: McMillan Pb. Co.
Jaworski, B. (2003a). Inquiry as a pervasive pedagogic process in mathematics
education development. In CERME3 (Group 11). Bellaria, Italy: http://
www.dm.unipi.it/~didattica/CERME3.
THE DIALECTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 127
Jaworski, B. (2003b). Research practice into /influencing mathematics teaching and
learning development: towards a theoretical framework based on co-learning
partnerships. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 249–282.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lerman, S. (2001a). A Review of Research Perspectives on Mathematics Teacher
Education. In F. Lin, & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making Sense of Mathematics Teacher
Education (pp. 33–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lerman, S. (2001b). Cultural, Discursive psychology: A sociocultural approach
studying the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 46,(1–3), 87–113.
Llinares, S. (2002). Participation and reification in learning to teach. The role of
knowledge and beliefs. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Torner (Eds.), Beliefs:
A Hidden Variable in Mathematics Education? (pp. 195–209). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
Llinares, S. (2003). Contesto e practica nella formazione degli insegnanti di
matematica. Un sguardo al caso della Spagna. In M. I. Fandiño (Ed.), Riflessioni
sulla formazione iniziale degli insegnanti di matematica: una rassegna internazionale.
(pp. 115–139). Bologna: Pitagora Editrice Bologna.
Nesher, P. (1992). Solving Multiplication Word Problems. In G. Leinhardt, R.
Putnan, & R. Hattrup (Eds.), Analysis of Arithmetic for Mathematics Teaching (pp.
189–219). New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Sánchez, V. (1997). Área de Didáctica de las Matemáticas en el tı́tulo de maestro
especialidad de educación Primaria. In L. Blanco, & M. C. Cruz (Coor.) (Eds.),
Aportaciones al curriculum en la formación inicial de los profesores de Primaria en el
Área de Matemáticas (pp. 19–29). León: ICE. Universidad de León.
Sánchez, V. (2003). An approach to collaboration in Preservice Teacher Education.
In A. Peter-Koop, V. Santos-Wagner, C. Breen, & A. Begg (Eds.), Collaboration in
Teacher Education (pp. 77–90). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Sánchez, V., Garcı́a, M., & Escudero, I. (2004). Consolidando la innovación:
incorporando nuevas tareas profesionales en la formación inicial de maestros en
relación con las matemáticas. In La universidad de Sevilla y la innovación docente.
Colección innovación y desarrollo de la calidad de la enseñanza universitaria, n 8
(pp. 397–410). Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla, Servicio de Publicaciones.
Steinbring, H. (1998). Elements of epistemological knowledge for mathematics
teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1,(2), 157–189.
Tzur, R. (2001). Becoming a mathematics teacher-educator: Conceptualizing the
terrain through self-reflective analysis. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
4, 259–283.
Vergnaud, G. (1991). El niño las matemáticas y la realidad. Méjico: Trillas.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Zaslavsky, O. & Leikin, R. (2004). Professional of Development of Mathematics
Teacher Educators: Growth Through Practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 7,(1), 5–32.
128 MERCEDES GARCÍA ET AL.
Departamento de Didáctica de las Matemáticas Mercedes Garcı́a
Universidad de Sevilla Victoria Sánchez
41005, Sevilla, Spain Isabel Escudero
E-mails:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]Departamento de Innovación y Formación Didáctica Salvador Llinares
Universidad de Alicante
Spain
E-mail:
[email protected]