Despite the tremendous amount of effort devoted by many mathematics educators to promote, defend, and implement reform-based mathematics education, procedural mathematics, which locates mathematical correctness in the procedures learned from textbooks and teachers, persists. Many researchers have identified school and classroom culture as the source of the problem; however, the exact meaning of school culture and its influence on teachers’ practices remains unclear. What is needed is a clearer understanding of classroom culture and how it influences practice.
Purpose
The purpose of our study was to examine how the aspects of a culture reinforce each other (and how they resist aspects alien to the cultural system) to understand the sui generis nature of culture. We use five aspects or indicators of culture—language usage, standard practices, tools and equipment usage, ongoing concerns and values, and recurring problems—to describe how they work together to create a culture.
Population/Participants/Subjects
The primary participant in this study was an eighth-grade mathematics teacher renowned for being a good teacher whose teaching conformed to the intentions of the reform-oriented National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards, with a particular emphasis on problem solving.
Research Design
An ethnographic case study was conducted.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Although Ms. Bryans appropriated some of the rhetoric and practices of reform mathematics, her goals and assessment methods and most of her instructional methods were inconsistent. The analysis of the case shows that three conceptions of culture—individual, interactive, and collective—lead to quite different understandings of the problem. This case suggests the importance of differentiating each of these three conceptions of culture and discusses their implications for educational reform policies and professional development efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbroseR. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary school teachers’ orientations to mathematics teaching by building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 91–119.
2.
AppleM. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum.London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3.
AppleM. W. (1992). Do the standards go far enough? Power, policy, and practice in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 412–431.
4.
AshtonP. T., & WebbR. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement.New York: Longman.
5.
BallD. L. (1990). Reflections and deflections of policy: The case of Carol Turner. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 247–259.
6.
BanduraA. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184.
7.
BanduraA. (1989b). Social cognitive theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 1–60.
8.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: W. H. Freeman.
9.
Bartolini BussiM. G. (1998). Joint activity in mathematics classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis. In SeegerF., VoigtJ., & WaschesioU. (Eds.), The culture of the mathematics classroom. (pp. 13–49). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BattistaM. T. (2001). Research and reform in mathematics education. In LovelessT. (Ed.), The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math?. (pp. 41–79). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
11.
BooteD. N. (2006). Teachers’ professional discretion and the curriculum. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 461–478.
12.
BorkoH., & PutnamR.T.. (1996). Learning to teach. In BerlinerD. C., & CalfeeR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.
13.
BrownA. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399–413.
14.
BrownJ. S., CollinsA., & DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
15.
CampG. (1996). Problem-based learning: A paradigm shift or passing fad?Medical Education Online, 1(2). Retrieved July 15, 2007, from http://www.msu.edu/∼dsolomon/f0000003.pdf
16.
CampioneJ. E., ShapiroA. M., & BrownA. L. (1995). The forms of transfer in a community of learners: Flexible learning and understanding. In McKeoughA., LupartJ., & MariniA. (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning. (pp. 35–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
ChernissC. (1993). Role of professional self-efficacy in the etiology and amelioration of burnout. In SchaufeliW. B., MaslachC., & MarekT. (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research. (pp. 135–149). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
18.
ChinnC. A., & BrewerW. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.
19.
ChristouC., PhillipouG., & MenonM. E. (2001). Preservice teachers’ self-esteem and mathematics achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 44–60.
20.
CobbP., McClainK., de Silva LambergT., & DeanC. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13–24.
21.
CobbP., & YackelE. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, & sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 175–191.
22.
CobbP., & YackelE. (1998). A constructivist perspective on the culture of the mathematics classroom. In SeegerF., VoigtJ., & WaschescioU. (Eds.), The culture of the mathematics classroom. (pp. 158–190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
23.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311–329.
24.
CooneyT. J., & ShealyB. E. (1997). On understanding the structure of teachers’ beliefs and their relationship to change. In FennemaE., & NelsonB. S. (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition. (pp. 87–109). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
DenningP., & DarganP. (1996). Action-centered design. In WinogradT. (Ed.), Bringing design to software. (pp. 105–120). New York: ACM Press.
26.
Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for Learning, and Teaching. (2007). Culture, race, power, and mathematics education. In LesterF. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. (Vol. 1, pp. 405–434). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
27.
DurkheimE. (1950). The rules of sociological method. (S. A. Solovay & J. H. Mueller, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1895)
28.
DurkheimE. (1997). Suicide. (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1897)
29.
EngströmY. (1998). Reorganizing the motivational sphere of classroom culture: An activity theoretical analysis of planning in a teacher team. In SeegerF., VoigtJ., & WaschescioU. (Eds.), The culture of the mathematics classroom. (pp. 76–103). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30.
ErnestP. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In ErnestP. (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art. (pp. 249–254). New York: Falmer Press.
31.
FriedmanI. A., & KassE. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675–686.
32.
GarfinkelH. (2002). Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
33.
GauvainM. (1998). Social context, mathematics, and cognitive development: A promising research direction. Learning and Instruction, 8, 561–566.
34.
GeorgeP. S., & AlexanderW. M. (1993). The exemplary middle school. (2nd ed.), Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
35.
GillM. G., AshtonP. T., & AlginaJ. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164–185.
36.
GillM. G., & HoffmanB. (2009). Shared planning time: A novel context for studying teachers’ discourse and beliefs about learning and instruction. Teachers College Record, 111, 1242–1273.
37.
GreenoJ. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.
38.
GreggJ. (1995). Discipline, control, and the school mathematics tradition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 579–593.
39.
GregoireM. (1999, April). Paradoxes and paradigms in an eighth grade pre-algebra class: A case study of a “good” math teacher. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
40.
GregoireM. (2002). Effects of augmented activation, refutational text, efficacy beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and systematic processing on conceptual change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
41.
GregoireM. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 147–179.
42.
HaziH. M., & GarmanN. B. (1988). Legalizing scientism through teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2, 7–18.
43.
HershR. (1986). Some proposals for reviving the philosophy of mathematics. In TymoczkoT. (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics. (pp. 9–28). Boston: Birkhäuser.
44.
HiebertJ., & CarpenterT. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.
45.
HiebertJ., CarpenterT., FennemaE., FusonK., HumanP., & MurrayH. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.
46.
HiebertJ., & StiglerJ. W. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons learned from the TIMSS video study. Elementary School Journal, 101, 3–20.
47.
HiebertJ., & WearneD. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.
48.
Holt-ReynoldsD. (2000). What does the teacher do? Constructivist pedagogies and prospective teachers’ beliefs about the role of a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 21–32.
49.
HunterM. C. (1982). Mastery teaching.El Segundo, CA: TIP Publications.
50.
JoramE., & GabrieleA. J. (1998). Preservice teachers’ prior beliefs: Transforming obstacles into opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 175–191.
51.
KatzV. J. (1993). A history of mathematics: An introduction.New York: Harper Collins.
52.
KitcherP. (1986). Mathematical change and scientific change. In TymoczkoT. (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics. (pp. 215–242). Boston: Birkhäuser.
53.
LakatosI. (1986). A renaissance of empiricism in the recent philosophy of mathematics? In TymoczkoT. (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics. (pp. 29–48). Boston: Birkhäuser.
54.
LaskyS. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 899–916.
55.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through societyCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
57.
LermanS. (1983). Problem-solving or knowledge-centred: The influence of philosophy on mathematics teaching. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 14, 59–66.
58.
LortieD. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60.
MacMillanC. J. B., & PendleburyS. (1985). The Florida Performance Measurement System: A consideration. Teachers College Record, 87, 67–78.
61.
MayerR. E., & WittrockM. C. (2006). Problem solving. In AlexanderP. A., & WinneP. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. (2nd ed., pp. 287–303). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62.
NasirN. S., HandV., & TaylorE. V. (2008). Culture and mathematics in school: Boundaries between “cultural” and “domain” knowledge in the mathematics classroom and beyond. Review of Research in Education, 32, 187–240.
63.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
64.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
65.
NicolopoulouA., & WeintraubJ. (1998). Individual and collective representations in social context: A modest contribution to resuming the interrupted project of a sociocultural developmental psychology. Human Development, 41, 215–235.
66.
NoddingsN. (1994). Does everybody count? Reflections on reforms in school mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(1), 89–104.
67.
NuthallG. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: A personal journey. Teachers College Record, 107, 895–934.
68.
OrrillC. H., & AnthonyH. G. (2003, April). Implementing reform curriculum: A case of who's in charge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED478740)
69.
PajaresM. F. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism on mathematics problem-solving performance: A path analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55.
70.
PajaresF. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
71.
PalincsarA. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.
72.
PhilippR. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In LesterF. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 257–318). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
73.
PintrichP. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In SchnotzW., VosniadouS., & CarreteroM. (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change. (pp. 33–50). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
74.
PintrichP. R., & SchraubenB. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In SchunkD. H., & MeeceJ. L. (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom. (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
75.
PolyaG. (1957). How to solve it. (2nd ed.) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
76.
PresmegN. (2007). The role of culture in teaching and learning mathematics. In LesterF. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. (Vol. 1, pp. 435–461). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
77.
RaymondA. (1997). Inconsistencies between a beginning elementary teacher's mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 550–576.
78.
RossJ. A., McDougallD., & Hogaboam-GrayA. (2002). Research on reform in mathematics education, 1993-2000. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 48, 122–138.
79.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166.
80.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In GrouwsD. (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.
81.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13–25.
82.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2006). Mathematics teaching and learning. In AlexanderP. A., & WinneP. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. (2nd ed., pp. 479–510). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
83.
SecadaW. G. (1989). Agenda setting, enlightened self-interest and equity in mathematics education. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(2), 22–56.
84.
SfardA. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
85.
SmithJ. P.III (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for reform. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 387–402.
86.
SoodakL. C., & PodellD. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401–411.
87.
SpillaneJ. P., DiamondJ. B., & JitaL. (2003). Leading instruction: The distribution of leadership for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 533–543.
88.
SpillaneJ. P., & ZeuliJ. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 1–27.
89.
SpradleyJ. P. (1980). Participant observation.Fort Worth: TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
90.
StarS. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence. (Vol. 2., pp. 37–54). San Francisco: Kaufmann.
91.
SteinM. K., SilverE. A., & SmithM. S. (1998). Mathematics reform and teacher development: A community of practice perspective. In GreenoJ. G., & GoldmanS. V. (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning. (pp. 17–52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
92.
StiglerJ. W., GonzalesP., KawanakaT., KnollS., & SerranoA. (1999). The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1, 109–112.
93.
StiglerJ. W., & HiebertJ. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom.New York: Free Press.
94.
StipekD., GivvinK., SalmonJ., & MacGyversV. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213–226.
95.
ThompsonA. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of research. In GrouwsD. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 127–146). New York: Macmillan
96.
TIMSS Video Mathematics Research Group. (2003). Understanding and improving mathematics teaching: Highlights from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 768–775.
97.
TurnerJ. C., & MeyerD. K. (2004). A classroom perspective on the principle of moderate challenge in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 311–381.
98.
TurnerJ. C., MeyerD. K., CoxK. E., LoganC., DiCintioM., & ThomasC. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 730–745.
99.
Tschannen-MoranM., Woolfolk HoyA., & HoyW. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
100.
TymoczkoT. (1986). Computers and mathematical practice: A case study. In TymoczkoT. (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics. (pp. 243–266). Boston: Birkhäuser.
101.
UsherE. L., & PajaresF. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78, 751–796.
102.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
103.
WheatleyK. K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5–22.
104.
WinitzkyN., & KauchakD. (1997). Constructivism in teacher education: Applying cognitive theory to teacher learning. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings. (pp. 59–83). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
105.
YackelE., & CobbP. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.
106.
YoungM. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 32, 1–28.
107.
ZimmermanB. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 329–339.
