Productive Struggle as a Boundary Object between Co-Teachers in Grade 6 Mathematics Classrooms in the United States
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/ejie.v3i1.142990Keywords:
co-teaching, mathematics education, middle grades, productive struggle, boundary objectsAbstract
PURPOSE: Fostering coherence and sustainability of co-teaching partnerships can be challenging in inclusive mathematics classrooms. Establishing partnerships requires negotiating understandings and activities across disciplinary boundaries(mathematics education and special education) while implementing researcher-recommended practices in unique settings. This study investigates how a specific instructional practice, productive struggle, serves as a boundary object for co-teachers innegotiating those challenges.
APPROACH: I applied a pragmatic lens in a comparative case study to learn how two pairs of teachers engaged in co-teaching navigated disciplinary boundaries around a mathematics pedagogical practice, productive struggle.
RESULTS: The pairs of co-teachers authored meanings for productive struggle and developed distinctive approaches to foster this practice with all students in their inclusive classes. Their meanings and approaches were aligned in ways that were coherent with their goals and beliefs about teaching mathematics. Although productive struggle in their contexts contrasted in some ways with how the practice is portrayed in research literature, teachers described finding value for students’ learning in theirimplementation. They also found inclusive settings and their co-teaching partnerships beneficial for student learning.
CONCLUSION: Teachers used authority and agency in boundary spaces to craft cohesive understandings and approaches toimplement productive struggle, and they saw value in their partnerships for implementing the practice. As critical stakeholders in making inclusion coherent and sustainable, I advocate for teacher-educators and researchers to value teachers’ authority and agency as they implement researcher-recommended teaching practices in inclusive settings.
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435
Brendle, J., Lock, R., & Piazza, K. (2017). A study of co-teaching identifying effective implementation strategies. International Journal of Special Education, 32(3), 538–550. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1184155
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2021). What does it mean to make implementation integral to research? ZDM ーMathematics Education, 53(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01301-x
Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirrillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2020). Working across contexts: Scaling up or replicating with variations? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(3), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresemtheduc-2020-0007
Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Smith, T., Henrick, E. (2017). Supporting Improvements in the Quality of Mathematics Teaching on a Large Scale. In S. Doff & R. Komoss, (Eds.), Making change happen. Springer. https://doi.org//10.1007/978-3-658-14979-6_17
Crawford, A. R., Carney, M., Champion, J., & Schmidt, M. (2022). The role of a boundary object in a study of middle grades math instruction. In A. E. Lischka, E. B. Dyer, R. S. Jones, J. Lovett, J. Strayer, & S. Drown (Eds.), Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1725—1732). Middle Tennessee State University. https://doi.org/10.51272/pmena.44.2022
DeFouw, E. R., Codding, R. S., Collier-Meek, M. A., & Gould, K. M. (2019). Examining dimensions of treatment intensity and treatment fidelity in mathematics intervention research for students at risk. Remedial and Special Education, 40(5), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518774801
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D, & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in Special Education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535380
Grigorenko, E. L., Compton, D.. L., Fuchs, L. S., Wagner, R. K., Willcutt, E. G., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. American Psychologist, 75(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000452
Helenius, O. (2021). A stakeholder analysis of the development of a large-scale professional development program. Implementation and Replication Studies in Mathematics Education, 1(1), 227–256. https://doi.org/10.1163/26670127-01010009
Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524-549. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.28.5.0524
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K., Lester (Ed.). Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age Publishing.
Jaworski, B., & Potari, D. (2021). Implementation of a developmental model of teachers' and didacticians’ learning through inquiry: Design, operationalisation and outcomes. ZDMーMathematics Education ,53, 1073–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01290-x
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
Koichu, B., Aguilar, M.S. & Misfeldt, M. (2021). Implementation-related research in mathematics education: the search for identity. ZDMーMathematics Education 53, 975–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01302-w
Krainer, K. (2021). Implementation as interaction of research, practice, and policy. Considerations from the Austrian initiative IMST. ZDM ー Mathematics Education, 53(5), 1175–1187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01300-y
Kretlow, A. G., & Bartholomew, C. C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 279–299. https://doi.org//10.1177/0888406410371643
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512050400050201
McLeskey, J., Maheady, L., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M. T., & Lewis, T. J. (Eds.). (2022). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms. Routledge.
Munter, C., Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (2015). Dialogic and direct instruction: Two distinct models of mathematics instruction and the debate(s) surrounding them. Teachers College Record, 117(11), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511701102
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2014). Principles to actions: ensuring mathematical success for all. NCTM.
Naraian, S., & Schlessinger, S. (2018). Becoming an inclusive educator: Agentive maneuverings in collaboratively taught classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 179—189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.012
Nelson, G., Kiss, A., & Crawford, A. (2022). Developmental distinctions in mathematics for students with disabilities. In E. Talbott & T. Farmer (Eds.) Handbook of research on special education. Routledge Press.
Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023004297
Otten, S., Webel, C., & de Araujo, Z. (2017). Inspecting the foundations of claims about cognitive demand and student learning: A citation analysis of Stein and Lane (1996). The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 45, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.008
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839950080103
Powell, S. R., Bouck, E. C., Sutherland, M., Clarke, B., Arsenault, T. L., & Freeman-Green, S. (2022). Essential components of math instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221125892
Sanetti, L. M. H., & Luh, H. J. (2019). Fidelity of implementation in the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(4), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719851514
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. https://doi.org//10.1177/0162243910377624
Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1380361960020103
Sztajn, P., Wilson, P. H., Edgington, C., & Myers, M. (2014). Mathematics professional development as design for boundary encounters. ZDMーMathematics Education, 46(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0560-0
Tamborg, A.L. (2021). Improving mathematics teaching via digital platforms? Implementation processes seen through the lens of instrumental genesis. ZDMーMathematics Education, 53, 1059–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01282-x
The Science of Math (2023). Common Misconceptions: Productive Struggle Causes More Robust Understanding and Learning. https://www.thescienceofmath.com/misconceptions-productive-struggle-causes-more-robust-understanding-and-learning
United Nations. (2016). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Committee’s General Comment No. 4 on the Right to Inclusive Education. Retrieved from http://www.right-to-education.org/resource/general-comment-4-article-24-right-inclusive-education.
Warshauer, H. K. (2015). Productive struggle in middle school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(4), 375-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9286-3
Woodward, J. (2004). Mathematics education in the United States: Past to present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, (37)1, 16-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370010301
Young, J. R., Bevan, D., & Sanders, M. (2024). How productive is the productive struggle? Lessons learned from a scoping review. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 12(2), 470-495. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.3364
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Angela Crawford
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License (full legal code).
