No abstract

This article aims to give a detailed micro-level curricular analysis of the extent to which the intended mathematics curriculum matches the potentially implemented curriculum using the case of Turkey. The article makes inferences about what it means to have a match or mismatch between these two types of curricula. As a result, it is clear that even though there is a close match between the intended and the potentially implemented mathematics curricula, such a match does not seem to be enough to help students to have a solid understanding of targeted mathematical concepts outlined in the overall Turkish curricular standards.

The purpose of this study was to uncover the degree to which in-service teachers understand sociomathematical norms and the nature of that understanding without having to enter and observe their classes. We therefore developed five classroom scenarios exemplifying classroom interactions shaped by certain sociomathematical norms. We then administered these scenarios to in-service elementary school and grade 5-12 mathematics teachers and collected their written responses. We also collected data about what teachers believe about sociomathematical norms through a Likert-type questionnaire. We then analyzed the data using quantitative and qualitative techniques. First, the findings suggest that the teachers' understanding of sociomathematical norms is neither dependent on the level of schools teachers teach, or their background or demographic characteristics such as number of years they spent in teaching, specialty area, faculty graduated, highest degree earned, and gender. Second, what teachers believe about sociomathematical norms seem to be not parallel to how they analyze the scenarios illustrating sociomathematical norms. Third, use of scenarios was helpful in revealing how teachers think about sociomathematical norms. Finally, there are three cross-cutting themes to which all the teachers referred in common for all sociomathematical norms: opposition (opposition to the core of the norm), social facilitator (considering all targeted norms as supporting and regulating the classroom social environment) and condition-based (believing that interactions given in scenarios are only possible under certain conditions).

The current study compared the effects of technological environments with that of the paper-and-pencil environment on reasoning about the concept of derivatives in the context of maximum and minimum problems. The data consisted of clinical interviews conducted with three pre-service secondary mathematics teachers and a newly registered graduate student all of whom had quite a lot of mathematics courses in their repertoire. The study revealed that participants mostly depended on and were limited to analytical reasoning within paper-and-pencil environments, whereas they were able to refer to practical and creative reasoning with the help of the facilities technology environments provided. On the other hand, although participants made progress and used different reasoning types within technology environments, there were cases where they could not move beyond analytical reasoning even within the presence of technological tools. The reason for such a limitation seemed to be because of the way they treated technology as an analytical tool and they depended on 'learning from technology' instead of 'learning with technology' [Hanna, G.,

No abstract