No abstract

Our primary purpose in this article is to propose an interpretive scheme for analyzing the identities that students develop in mathematics classrooms that can inform instructional design and teaching. We first introduce the key constructs of normative identity and personal identity, and then illustrate how they can be used to conduct empirical analyses. The case on which the sample analysis focuses concerns a single group of middle school students who were members of two contrasting classrooms in which what it meant to know and do mathematics differed significantly. The resulting analyses document the forms of agency that students can legitimately exercise in particular classrooms, together with how authority is distributed and thus to whom students are accountable, and what they are accountable for mathematically. In the final section of the article, we clarify the relation of the interpretive scheme to other current work on the identities that students are developing in mathematics classrooms.

In this article, the authors present an analysis of two views of culture reflected in equity scholarship and their implications on research and mathematics teaching. In doing so, they draw on two interrelated theoretical orientations to describe instructional practices that support equitable learning opportunities in mathematics classrooms. These two orientations are grounded in contrasting views of culture. They discuss the contributions of and the tensions associated with each orientation, and argue for a research agenda that focuses primarily on what is called the Cultural Participation Orientation. In addition, the authors discuss the usefulness of drawing on both orientations in understanding equitable instructional practices in urban mathematics classrooms.

This study explores through a naturalistic inquiry the tensions between a science professor's two enacted identities. More specifically, this study looks at how a biology professor's identity-in-practice shifts and evolves over time through collaborations with a science education professor. These shifts were marked by an emphasis on teaching, rather than solely a focus on science. Data were collected through formal interviews and notes taken during planning sessions that took place between the biology professor and the science educator. Findings reveal that although the biology professor is able to reconcile both his science and teacher identity, structural elements of his workplace do not encourage him to enact his teacher identity. Recommendations for college science teaching are discussed.

No abstract