J Math Teacher Educ (2007) 10:433–440

DOI 10.1007/s10857-007-9060-x

Mathematics-related tasks, teacher education,

and teacher educators
The dynamics associated with tasks in mathematics teacher
education

Orit Zaslavsky

Published online: 4 December 2007

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

The papers in this issue were selected from a large collection of proposals (as described by
Watson and Mason, this volume), employing several criteria. One was our desire to offer a
wide range of approaches, perspectives, and exemplar practices with respect to tasks for
mathematics teacher education. In a way, this collection may be considered as mirroring
the state of the art in this field. They provide insight into different theoretical foundations
and discourses which are used to inform and justify choices in task structure, task pre-
sentation, and exploitation of learner experience arising from the consequent activity
(Watson and Mason).
The following diagram (Fig. 1) emerged from reading and analysing the final collection
of papers. Each paper fits some parts of the diagram, and the collection as a whole provides
the broad picture depicted by the diagram. Note that all papers were written by scholars
who are active mathematics educators; thus, the dominant perspective is of a mathematics
educator, even when teachers’ views and actions are reported. Thus, the diagram highlights
the knowledge base1 and qualities of teacher educators and their roles as facilitators of
mathematics teacher learning through mathematics-related tasks, as reflected in the papers.
This diagram encompasses many of the themes and processes that were addressed in this
issue. Therefore, I use it to provide an overview and to identify recommended directions
for future work.
From the papers in this issue, it is clear that in describing their practice and the basis for
that practice, mathematics teacher educators (MTEs) share the view that it is important to
draw on a very broad and complex knowledge base; MTEs also imply that certain personal
traits enable them to work with teachers productively and act in ways that make these
special qualities transparent. These personal traits (Fig. 1a) include, for example, reflec-
tiveness, awareness, adaptivity, flexibility, sensitivity (particularly to learners), confidence,
open mindedness, enthusiasm, and last but not least—deep interest and ongoing

1
For brevity, I use the term ‘‘knowledge’’ to include the many forms and aspects of knowledge for teaching
mathematics that are discussed and contrasted by Watson and Mason, this volume.

O. Zaslavsky (&)
The Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel
e-mail: orit@tx.technion.ac.il; oritrath@gmail.com

123
434 O. Zaslavsky

MATHEMATICS
ARE TEACHER EDUCATORS KNOW
(MTEs)

• REFLECTIVE, AWARE ⎫ (a) (b) SOUND MATHEMATICS

• ADAPTIVE, FLEXIBLE
⎪
• ⎪
SENSITIVE (TO LEARNERS)
PERSONAL (d) (c)
•
•
CONFIDENT
OPEN MINDED
⎬ TRAITS CONSTRUCTS FOR CONSTRUCTS
• ENTHUSIASTIC ⎪ ENHANCING
MATHS TEACHERS'
FOR TEACHING

⎪⎭
MATHEMATICS
• MATHEMATICALLY LEARNING (MT Knowledge-Base)
INVOLVED

FACILITATE TEACHER LEARNING THROUGH

(e) MATHEMATICS-RELATED TASKS

DESIGN / MODIFY TASKS ENGAGE TEACHERS IN TASKS

Observe (h)
Student Tasks for
(Text)books (f) Theory & Thinking MTs Students
& Articles
MTEs
MTEs Practice
Reflect & draw
(g) Connections
Knowledge & Reflect
Experience Doing Maths

(i)
MTEs
DEMONSTRATE APPROACHES & PERSONAL TRAITS

AIM AT HELPING

MATHEMATICS
BECOME TEACHERS CONSTRUCT
(MTs)

Fig. 1 The dynamic nature of task design and implementation for teacher education

involvement in mathematics. These qualities are vital not just for a mathematics teacher
educator (MTE) but also for a mathematics teacher (MT).
The knowledge base that is reflected by the MTEs’ practice in relation to task2 design
and implementation resonates with the teaching triad of MTEs that is presented in
Zaslavsky and Peled (2007) based on Zaslavsky and Leikin (2004), that is, it basically
encompasses ways of designing challenging tasks for teachers, ways of managing their
learning, and sensitivity to teachers as learners. More specifically, in the papers in this
issue, it appears that MTEs firstly exhibit sound mathematics knowledge (Fig. 1b), much
beyond school mathematics, indicating their disposition to do mathematics and engage in

2
Throughout this paper, the term ‘‘task’’ refers to mathematics-related tasks for teachers.

123
Mathematics-related tasks 435

challenging mathematical activities. In addition, they display awareness and appreciation

of mathematical structures and connections within and across domains.
In addition to exhibiting strong mathematical knowledge, MTEs know the constructs
and strategies that are needed for teaching school mathematics (Fig. 1c), and at the same
time know the constructs and strategies needed for enhancing mathematics teachers’
learning (Fig. 1d). The above constructs are discussed in Watson and Mason (this volume),
who include reference to the limitations of considering, for example, only the common
constructs addressed by Shulman (1986, 1987), and also emphasize the significance of
knowing how to act in-the-moment. These apply both to MTs and to MTEs. The specific
constructs that MTEs build on when working with teachers are rather implicit in this
collection of papers, with only some exceptions. For example, in Karp’s description of the
role of the teacher educator in one of the episodes, he writes: ‘‘… the teacher educator has
skilfully integrated mathematical knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and realistic expe-
rience of how school children might respond in classrooms to establish methods of problem
design which can be used again and again’’.
As shown in Fig. 1, effective MTEs engage MTs in carefully crafted tasks in order to
help them develop certain qualities and construct what they need to know about teaching
school mathematics. This knowing relates mathematics, pedagogy, and student episte-
mology in ways which resonate with Jaworski’s teaching triad derived from school
contexts (1992). The aims of MTEs in terms of teacher learning and development are
therefore rather ambitious and address a broad and complex terrain.
The papers emphasize that a critical element of what teachers need to know is math-
ematics. By using mathematics-related tasks, MTEs aim at developing a deeper
understanding of mathematics (Prestage and Perks), motivating reflection and connections
among various mathematical ideas (Hsu et al.), fostering the generation and re-examination
of mathematical concepts (Swan), promoting mathematization and abstraction in the
context of school mathematics (Bloom), experiencing mathematics in ways that foster the
development of process-oriented teaching styles and creating a bridge for further inquiry
about concepts which come to their attention (Chapman), and promoting creative processes
of problem solving and exploring mathematical relationships (Liljedahl et al.).
A central mathematically oriented notion that is considered essential for MTs and
addressed in several papers (e.g., Thompson et al.; Ferrini-Mundy et al.; Prestage and
Perks; Yackel et al.; Swan; Peled) is the notion of mathematical coherence which
Thompson et al. refer to as ‘‘a coherent body of powerful meanings’’. This is somewhat
related to making connections between mathematical ideas (Ben-Chaim et al.; Stanley and
Raman) and becoming aware of the big ideas in mathematics (Hsu et al.). Thompson et al.
put forth the rationale for addressing this issue: ‘‘If a teacher’s conceptual structures
comprise disconnected facts and procedures, their instruction is likely to focus on dis-
connected facts and procedures. In contrast, if a teacher’s conceptual structures comprise a
web of mathematical ideas and compatible ways of thinking, it will at least be possible that
she attempts to develop these same conceptual structures in her students. We believe that it
is mathematical understandings of the latter type that serve as a necessary condition for
teachers to teach for students’ high-quality understanding.’’
MTEs aim at enhancing not only mathematical but also pedagogical and student
epistemological aspects of MTs’ knowing. This suggests developing the ability to teach
through problems and becoming aware of the variety of conditions and aims of peda-
gogical activity (Karp), learning to select appropriate pedagogical approaches and
strategies, learning to transform theoretical knowledge into theoretically informed practice
(Biza et al.), learning to explain the teaching procedure of the lesson (Peng), discussing the

123
436 O. Zaslavsky

issue of task validity and developing doubt and critical thinking about the interpretations
that can be made on the basis of task performance (Peled), changing teachers’ instructional
practices toward more student-centred ones (Swan).
One of MTEs’ main roles is to facilitate teacher learning (Fig. 1e). The papers in this
issue examine how this is done through mathematics-related tasks. This complex process is
depicted in parts (f), (g), (h), and (i) in Fig. 1. Embedded in these parts are 4 central stages:
task, activity, experience, and reflection (Watson and Mason). The general aim of the
design and implementation of tasks for mathematics teacher education is to enable MTs to
construct the knowledge they need for teaching school mathematics (Fig. 1c), including in-
the-moment decisions and various kinds and levels of awareness (Mason 1998), and at the
same time to help them develop essential personal traits, such as those that are reflected
through the MTEs’ own practice (Fig. 1a). Different papers highlight different aspects of
such teacher knowledge and qualities.
In comparison to the availability of a wide range of resources in which MTs can find
ideas for, and collections of, suitable tasks for students (e.g., textbooks and guidebooks,
and numerous enrichment materials) there are scarce resources for MTEs (with some
exceptions, such as Mason and Johnston-Wilder (2004)). Thus, MTEs engage to a large
extent in the process of task design and modification (Fig. 1f). Moreover, as reflected in the
papers, mostly there is no specific curriculum for mathematics teacher education that needs
to be ‘‘covered’’. Thus, MTEs have a lot of freedom in deciding on purpose and focus,
which in turn drives their choice of tasks. Consequently, the types of tasks used for
mathematics teacher education vary considerably (see Watson and Mason).
The process of designing and implementing tasks for MTs has several interconnected
components. It begins with an initial choice or design of tasks by an MTE. The ideas for
these tasks come from various interconnected sources (Fig. 1f): personal knowledge of and
experience with actual tasks; professional literature, such as books or articles, or even
student textbook tasks that can be problematized; and knowledge of relevant theory and
awareness of various aspects of teacher practice. MTEs’ process of task design and
modification is an iterative process that is influenced by reflections on MTs’ actual work on
the implemented task (Fig. 1g). This iterative process concurs with Steinbring’s (1998)
model, as well as Zaslavsky and Leikin’s (2004) modification of it, which accounts for
teachers’ and teacher educators’ learning through their practice. This process can be seen,
in a way, as taking a design experiment approach (Cobb et al. 2003), in the sense that
MTEs continually and systematically study ‘‘forms of learning and the means of supporting
them’’ (ibid, p. 9). The vast majority of the papers in this issue explicitly indicate that this
process takes time and that tasks evolve over years of reflective practice. The way this is
described varies. For example, Swan and Ben-Chaim et al. call it ‘‘repeated piloting’’;
Yackel et al. refer to this process as pragmatic research characterized by ‘‘cycles of
development and revision, based on ongoing review of students’ activity’’. This approach
is articulated in the paper of Liljedahl et al. who introduce a recursive usage-goal
framework for design and implementation of tasks for mathematics teacher education. The
iterative process they describe includes predictive analysis, trial, reflective analysis, and
adjustment.
It should be noted that in the course of reflecting on and examining participants’ ways of
engaging with the tasks, and the learning that this engagement triggers or fails to trigger,
several authors report on unsuccessful implementation (e.g., Baturo et al.) and unexpected
or what they consider poor outcomes (e.g., Ben-Chaim et al., Hsu et al., Peled) which
served as meaningful learning opportunities for MTEs beyond issues of task design. This
iterative process led MTEs to become aware of many aspects of MTs’ ways of knowing

123
Mathematics-related tasks 437

(Cooney 1999) that were new to them; these occasions added to their understanding of
conditions for enhancing MTs’ learning (Fig. 1d). For example, Thompson et al. conclude
that: ‘‘We now know that it is insufficient to demonstrate incoherence of a body of
meanings if those meanings ‘‘work’’ for what teachers imagine themselves teaching. We
also learned that when teachers are unaware of for what they are preparing students (e.g.,
trigonometric functions in analysis and calculus) they cannot appreciate the inadequacy of
what they currently teach’’. Furthermore, Yackel et al. refer to the added benefit of their
approach with respect to the university instructors who began reconceptualizing ‘‘their own
understanding of elementary arithmetic from a formal system to a developing conceptual
entity within children’s experience’’.
Task implementation, in which MTEs engage teachers in tasks (Fig. 1h), is character-
ized by the content and focus of the task and by its dynamics. In general, tasks focus on and
involve three main elements: (1) Doing mathematics (e.g., solving a mathematical prob-
lem, identifying patterns and connections, classifying mathematical objects), mostly within
school mathematics (e.g., Horoks and Robert; Karp; Ben Chaim et al.), and some beyond
familiar school mathematics (e.g., Liljedahl et al.; Thompson et al.; Stanley and Raman);
(2) Dealing with actual tasks for students (e.g., analysing, comparing, classifying, varying,
extending, or generating tasks), which includes focus on lesson explaining or planning that
involves tasks for students (e.g., Peng); (3) Examining student thinking by analysing
students’ responses to a mathematical task or classroom events that reflect student thinking
(e.g., Biza et al., Silver et al.). In addition to these interrelated types of engagement,
teachers are invited to reflect on their work as well as on their interactions with the tasks,
with their peers, and with the MTE. Many reflections call for drawing connections in a
broad sense. These connections may be ‘‘within and across knowledge domains relevant to
their practice’’ (Silver et al.), which include connections within mathematics; across the
mathematics curriculum (e.g., Ferrini-Mundy et al.); between mathematics and everyday
experiences; between mathematics, pedagogy, and student epistemology; between different
approaches; or between different kinds of personal experiences (e.g., as learner versus as
teacher). Some connections are made based on analogical thinking (e.g., Peled, Yackel
et al., Chapman). Thus, there is a dynamic nature evident for much of the task imple-
mentation stage—a dynamics which is the heart of the learning experience orchestrated by
the MTE. Some papers describe all four elements of this dynamic engagement process
(e.g., Peled), and others concentrate on a smaller subset of them.
Clearly, a significant part of how tasks for MTs unfold relies on how MTEs orchestrate
the situation. Interestingly, most papers implicitly or explicitly refer to the ways MTEs use
tasks for demonstrating the approaches to teaching mathematics that they would like MTs
to adopt, as well as personal traits that they consider worthwhile developing in MTs
(Fig. 1i). This aspect of the practice of teacher educators relies heavily on an appren-
ticeship mode of learning in social context (Rogoff 1990; Vygotsky 1986) and exploits the
importance of consistency between rhetoric and practice. For example, Thompson et al.
describe how the facilitator demonstrated flexibility and in-the-moment decision-making,
in response to a teacher’s explanation that ‘‘prompted the instructor to drive home this
point by asking teachers to draw a graph that fits this description…’’; Karp claims that the
teacher educator demonstrated to a certain extent ‘‘how a teacher might act, calling
attention to what a highly qualified teacher would choose to focus on. … it is precisely in
this way, through collaborative work with a more experienced colleague that the meth-
odological skills of the beginning teacher develop’’; Peled reports that at a certain point she
decided that ‘‘this was an opportunity to model Lampert’s (1990) instructional practice,
i.e., ‘‘not to tell them which answer is better, but to engage them in tasks that would lead

123
438 O. Zaslavsky

students to develop insights of their own. … it was important to show teachers that this
practice is feasible, and demonstrate how it can be done’’. In spite of deliberate intentions
to demonstrate certain approaches, there is no description of how teachers’ attention was
drawn to these actions. Thus, the meta-level question of how to help teachers notice and
become aware of what it is that is ‘‘modelled’’ by the facilitator beyond the specific task, so
they can generalize from it and apply it to their own practice, was hardly addressed and
elaborated in the collection of papers (Mason 1998).

What teachers learn through tasks and how we know that

The authors in this issue make claims as to several kinds of impact resulting from engaging
teachers in the tasks that they designed and implemented. There are claims related to
mathematics, pedagogy, and sensitivity to students, as well as interrelationship between
these domains, teacher practice, attitudes, and dispositions.
In terms of mathematics, teachers appeared to deepen their understanding and appre-
ciations of the concepts encountered in the tasks, including interconnections, multiple
meanings, and representations (Chapman; Peng; Ben-Chaim et al.); they began to think
abstractly about mathematics used to solve problems and were able to use successfully the
techniques learned (Bloom; Hsu et al.); their ability to identify structure by analogical
thinking increased (Peled; Yackel et al.); their production of correct or even improved
solutions and analyses developed (Liljedahl et al.; Karp); with respect to curricular
coherence, Ferrini-Mundy et al. found that ‘‘the task led them [the teachers] into discus-
sions of mathematical progressions of ideas, increasingly more general ways of using
fractions to reason about situations, and connections among symbolic and other repre-
sentations’’. Silver et al. consider teachers’ engagements in their tasks as ‘‘significant
opportunities to learn mathematics and to build or strengthen connections among related
mathematical ideas’’.
Teachers also gained better perceptions of, and insights into, various aspects related to
their practice, e.g., what is required to prevent and ameliorate misconceptions and how to
confront the difficulties in a mathematical task (Baturo et al.); unexpected difficulties
revealed by the comparison between the set-up of tasks and their implementation (Horoks
and Robert); they organized a complex constellation of mathematical ideas, making con-
nections to students’ thinking about these ideas as well as to ‘‘a range of pedagogical
actions and decisions that affect students’ opportunities to learn’’ (Silver et al.). Thompson
et al. noticed that ‘‘teachers who became self-aware of the reasoning behind their suc-
cessful predictions and explanations were then positioned to project that reasoning and its
development onto images of their students’ thinking.’’
On the meta-level and dispositions, teachers increased their sensitivity to and awareness
of several aspects of teaching mathematics, such as the connections through the curriculum
as well as how choice of classroom tasks influence students’ experiences of the curriculum
(Prestage and Perks) the value of systematic variation in exploratory tasks (Karp), the
relationship between a task and the kind of thinking that the task may evoke in students
(Ben-Chaim et al.). Teachers appeared to learn to reflect on their teaching and knowledge
more often than they would have done otherwise (Peng).
In short, there are strong claims regarding teacher learning. These claims are supported
mainly by MTEs’ spontaneous or systematic observations and impressions. Several authors
base their claims on other sources, such as MTs’ self-reports, written and oral performance
on assignments, pre-post testing (Ben-Chaim et al.), MTs’ lessons—planned, taught, and

123
Mathematics-related tasks 439

reported (Silver et al.) or regular classroom observations of a practicing teacher which

exhibit the approach demonstrated by the engaging tasks (Yackel et al.). Only one paper
infers impact on MTs from their students’ improved performance on a post-test (Swan).

What next?

This special issue is an attempt to begin conceptualizing one very significant aspect of
mathematics teacher education, namely, the role and nature of mathematics-related tasks in
enhancing teacher learning. The collection of papers provides a broad picture of the field in
terms of exemplary types of tasks and ways of working with teachers, underlying
assumptions and goals, the dynamics associated with the evolution and implementation of
tasks, the kinds of learning that are facilitated, and the critical roles of mathematics teacher
educators in the entire endeavour.
One of the striking points that appear repeatedly in the papers is the extremely lengthy
iterative process of evolution of a task, which could take years of MTEs’ practice until it
reaches a stable state where further modifications are rarely needed. This recognition points
to the challenge and difficulty in designing ‘‘good’’ tasks for teachers, that is, tasks for
which the experience arising from the consequent activity productively informs future
practice of the teachers (novice or experienced). This raises the question of whether
individually developed (mathematics-related) tasks which have been tested and shown to
be helpful for enhancing teacher learning can be easily disseminated and used by other
MTEs in different contexts, who rely on different theoretical foundations. To what extent
are the tasks and sequences of tasks presented in this issue contextualized, situated, and
theory based? Does an MTE need to undergo this iterative process of task design and
implementation personally for every task in order to be able to use it productively or can s/
he build on shared colleagues’ experiences as well? Yackel et al. refer to this question and
suggest that by providing details about the instructional design, by explicating both the
individual tasks and the sequence as a whole, and by showing how the progression of tasks
promotes vertical mathematization, it is ‘‘possible for others to make informed decisions
about individual adaptations’’. This is a question that needs to be explored and has to do
with how MTEs learn and expand their repertoire of tools. Theoretical stances may inform
the ways in which MTEs can take up other people’s tasks, but can also obstruct because of
unstated assumptions or perceived incompatibility.
Another question that is not addressed extensively in most of the papers has to do with
the specific features of tasks and the way they unfold in teacher education settings that
contribute to the success of in-service or pre-service teacher learning and development. As
Silver et al. state with respect to a number of critical factors they identified as contributing
to the success of their programme: ‘‘…only further research, and a more complex research
design, would allow us to analyse and understand the contribution of each factor’’. More
generally, this is one of the challenging questions whose resolution could lead to better
understanding of the interactions between the teacher (as learner), the task, and the social
and cognitive processes that are evoked.
With respect to learning through narrative case analysis and debriefing lesson enact-
ment, Silver et al. raise another important question for future research, that is: ‘‘… if and
how teachers who have such professional development experiences can continue to learn in
and through their own classroom teaching practice’’? Horoks and Robert are concerned
with the impact on teachers’ practice which needs to be assessed: ‘‘… we do not know yet
how long it will take, or what further effort is needed, before teachers can use these tools to

123
440 O. Zaslavsky

improve their own practice in the classroom…. Some further assessment is obviously
needed and requires further investigation, taking into account the lot of constraints pres-
suring the teachers (private or institutional) and reducing the range of their possibilities’’.
Chapman shares this view and raises concern about how teachers are able to implement
what they learned into their practice.
Following these suggestions, it would be worthwhile probing more deeply the ways in
which experience arising from activity on mathematics-related tasks is opened up for
explicit reflection, and what factors make it influential in future practice. To what extent
are teachers aware of the influence of individual tasks, or even of ways of working on such
tasks employed during their education?
It would be interesting to examine what is revealed about an MTE’s theoretical per-
spective by the choices s/he makes and the discourse s/he uses to justify those choices, with
respect to task structure, interaction with MTs during the activity, and ways in which s/he
promotes reflection on their experience, as well as the theoretical way in which MTs’
learning experience is framed or encapsulated.
Figure 1 provides an account of the complex terrain which this special issue addresses
and at the same time offers possible locations on which to focus as well as constructs
worthwhile pursuing. Its dynamics suggests studying not only isolated aspects associated
with mathematics-related task design and implementation for teacher education, but also
many significant interconnections.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank John Mason and Anne Watson for their helpful comments on an
earlier version of this paper. I am also grateful to Orly Buchbinder for her help in organizing the data for this
paper, that is, the collection of papers of this issue, according to several categories. This organization
enabled me to identify structure and unifying themes across the papers.

References

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational
research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Cooney, T. (1999). Conceptualizing teachers’ ways of knowing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38,
163–187.
Jaworski, B. (1992). Mathematics teaching: What is it? For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(1), 8–14.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical
knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.
Mason, J. (1998). Enabling teachers to be real teachers: Necessary levels of awareness and structure of
attention. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(3), 243–267.
Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2004). Designing and using mathematical tasks. Milton Keynes, UK:
Open University. (2006 reprint) St. Albans, UK: QED.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge and growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Steinbring, H. (1998). Elements of epistemological knowledge for mathematics teachers. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 157–189.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zaslavsky, O., & Leikin, R. (2004). Professional development of mathematics teacher educators: Growth
through practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(1), 5–32.
Zaslavsky, O., & Peled, I. (2007). Professional development of mathematics educators. In B. Choksi, &
C. Natarajan (Eds.), epiSTEME Reviews: research trends in science, technology and mathematics
education (pp. 211–225). Mumbai, India: Macmillan Ltd.

123