Instructional technology implementation is increasingly being addressed in teacher education, though research literature on its implementation remains limited. This literature analysis draws the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic to map what and how instructional technology is integrated into preservice mathematics teacher education and to identify conditions that facilitate or hinder the adaptation. Drawing from 22 peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2022, the study maps empirical studies of instructional technology integration in mathematics teacher education. Key findings reveal that preservice teachers consistently engaged in lesson planning, practiced teaching peers in 13 cases, and taught actual learners in three instances, while reflection occurred in seven cases. However, the underlying reasoning (logos) behind the didactical practices were not presented to the preservice teachers, remained implicit, or were not clearly linked to the praxis. Furthermore, the decomposition of teaching practices was an underused pedagogical practice. Learning opportunities included rehearsals, the use of exemplary curriculum materials, teamwork, and constructive feedback. A key challenge in adapting the didactical praxeologies was the participants’ lack of prior experience with technology. The analysis highlights the need to make the reasons behind teaching practices explicit and calls for more intentional integration of teacher education pedagogies to enhance learning outcomes. 

This paper reports on a working group that focused on what equal participation in mathematics education research could be. Through methodological imagination, a group of researchers created images of equal participation – images that through the collaborative work became a story that conveyed insights about, for example, power dynamics between participants, challenges and opportunities the group saw in creating equal participation, what we as researchers in this field need to consider about what equal participation in mathematics education research means. We conclude by telling other stories, alternatives to those created in the workshop, and discuss different approaches to equal participation in mathematics education research.

It is widely acknowledged that teachers' work has both practical and theoretical dimensions, both praxis and logos, and that teacher education should address both dimensions. However, as argued in this article, existing discourses for describing the mathematical knowledge of teachers and what it takes to become competent in it are not always clear to what extent these discourses address knowledge about the practices of mathematics teaching or theories that provide arguments for the practices. Specifically, I argue for the coordination of the framework of mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT) with the analytical distinction of logos and praxis combined in teaching practices. Moreover, I have backed this argument with examples of the proposed categories of the adjusted framework from the existing body of work in mathematics education. Each category of the proposed framework, whether concerning a teaching method or a theoretical consideration, was indeed exemplified by some concept, approach, or perspective from the field of mathematics education. The framework, I believe, would prove useful in engaging mathematics teacher education discursively, for instance, in analyzing teacher education materials to determine the extent to which they offer mere methods, theoretical arguments, or a combination of both.

I kapitlet studeras lärarnas kunskap om hur man bedömer elevers automatiserade kunskaper, inte som lärarnas individuella kunskaper utan den kollektiva kunskap som uttrycks i ett möte. En institutionell teori används, där flera olika sammanhang som t.ex. lärargruppen, läroplanen eller allmän debatt i media bidrar till att påverka vad som blir möjligt att undervisa i klassrummet. Lärarnas didaktiska kunskaper om hur man bedömer elevers automatiserade kunskaper studeras alltså i relation till andra sammanhang. Analysen av lärarnas diskussion visar att de argumenterar utifrån två olika principer, den ena där tester förordas och den andra som förordar inkludering av alla elever. För att fånga andra sammanhang har därför det mediala och det vetenskapliga samtalet om tester och inkludering beskrivits eftersom de utgör två olika sammanhang som samverkar med lärarnas. Resultaten visar att lärarna har argument för de tabelltest som är en del av deras tradition, de har också argument för att inte göra dessa tester men de saknar en alternativ metod. Resultaten visar också att argumenten inte förankras i de teoretiska principer som främst gåratt hämta i det vetenskapliga sammanhanget. Det vetenskapliga sammanhanget spretar också i både motstridiga slutsatser och i att metoder och ideologiska principer inte förenas. Lärarna skulle kunna tjäna på att få större tillgång till det vetenskapliga sammanhanget men hela skolsystemet inklusive forskningen behöver också förena frågor som rör metoder med de ideologiska och teoretiska principer som ligger till grund för dem.

As with any programs in teacher education, Swedish mathematics teacher education is influenced by changing political winds, developments in Information and Communication Technology (ICT), culture, history, PISA results, research-based program designs, and a fair amount of passion. Content and outcomes are nationally determined and include the requirement of a strong research foundation, but this is often not how practcing techers work, which exerts its own pull on teacher education. The specific implementations of programs take different forms at the universities that offer mathematics teacher education. In order to provide a comprehensive yet meaningful ntroduction to both the current system and current practices, we describe the overall organization of Swedish mathematics teacher education, and then offer short cases of implemented programs. To ensure inclusivity, the various parts are written by mathematics educators from the respective institutions. In this way, both variation across mathematicas teacher education for diffrent grade levels and variation across different institutions working with the same national directives can be distinguished. Issues such as the academization of teacher education are problematized, as are other forces that constitute the crosscurrents in Swedish mathematics teacher education.

Instead of getting access to the diversity of perspectives in mathematics education, prospectivemathematics teachers read secondary sources of research providing a local or skewed image ofthe field. It then becomes important to see what is assumed scholarly sufficient for inclusion astexts for prospective mathematics teachers. The literature from a mathematics teacherprogramme, in Sweden, was submitted to an analysis of authors’ occupation and country ofresidence as well as what types of texts the prospective teachers read. Through these texts, theprospective teachers were invited to participate in a local practice-based intellectualconversation. Besides risking not engaging with the forefront of research, there is a risk thatprospective teachers are not sufficiently invited to challenge the educational philosophies withwhich they are accustomed.

In this article, we explore affordances of adopting the framework of praxeology by Chevallard in the analysis of mathematics classroom communication in relation to the communication in a textbook. While adopting praxeology, we carried out detailed analysis of communication in both classroom data and textbooks. The construed praxeologies describe the organisation of knowledge expressed for the same type of task in both classroom and textbook. The praxeologies were compared, with specific attention to the teacher’s practice. This analysis illuminates how teachers’ practices, realised in classroom communication, may be compared to other texts describing the same topics, with a focus on procedures, explanations, theoretical aspects, et cetera. Hence, praxeology as a framework enabled an analytical structuring of classroom and textbook communication, and consequently a systematic comparison. In other studies about the use of mathematics textbooks the teaching frequently is categorised as regulated by the textbook, and in this article, we problematize this. The teaching practice was, in fact,closely related to the textbook when comparing exercises and procedures, but when specifically examining the explanations of concepts, it became possible to discern how the teaching practice differed from the textbook.

Teachers’ mathematics teaching has been studied in many different ways. Such studies not often include more contexts than the teacher’s teaching practice. An assumption in this thesis is that in order to create a deeper understanding of mathematics teachers’ teaching we also need to study the contexts around mathematics teachers, and in relation to each other. Together such contexts create an environment for teachers’ teaching. The determination of how mathematics is taught is not decided in any of the contexts alone. Rather, all contexts participate in the determination of how mathematics is taught and teachers need to negotiate how different contexts privilege both mathematics and mathematics education. In this study, I have studied one teacher’s, Mary’s, teaching practice as well as three contexts from her close environment, the teacher group she participated in, the textbooks she used, and the national curriculum she was bound to follow. To study how mathematics and mathematics teaching was privileged in the four studied contexts became a way to trace how the contexts participate in the determination, in short, their co-determination of how mathematics is taught.

With an aim to deepen the understanding of how the environment of a teacher’s teaching enables and constrains mathematics teaching, the four contexts were studied in relation to each other in different ways, in four studies. First, the context of Mary’s mathematics teaching was studied in relation to the teacher group in how the justifications of Mary’s mathematics teaching was constituted in relation to a teacher group discussion. Second, Mary’s teaching of problem-solving was studied in relation to how problem-solving was privileged in both mathematics textbook and national curriculum. Third, praxeology was explored as an analytical tool to understand how mathematics was privileged in teaching practice in relation to the privileging of mathematics in textbooks. Fourth, all four contexts were studied to trace arguments and principles for teaching rational numbers and how these enable and constrain the teaching of rational numbers.

To address these different contexts, ATD as described by Chevallard was adopted. In ATD, the environment of contexts with influence of teachers’ practices, is described as an ecology with levels that co-determine each other. The studied contexts represented some of these levels of co-determination. The privileging of mathematics and mathematics teaching was studied from a varied data material. Data from Mary’s teaching practice was transcripts of classroom observations and interviews. Data from the teacher group was transcripts of teacher meetings. Data from the textbook context was the textbooks and teacher guides Mary used. Data from the context of the national curriculum was the mathematics syllabus accompanied with clarifying and explanatory comments.

The analyses revealed a strong resemblance of the mathematical communication between the different contexts. They all emphasised similar approaches to problem-solving, aspects of rational numbers, mathematical values, or explanations of angles. Mary, however, anchored her arguments for mathematics teaching in partially different theoretical principles than those privileged in the ecology. Theoretical principles were not explicitly communicated in any context. They were inferred from the communication. An implication generated by these findings is the importance for teachers to engage in the principles behind the privileging expressed in contexts they need to negotiate. These principles need to be discussed and challenged. Another implication is the relevance of allowing for teachers to engage in research literature, and to have influences from other sources than their immediate contexts. The thesis also point to the need to study textbooks and national curriculum, not in terms of how they are enacted by teachers, but what they privilege. By doing so teachers practices may be understood in the sense of what teachers have to negotiate, where the consequence is a deeper understanding of constraints and affordances for teachers’ teaching practices.

In this paper we examine the teaching of mathematical problem-solving to grade five students of one well-regarded and experienced Swedish teacher, whom we call Mary. Working within a decentralised curriculum in which problem-solving is centrally placed, Mary is offered little systemic support in her professional decision making with respect to problem-solving instruction. Drawing on Lester’s and Schroeder’s descriptions of teaching for, about and through problem-solving, we draw on multiple sources of data, derived from interviews and videotaped lessons, to examine how Mary’s problem-solving-related teaching is constituted in relation to the weaklyframed curriculum and the unregulated textbooks that on which she draws. The analyses indicate that Mary’s emphases are on teaching for and about problem-solving rather than through, although the ambiguities that can be identified throughout her practice with respect to goals, curricular aims and the means of their achievement can also be identified in the curricular documents from which she draws.

The broad interest of this paper lies in how a mathematics teacher, Mary, justifies her professional decision making. The reported study draws on aspects of a PhD project and analyses Mary's communications within a collaborative teacher meeting focused on the teaching of mathematics to grade five students. The analysis, drawing on social semiotics, highlighted the significance of artefacts, such as multiplication tests, in Mary's articulated decision making. We also give account for what is addressed in a teacher's justifications and how the teacher relates to her students in the justifications. Finally, we discuss the wider social and political context in which the teacher is working.