ZDM – Mathematics Education (2021) 53:1149–1162

[Link]

ORIGINAL PAPER

What does it mean to make implementation integral to research?

Jinfa Cai1 · Stephen Hwang1

Accepted: 20 August 2021 / Published online: 27 August 2021

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2021

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical stance on integrating implementation and research. Implementation
should be made integral to research because viewing research and implementation as an integrated whole is a more useful
perspective for educational research and practice. A consequence of this position is a marked blurring of the boundaries
between researchers and practitioners and an expanding of the vision of the nature of the products of research and how they
are shared. From this position, we conceptualize four characteristics of research in which implementation is integral, and
we illustrate them with the example of a case study of a teacher learning to teach linear functions through problem posing.
In particular, we highlight the notion of an artifact that embodies and provides space for the dynamic intertwining between
implementation and research. This intertwining represents what we mean by implementation being integral to research, and
it has implications that ultimately blur the boundaries between the roles of researchers and teachers. We conclude by raising
several pressing questions about the conduct and communication of this kind of research in education.

Keywords Implementation-integral research · Artifact · Problem posing · Teaching mathematics through problem posing ·
Continuous improvement

1 Introduction In this paper, we take the position that implementa-

tion should be made integral to research and that viewing
In education, researchers, policy makers, and practitioners research and implementation as an integrated whole is a
have long studied not only educational programs and inno- more useful perspective for educational research and prac-
vations that work in a particular context but also ways to tice. Cai et al. (2017) pointed out that merely including stud-
effectively implement them across contexts. That is, a key ies of implementation as part of a research program is not
concern has been to take an educational program or innova- enough to address the limitations that come with separating
tion that research has shown to be effective in one setting research and implementation. Instead, they advocated for
and implement it in new settings to both confirm its effec- conducting research in which implementation is an integral
tiveness and benefit more students. However, approaching part of the work. A consequence of this position is a marked
implementation in this manner reinforces a perspective that blurring of the boundaries between researchers and practi-
separates the study of effective educational programs from tioners and an expanding of the vision of the nature of the
their implementations. Designing, studying, and testing an products of research and how they are shared. To illustrate
educational program or innovation is often seen as a first our argument, we draw on an example from a specific con-
step, whereas implementation of the innovation is seen as a text, namely, teaching mathematics through problem posing.
follow-up study with its own set of research questions. There
are limitations introduced by this separation, including the
fact that the success of an implementation of the innovation 2 A theoretical stance on integrating
may be constrained by variations in the context. implementation and research

In this section, we introduce and outline our theoretical

stance on integrating implementation and research. The the-
* Jinfa Cai
jcai@[Link]
oretical underpinnings of our stance are further developed in

1
University of Delaware, Newark, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1150 J. Cai, S. Hwang

the next section in which we situate our conceptualization of that is, theories that are designed to provide guidance for
implementation-integral research within the broader field. creating more and better learning opportunities for students,
To clarify what we mean by implementation as an inte- should be seen as bound together with ‘teaching for theory’,
gral part of research, we must first define some terms. Imple- that is, teaching that is deliberately designed to generate,
mentation has been generally defined as the actual use of elaborate, and test theory so that the field, as well as the
an innovation or what an innovation consists of in practice student, learns. Both theory for teaching and teaching for
(Fullan & Pomfret, 1977). Aguilar et al. (2019) proposed a theory are dynamic, evolving processes that interact and feed
more specific definition: each other. Theory (or theorizing) for teaching involves a
constant process of evaluating and reevaluating assumptions
Implementation is a change-oriented process of adapt-
and connections to refine our understanding of teaching, and
ing and enacting a particular resource (e.g., an idea, a
teaching for theory is an iterative process of shaping instruc-
tool, an innovation, a framework, a theory, an action
tion so that it provides new data, new hypotheses, and new
plan, a curriculum, a policy) that occurs in partner-
ways to teach that enrich the theorizing. Ultimately, theories
ship of two communities, a community of the resource
for teaching must have practical implications for instruction,
proponents (CRP) and a community of the resource
but they must also evolve in response to teaching for theory.
adapters (CRA). These communities differ but can
The connection between theories for teaching and teach-
intersect. At the beginning of the process, the CRP
ing for theory manifests in the creation and continuous
has the ultimate agency over the resource. The pro-
evolution of artifacts—tangible embodiments of the shared
cess of adapting a resource by CRA includes some
space occupied by teaching for theory and theory for teach-
of the following: (1) constructing an agency over the
ing. Such artifacts may take different forms, including
resource, (2) changes in ways of communicating, and
entries related to a particular learning goal in a professional
(3) changes in practice. (p. 4362)
knowledge base, annotated lesson plans, and detailed teach-
This definition, like that of Fullan and Pomfret, preserves ing cases. However, to serve their function of providing the
a separation between the generation of the innovation or basis for teaching for theory and theory for teaching to inter-
resource and its particular incarnation in a setting. That is, twine, artifacts must have certain characteristics.
this definition depends on the existence of two groups (that First, artifacts must be shared. Ownership of the artifact,
may overlap in their membership) that interact differently meaning the agency to contribute to, modify, and adapt it,
with the innovation or resource. One, the community of cannot reside in only one set of hands.
resource proponents, appears to have primary responsibility Second, artifacts must have the capacity to store sufficient
for creating, shaping, and defining the resource. The other, detail about an innovation to convey enough information to
the community of resource adapters, acts later, adapting the support an enactment. Such detail includes the rationales for
existing resource propounded by the first community and changes and choices that have been made in shaping them.
thus developing their agency over the resource as it is imple- Third, artifacts must be structured in ways that allow
mented. Although there is a form of partnership between them to evolve (incorporating changes) while retaining a
the two communities, this definition highlights a distinction memory of what has happened in the past.
between the roles that they play. That distinction between Based on this conceptualization of theory for teaching
roles, although not necessarily a distinction between peo- and teaching for theory, we propose a modified set of def-
ple (i.e., group members), seems to reflect and reinforce initions that support a unification of research and imple-
the conceptual division between the research that generates mentation as well as a blurring of the traditional boundary
the resource and the implementation of the resource. We between researchers and teachers (cf. Akkerman & Bakker,
see the conceptual division of roles within this definition 2011). Although implementation can be defined in a way
of implementation (again, acknowledging the possibility of that reflects the divided perspective of research and prac-
overlap in the kinds of people who may participate in the two tice, we suggest that implementation can be perceived more
groups) as a specific case of the more general division that productively as a type of teaching for theory. Note that our
historically has separated theory and research from practice conception of teaching for theory is not limited to familiar
and teaching (as well as researchers from practitioners and forms of teaching-based theory development in educational
teachers) and that has led to decades of repeated calls for research such as teaching experiments. Rather, we include a
research to have a greater impact on practice. wide range of activities in which teaching produces profes-
Although the constructs of instructional theory and sional knowledge that accumulates and gives new insights
instructional practice seem fundamentally different on their into the problems of practice. Implementation, then, is a
face, they can be unified in a two-way street—a perpetual form of teaching for theory when the goal of implementa-
cycle of interaction, development, and evolution (Cai et al., tion is both to enact in actual practice what is stored in an
2021, in press). To be more specific, ‘theories for teaching’, artifact and to enact it in such a way as systematically to

13
What does it mean to make implementation integral to research? 1151

support learning from that enactment to further elaborate 3 Conceptualizing and positioning
and enrich the artifact. Similarly, we define research (in this implementation‑integral research
case, research around implementation) as a type of activity
that has the aim of learning from enactments to generate or We do not claim that our conceptualization of the rela-
refine theory for teaching (and especially theory that informs tionship between implementation and research is a wholly
implementation) that can be encoded in the artifact (theoriz- new construct. Others have explored the intricacies of col-
ing for teaching). laborative work between researchers and practitioners (see,
In our definitions of both implementation and research, e.g., Cobb et al., 2017; Jaworski, 2003; Pinto & Koichu,
the artifact is an embodiment of what Aguilar et al. (2019) 2021). Indeed, the idea of making implementation inte-
refer to in their definition as the “resource,” but it is also gral to research is reflected in many perspectives, both in
more tightly defined than that. A resource may be abstract, education and in other fields. Such research bears a strong
like an idea or a policy. These abstractions are hard to imple- family resemblance to several other types of research and
ment unless they are embodied and represented in some con- scholarship that closely involve implementation, including
crete form. An artifact must have a real representation that action research (Manfra, 2019); lesson study (Lewis &
can be operationalized; it is a necessary realization of the Tsuchida, 1998; Takahashi & McDougal, 2016); design-
resource in order for the resource to be used, adapted, stored, based research (Cobb et al., 2017; Design-Based Research
shared, and improved. The artifact embodies and provides Collective [DBRC], 2003); and perhaps most similarly,
space for the dynamic interplay between implementation design-based implementation research (DBIR; Fishman &
and research. In a sense, the artifact also glues research and Penuel, 2018; Means & Harris, 2013). Indeed, all of these
implementation together. The development of the artifact activities overlap in different ways with our conceptualiza-
provides both a mechanism and a medium for interaction. tion of making implementation integral to research, each
As we illustrate with lesson plans and teaching cases below, emphasizing particular aspects of our theoretical stance. In
the artifact supports both the research and implementation this section, we examine how this family of activities high-
activities and encourages them to intertwine. lights characteristics that we consider essential in research
In this vision of what are often seen as separate activi- where implementation is integral. Ultimately, we aim to
ties of research and implementation, the shared focus for conceptualize this kind of research as work that draws on
all members of the community is maximizing the learning all these characteristics by consistently engaging a com-
opportunities for students. Consider, for example, an arti- munity in the reciprocal activities of implementation and
fact that is lesson based, meaning that the artifact records research.
detailed information related to a lesson designed to help
students achieve particular learning goals. Prior research
as well as professional knowledge and experience inform 3.1 Solving problems of practice
the initial development of the artifact and lesson. Through
implementing the lesson in the classroom, feedback is col- One familial characteristic of research that hews closely
lected to address the community’s particular hypotheses to implementation is that the aim is frequently to solve
about what works to create learning opportunities and what a problem that has arisen in practice. In education, that
does not work, as well as to illuminate why some things often translates to a problem that is based in classroom
work and others do not. Based on this feedback, the arti- instruction that is of intrinsic importance to the work
fact is enriched with data and experience and the lesson is of the teacher, although such problems may also come
revised and improved to increase the likelihood that students from wider contexts and systems in which practitioners
will be able to access the desired learning opportunities. operate. As Cobb et al. (2017) noted, “design studies
This process continues with new questions, hypotheses, address the types of problems that arise for practitioners
ideas, and variations. Throughout, members of the commu- as they attempt to support students’ or teachers’ learning
nity (including both teachers and researchers) learn what or increase school and district capacity for instructional
works and why (and what does not work and why not), lead- improvement” (p. 209). Similarly, it is fundamental to
ing to the elaboration of theory, the growth of professional action research that it involves a problem that a practi-
knowledge and expertise, and the development and improve- tioner has identified in their own context that they wish
ment of the lesson-based artifact. In this process, there is a to address. Lesson study narrows the focus to a lesson
dynamic, continuous reciprocity between the activities of that is not working well—a particular kind of problem of
research and implementation with an accompanying blurring practice.
of the roles of researchers and teachers. This intertwining The focus on problems of practice lends significance to
represents what we mean by implementation being integral this work because the products can translate immediately
to research.

13
1152 J. Cai, S. Hwang

into actions that have an impact on teaching and learning. is viewed as inquiry. In that sense, action research also
That is, the products of this kind of work are suitable to involves cycles of inquiry that feed back on themselves—a
address the concerns of the participants (and those who form of teaching for theory that shapes theory for teaching.
share their problems) without the lengthy translation pro- It should be indicated that although these other forms of
cess that is common for many traditional products of edu- activities may have concrete objects of study such as a les-
cational research. More generally, we argue that although son plan, this is not quite the same as the artifacts we discuss
some forms of educational research may quite legitimately when making implementation integral to research. Those
attend to questions and problems that are separated far artifacts serve as tangible entities to store and improve the
from direct concerns of practice, for research to truly make results from the interactions of implementation and research.
implementation integral, it must focus on problems that
practitioners encounter and identify (cf. Arcavi, 2000). 3.3 Development of an artifact
Moreover, a community engaged in such research devel-
ops a shared artifact around that problem of practice. In As should be clear from our discussion of the preceding two
fact, as we discuss below, the shared artifact includes both characteristics, the development of an artifact is an essential
solutions to the problem of practice and information that aspect of our conceptualization of making implementation
explains and contextualizes those solutions, thus support- integral to research. Moreover, the nature of the artifact is
ing further hypotheses about how the solutions might or somewhat different from the objects of development in the
might not extend to other contexts. These shared artifacts other forms of activity we are discussing. In lesson study,
act as bridges joining research and implementation, mak- for example, the lesson that is being designed and refined
ing a whole from the two parts. They support the lack might be considered an artifact of that process. However, as
of need for translation because that translation is already Takahashi and McDougal (2016) pointed out, the main pur-
embedded in the creation of the artifact. Other types of pose of lesson study is not so much the development of the
work that address problems of practice may still require lesson but rather the development of the teachers’ knowledge
translation because they are not embedded in the medium and expertise. The lesson plan is therefore not a full artifact
of a shared artifact. in the sense we have defined above, nor is it really meant, in
lesson study, to serve that purpose. In fact, Takahashi and
3.2 An ongoing, continuous process McDougal explicitly downplay the focus on the artifact:
Another example from a different district shows a
Education is a field full of variation at both the large scale,
profound misunderstanding of the purpose of lesson
including national policies and changes in curriculum, and
study. After a public research lesson and post-lesson
the small scale, such as the individual learner’s life expe-
discussion, the teachers who planned the lesson com-
rience and the day-to-day variability in a classroom. This
mented that they had not learned much from the pro-
feeds into persistent variability in the implementation of
cess because they had already done lesson study six
curriculum, lessons, and innovations in classrooms (Morris,
times on that same lesson. This team thought that the
2012) that provides ample fuel to the argument that imple-
purpose of lesson study was to create a perfect lesson
mentation needs to be integral to research. Indeed, this vari-
plan. The true purpose of lesson study, however, is to
ability supports another key characteristic of such research:
gain new knowledge for teaching and learning, not to
The process is ongoing and continuous, feeding back and
perfect a lesson plan. (p. 515)
forth between new hypotheses and ideas and new variations
that can be observed and learned from in implementation. Indeed, the lesson plan in lesson study stores only a part
In fact, one of the purposes of the artifact is to allow for of the professional knowledge about teaching and learning
this process to continue in cycles, not losing what has been that is generated in the cycles of lesson development. Thus,
learned before but instead building professional knowledge perfecting the lesson plan does not equate to embodying the
with each new iteration. reciprocity between theorizing for teaching and teaching for
We can see a similar pattern of ongoing activity in theory (or between research and implementation).
design-based research, where cycles of coordinated activity Similarly, in design-based research and DBIR, one might
(or even cycles of coordinated studies; Puntambekar, 2018) consider the innovation that is the object of the design pro-
are used to purposefully test changes to, and refine the object cess to be a form of artifact. As Cobb et al. (2017) described,
of, design (e.g., teachers’ instructional practices). Lesson design-based research produces “a practical artifact, pro-
study also relies on ongoing cycles of teaching and revising gram, technology, or system that serves as the design and a
of a lesson. Although action research does not always have theory that constitutes the rationale for the design” (p. 208).
to involve ongoing cycles of development, Manfra (2019) However, these products are conceived as two things; the
argues for a perspective on such research in which teaching theory is not part of the practical artifact. For us, to make

13
What does it mean to make implementation integral to research? 1153

implementation an integral part of research, the artifact is of the designed innovation to spread and scale up when the
the medium for both the practical product and the theory; it researchers are not present anymore. Similarly to what hap-
stores both the information needed to implement the innova- pens in classroom design studies, in which the researcher(s)
tion and the theoretical rationale. In addition, the artifact is and teacher(s) collaboratively take on the responsibility for
not itself the object of the design process but the medium instruction, making implementation integral to research
and part of the mechanism through which design (of, e.g., involves engaging the researcher(s) and teacher(s) in a close
a lesson) can happen. Where DBIR has as one of its essen- collaboration to make decisions about instruction and imple-
tial characteristics “a concern with developing capacity for mentation. However, our conceptualization of such work
sustaining change in systems” (Fishman & Penuel, 2018, p. does not necessarily assume that the goal is to have a model
393), the artifact we describe plays a role in sustaining (and without researchers. Instead, the goal is to build capacity
spreading) the change that is developed in the reciprocal jointly through the artifact and the blurred roles within the
activities of implementation and research. The artifact is the community, in order to sustain change. However, the artifact
tangible entity not only for improving the teaching and learn- may include features that support implementation in a way
ing, but also for storing information to pass along within and that is similar to what the researchers would do, because it
across communities. captures the underlying rationale for the choices that are
made. And, as with action research and lesson study, in the
3.4 Building capacity collaboration between teachers and researchers, the teachers
also become centered as both researchers and implementers.
Although the artifact houses an embodiment of what is being
developed in the reciprocal activities of implementation and
research, it is also the case that the participants—the com- 4 A practical example of integrating
munity—involved are also developing. We see this as an implementation and research: a case
aspect of building capacity to sustain and propagate change. of teaching through problem posing
Sustaining and propagating change involves both a way to
store and share what has been developed and learned and a In this section, we use a specific example in the context of
way to enrich those in the community that are engaging in teaching mathematics through problem posing to illustrate
the work. This process is to some degree analogous to both the characteristics of research that makes implementation
the intent of lesson study, which is to develop the knowledge integral. We discuss how research and implementation are
and expertise of the participating community of teachers woven together and supported by an artifact during the pro-
(Takahashi & McDougal, 2016), and the centering of the cess of a teacher learning to teach about linear functions
teacher as an inquirer in action research (Manfra, 2019). through problem posing. Problem posing is a natural setting
Because implementation and research are conceptualized as for this kind of work.
entwined into a single thing, the roles of those engaged in Our example is situated within a larger problem-posing
such research also flow together, blurring the dividing line professional development (PD) project (Cai & Hwang,
between researcher and practitioner. This kind of shifting 2021). Ms. Q, a typical midcareer middle-school math-
of roles has been characterized as a kind of border crossing ematics teacher in China, was a participant in this project.
(Silver & Lunsford, 2017) or boundary crossing (Akkerman She earned her degree at a normal university and had been
& Bakker, 2011) in which professionals inhabiting inter- teaching for over 15 years. Ms. Q participated in a district-
secting worlds negotiate and enter unfamiliar contexts and wide teacher PD program conducted by Mr. C, one of the
territories. This is not to say that the people themselves are researchers. In this program, she attended three 3-day prob-
blurred or that the knowledge and expertise that they bring lem-posing workshops before engaging in the lesson design
with them are somehow blurred to begin with. Rather, in the process discussed below. She reported having little knowl-
collaboration and through the shared work around the arti- edge of mathematical problem posing before participating
fact (related to Star’s [1989] concept of a boundary object), in the program. However, she wanted to learn about teaching
the roles individuals play become blurred. through problem posing as a potential strategy for providing
Close collaboration between researchers and practitioners more effective learning opportunities for her students, and
is not unique in the reciprocal activities of implementation to use problem posing to improve lessons that she did not
and research, of course. In design-based research, practition- find satisfactory.
ers can certainly be part of the research team. However, one The details of the example come from an analysis across
potential issue for design studies arises when insufficient multiple forms of documentation of the collaboration
attention is given to the contribution of the researchers in the between Ms. Q and Mr. C. These included (a) multiple ver-
collaboration or to the demands on teachers’ knowledge and sions of Ms. Q’s lesson; (b) an extensive set of recordings of
skill (Cobb et al., 2017). This issue can hamper the ability written and voice communications between Ms. Q and Mr. C

13
1154 J. Cai, S. Hwang

using the messaging platform WeChat (used for the majority symbolic representation of the functions; (2) Students can
of their interactions); (c) Ms. Q’s written reflections after symbolically represent a direct proportion function, and a
teaching, about how it went and what other teachers (observ- linear function that matches a given relationship between
ers) said; and (d) Mr. C’s ongoing reflections on the col- quantities; and (3) Students can determine the value (y) of a
laboration, as represented both in WeChat messages and in linear function for a given value of x.
extensive field notes recorded by a collaborating researcher Ms. Q would begin this lesson by presenting three intro-
who incorporated those notes into a journal archiving the ductory problems for the students to work on (Fig. 1).
WeChat conversations (both voice and written). The field In response, the students were expected to generate the
notes included records of Mr. C’s interpretation of Ms. Q’s following four mathematical expressions for these problems:
challenges and his thinking about how best to assist her. y = 25x, y = 25x + 6, y = x − 105, and S = − 5x + 50. Ms. Q
would then have the students judge whether each mathe-
4.1 Solving problems of practice matical expression is a function, and she would review the
concept of function. She would guide the students in identi-
As part of the requirements of participating in the problem- fying the common elements of the four functions based on
posing PD program, Ms. Q needed to develop a problem- their symbolic forms. From this, she would formulate the
posing teaching case. Ms. Q chose linear functions as the concept of a linear function. After that, Ms. Q would ask,
mathematical topic for the teaching case because she found “If we write the number which is multiplied by x as the let-
her traditional lesson on linear functions unsatisfactory. She ter k and write the constant as the letter b, can you write a
reported that the lesson focused too much on procedures, general mathematical expression for a linear function?” She
and she believed that using a problem-posing approach could would then guide the students to discuss the direct propor-
improve the lesson by making it more conceptual. Thus, tion function (the case where b = 0) and the more general
Ms. Q identified a problem that had arisen in her own prac- linear function.
tice, which she was invested in solving. Here, we provide a Subsequently, Ms. Q would ask the students to solve
brief description of the original lesson and the issues that four more problems, one of which was a word problem
Ms. Q was having with it that led her to identify the les- taken directly from the textbook (Fig. 2). After the stu-
son as a problem she wanted to solve. The lesson had three dents completed those problems, Ms. Q would introduce a
learning goals: (1) Students can understand the concepts of more complex problem about income tax from the textbook
direct proportion functions and linear functions based on the and ask the students to solve it (Fig. 3). This problem was

Fig. 1  Introductory task for the

original, non-problem-posing
lesson

13
What does it mean to make implementation integral to research? 1155

Fig. 2  Exercises from the

second task in the original, non-
problem-posing lesson

Fig. 3  Interest-rate problem

from the original, non-problem-
posing lesson

13
1156 J. Cai, S. Hwang

emphasized in the teacher’s manual as a problem that stu- and implementation of the first problem-posing version of
dents were supposed to complete. After students had worked the lesson, showing the ongoing flow between research and
on this problem, Ms. Q would summarize the lesson. implementation.
In reflecting with Mr. C on the usual implementation of
this lesson, she noticed that even after the lesson, her stu- 4.2.1 Sharing experience and knowledge to analyze
dents continued to have difficulty solving similar problems. the problem
In her conversations with Mr. C., she repeatedly made com-
ments such as, “The students didn’t understand it, didn’t As noted above, Ms. Q’s experience with implementing this
understand the problem, and they could not solve the prob- lesson had presented her with several problematic points that
lems on their own.” Moreover, she had decided to repeat she wanted to address. After attending the problem-posing
some aspects of the lesson in the next lesson in the hopes workshop, she chose to discuss this lesson with Mr. C. As
of addressing the students’ difficulties. However, even after she shared her experience and evaluation of the lesson with
teaching them a second time, she felt that the students were Mr. C, they began to consider how problem posing might
still not grasping the concepts and, thus, they could not solve address some of the issues she was having. Based on her
these problems independently. In addition, Ms. Q described description of the lesson’s learning goals and her previous
feeling pressed for time during the lesson because there were implementations of this lesson, Mr. C wondered if she might
quite a few instructional tasks and she felt obligated to get be focusing on the procedural aspects in the lesson (i.e.,
through all of them during class. At the same time, Ms. Q knowing the symbolic representation of linear functions
was especially concerned about this lesson because it dealt and evaluating the function for given values). Although the
with a topic, linear functions, that she recognized was very instructional tasks she had chosen were not all routine, her
important for junior high school students; she worried that implementation of them was very focused on students being
if they did not develop a solid understanding of linear func- able to carry out procedures. In addition, the time pressure
tions, they would lack a key foundation piece for their later that Ms. Q felt was mirrored in the relatively short time that
mathematics learning. students had to think about the problems.
Given Ms. Q’s experience teaching her usual version Given the nature of the learning goals, Mr. C hypoth-
of this lesson and her experiences with problem posing in esized that it could be productive to explore how Ms. Q’s
the PD workshops, she felt that a problem-posing approach conception of what it means for students to understand linear
could be a way to improve the opportunities for students functions contributed to the shape of the lesson. To probe
to develop conceptual understanding in the lesson. Thus, this, Mr. C asked her how she would tell if the students did
she chose to redesign this lesson to incorporate this instruc- not understand the concept. What did it mean to her for stu-
tional practice. Moreover, Mr. C was also a stakeholder with dents to understand linear functions conceptually? These
respect to Ms. Q’s problem of practice and her choice to prompts provided Ms. Q with an opportunity to think and
engage in design around teaching through problem posing. reflect about her practice and her knowledge in terms of
By engaging with her concerning this problem, Mr. C would the design of the lesson. Ms. Q and Mr. C focused on the
be addressing a particular instance of the shared problem of initial instructional task of the lesson, which started with
teachers learning how to teach mathematics through problem a problem situation and then asked students to generate an
posing. That is, Mr. C also had an interest in collaborating equation from it (which would lead to plugging in numbers
with Ms. Q in order better to understand how researchers to evaluate the function). They hypothesized that changing
and teachers could collaborate around problem posing as a the perspective of the lesson to start with an equation and
teaching method. asking students to generate a situation to contextualize the
meaning of the equation might open a learning opportunity
4.2 An ongoing, continuous process for conceptual understanding. In particular, this change in
perspective would allow for using problem posing to start
The cyclic development and implementation process that the lesson. Ms. Q was excited about the possibilities of this
Ms. Q and Mr. C engaged in regarding this lesson took approach.
place over the course of 5 months. Ultimately, they gener-
ated six versions of the linear functions lesson. A detailed 4.2.2 Redesigning the lesson and implementing the first
account of the development of each version can be found in problem‑posing lesson
the report by Hwang and Cai (2021, in preparation). In this
section, we focus on the ongoing, continuous nature of the Based on this hypothesis, Ms. Q undertook a redesign of
development process as a key characteristic of research in the opening of her lesson to have the students generate both
which implementation is integral. To illustrate, we describe symbolic representations of functions and story problems or
the cycle from the original lesson through the development situations to match those symbolic representations. Rather

13
What does it mean to make implementation integral to research? 1157

than beginning with the three word problems, she hoped scattered and unfocused. Third, she felt that it was important
that the students would provide the raw material to begin the for the students to connect real-life situations to symbolic
discussion of linear functions. In turn, Mr. C expected that, representations when learning the new concept of linear
if the students worked with an equation of a linear function, functions, but she was concerned that the problem-posing
they would be able better to understand the meaning of k and introductory task did not serve that purpose well: “I have
b through their thinking while posing problems. However, some doubts about the design of problem posing. It seems
at this point, this remained an unvoiced expectation; Mr. C it’s not coming from abstraction from real life situations.”
had not made this explicit in his conversation with Ms. Q. Fourth, because the problem-posing tasks took so long, Ms.
In addition to reorienting the opening activity of the les- Q was worried about running out of time. Thus, she adapted
son, Ms. Q also added an activity to the lesson in which the by finishing the rest of the lesson by mostly showing the
students worked with their classmates sitting at the same students solutions to problems. In the end, she felt that she
desks. One student would write three linear functions with had not made the key concepts about linear functions clear.
different letters and numbers, and then another student All of these challenges added to Ms. Q’s sense of frustration,
needed to identify which numbers were acting as k (the which she expressed to Mr. C. At the same time, Ms. Q felt
slope) and b (the y intercept). This activity was developed that collaborating with Mr. C was helping her to rise to the
to draw students’ attention to the meanings of k and b. significant challenge of studying her implementation of the
Ms. Q introduced the revised lesson by asking the stu- lesson and forming new hypotheses about how to improve it.
dents to write some function expressions. She then asked As she stated, “the bigger the challenge, the more I like it.”
them to pose some problems based on those expressions Mr. C hypothesized that Ms. Q might be able to make use
to open the lesson. The students took a relatively long time of additional information about what problem-posing-based
to work on this introductory task (longer than Ms. Q had instruction could look like in practice. Mr. C provided Ms. Q
expected). Once the students completed it, Ms. Q had them with two teaching cases in which problem posing was used
work on the other new activity (identifying k and b in func- to teach mathematics and one article related to problem pos-
tions that other students wrote). After that, Ms. Q asked the ing in the curriculum. He anticipated that these documents
students to solve a set of problems, as in the original lesson. might be useful resources for Ms. Q to draw on, in order
The problems were mostly similar or identical to those from to understand the problem-posing approach more deeply in
the original lesson, including the word problem. Because the preparation for another round of development of the lesson.
first part of the lesson had taken longer than expected, Ms.
Q ended up providing the students with more guidance in 4.2.4 Informing the design of the second version
solving these problems in order to help them complete the of the problem‑posing lesson
problems more quickly.
Reflecting on the implementation of the first version of the
4.2.3 Feedback and reflection on implementation problem-posing lesson, Ms. Q and Mr. C hypothesized that
the issues could be addressed by (a) redesigning the prob-
After teaching, Ms. Q expressed frustration with the imple- lem-posing task to make it more explicit for the students
mentation of the lesson. Although she and Mr. C had hypoth- and (b) trying to integrate problem-posing more cohesively
esized that using a problem-posing task to introduce the les- into the lesson. To that end, Ms. Q and Mr. C discussed
son would open an opportunity for developing conceptual the choice of problem situations—the context in which the
understanding, the implementation suggested that the new students would pose problems. Mr. C suggested introduc-
design was not achieving that goal. Reflecting on her expe- ing a videotape rental situation as the context for problem
rience, Ms. Q identified several challenges that had arisen posing. This situation would include three plans: no annual
during implementation that may have prevented the prob- fee and $2 per rental, a $50 annual fee and $1.50 per rental,
lem-posing activity from having the desired effect. First, she and a $75 annual fee and $1 per rental. Mr. C recommended
found it challenging to make the various tasks in the whole presenting students with the plans and asking them to pose
lesson cohere, and it was difficult to transition naturally from different problems based on these plans. He hypothesized
one task to another. And, unlike her traditional lesson, Ms. Q that the choice of plan information in this context (three
felt that the lesson with problem posing was not fully under cases representing three different linear relationships) would
her control. Second, she felt that the students did not under- make it more likely that the conceptual roles of b and k could
stand her instructions concerning creating linear functions be highlighted in the students’ posed problems, thus helping
and then posing mathematical problems based on the func- to integrate problem-posing more cohesively into the lesson.
tions. Therefore, they did not know how they were supposed Ms. Q noted that videotapes are no longer common for
to pose problems. As a result, the students did not engage students, thus, she proposed three alternative situations as
positively in the activity and the problems they posed were possible contexts for problem posing. Similarly to Mr. C’s

13
1158 J. Cai, S. Hwang

suggestion, in each context, she presented two different cases the usage of Merseth (2016) and Stein et al. (2009). A teach-
corresponding to two different linear relationships. Again, ing case includes major elements of a lesson and related
by choosing the relationships this way, Ms. Q expected her analysis, but it is not a transcribed lesson. Teaching cases
alternative tasks to provide a more coherent integration of include narratives describing instructional tasks and related
problem posing into the lesson so that the posed problems instructional moves for the tasks. They also include informa-
could highlight the conceptual roles of b and k. In the end, tion about the thinking underlying major instructional deci-
Ms. Q decided to use a situation based on refueling two cars sions, reflections on and discussions of those decisions, and
at a pump that delivers 25 L/min of gas: One car started with descriptions of important contextual factors. Through her
no gas and the other with 6L of gas (this situation came from collaboration with Mr. C around this lesson, Ms. Q crafted
Problem 1 in the introductory task of the original lesson). a teaching case to document and share what they had learned
However, Ms. Q continued to express concerns that the about teaching linear functions using problem posing.
problem-posing task might be hard to control and that the In this section, we provide an account of the artifact as
students might not generate problems that would get at the of the fifth revision of the problem-posing lesson. For the
desired concepts. In effect, Ms. Q drew on her experience sake of brevity, we focus on this most recently implemented
implementing the previous design to hypothesize that the version rather than presenting a detailed evolution of the
task was too open to expect the students’ posed problems to lesson and the teaching case over time (details of the lesson
support the learning goal and that a more closed problem- development can be found in the paper by Hwang and Cai
solving task would be more effective. So, although Ms. Q (2021) in preparation). Thus, we present examples of the
seriously considered asking the students to pose two differ- development of the artifact from the lesson itself as well
ent mathematical problems from this situation, in the end, as implementation information, rationales, and contextual
she chose a narrower problem-solving task asking the stu- information from the teaching case.
dents to write a mathematical expression for each case. Ms. After a series of improvement cycles, the lesson now
Q also included potential additional problems in the lesson focused on two learning goals: (1) Write an algebraic expres-
that could be introduced at this point if the students were sion using x and change it to a function, then develop stu-
having difficulty understanding the car refueling problem. dents’ conceptual understanding of direct proportion and
Thus, the revised lesson included the refueling problem- linear functions; and (2) Use problem posing to develop stu-
solving task that produced two linear functions with the dents’ conceptual understanding of the meanings of k and b
same k but different values for b. This did have the advan- in a linear function. Although there are still procedural ele-
tage of highlighting the conceptual role of b. It also allowed ments to these goals, compared to the original three learning
her to focus on the distinction between direct proportion and goals, the balance has shifted towards developing conceptual
general linear functions. understanding of linear functions and their symbolic repre-
Although he continued to believe that a more open prob- sentations. This shift corresponded to Ms. Q’s clarification
lem-posing task could be effective in introducing this lesson for herself of what it means for her students to have concep-
and bringing out the desired conceptual understanding, Mr. tual understanding.
C felt it was important to center Ms. Q’s experience from To reach these learning goals, Ms. Q presented the
the first implementation in developing the next version of the students with an introductory problem-posing task to
lesson, and, in particular, he wanted to support the overall work on in small groups: “Given the two linear functions
goal of improving the original lesson with a focus on stu- y = 1200 + 3x and y = 1200 − 3x, please write a word problem
dents’ conceptual understanding rather than just procedural for each function.” The problem-posing task was designed
performance. to elicit problems from the students that could highlight the
meanings of k and b in a linear function and especially the
4.3 Development of an artifact effect of positive and negative values on the slope. Once the
groups had posed their problems, they shared them with the
Throughout their collaborative work, Ms. Q and Mr. C were class. For example, one group posed the following: “A big
contributing to the development of an artifact that embod- bottle of soda weighs 1200 g. You pour out 3 small cups.
ied their evolving discussions and reasoning as well as the Each cup contains x grams. What’s left in the bottle is y
rationales that guided the decisions they made. Specifically, grams. Can you write a functional expression for y with
the artifact included both the lesson plan (including a his- respect to x?” Ms. Q was able to use the discussion around
tory of the previous versions) and a problem-posing teaching the posed problems to develop a conceptual understanding
case that emerged from their collaborative work. We have of how the + 3x and the − 3 x differently affected the lin-
described and discussed problem-posing teaching cases in ear functions. In addition, Ms. Q also used the students’
detail elsewhere (e.g., Zhang & Cai, 2021). Here, we briefly problems to help them think about the constraints of their
note that we use the term teaching case in a way similar to contexts. For example, in the case of the soda problem, she

13
What does it mean to make implementation integral to research? 1159

prompted the students to think about the maximum (400 g) through implementation that adding activities to the lesson
that could be poured in each cup and still satisfy the posed without removing existing activities only exacerbated the
situation. Based on this implementation, the artifact could time pressure that prevented Ms. Q from giving her stu-
be enriched with potential student thinking and responses to dents time to think during the lesson. This supported Mr.
the introductory activity. C and Ms. Q in deciding to ‘risk’ replacing some of the old
After the introductory task discussion, Ms. Q introduced activities with new problem-posing opportunities to reach
a gym problem situation that she had created (Fig. 4). the learning goal of conceptual understanding. Second, as
Compared to the first problem-posing task, in which Ms. Q and Mr. C continued to reflect on task design that
the problem situation was purely symbolic, this second would improve the chances of students posing problems that
task asked students to pose problems based on a real-life would be ‘useful’ (with respect to the learning goals), and as
problem situation. This served the overarching goal Ms. Q the artifact began to include more examples of the kinds of
had expressed of helping her students connect their under- problems students could pose, Ms. Q became more comfort-
standings to real-world contexts. Problem posing was used able not being in total control of the lesson. She was able
to foster students’ thinking about and mathematization of to give students the freedom to pose problems while still
the relationships in the problem situation. Ms. Q gave the having confidence in being able to build on their responses.
students time to think about the situation and pose problems Third, the new lesson and the rationales for the tasks were
based on it. The students posed a variety of problems such focused on the students and their thinking rather than on a
as, “How many times can she visit under the first plan?” list of what needed to be done and the limited time in which
“After n visits, how much money would she pay under each to do them. The students now had plenty of opportunity to
plan?” and “Which plan is better?” As the students posed think, and Ms. Q was able to engage in more give and take
problems, Ms. Q asked them to present their problems on with them, making the lesson more interactive as a whole.
the board and talk about the solutions. Through this activity
and the discussions of the posed problems, Ms. Q was able 4.4 Capacity building
quickly to bring out the ideas of the y-intercept, the slope,
ranges, and maximum, connecting them to the symbolic Having participated in workshops on teaching through prob-
representation. Ms. Q finished the lesson with PowerPoint lem posing, Ms. Q began this process with a foundation of
summary slides that illustrated the key ideas of the lesson knowledge about problem posing and teaching through prob-
(also part of the artifact). These ideas had come out naturally lem posing. However, she had not yet engaged in teaching
from the discussion of posed problems during the lesson, through problem posing. The collaboration between Mr. C
and the students were easily able to follow the relationships and Ms. Q thus created capacity for sustaining change in
on the slides. instructional practice (i.e., using problem posing as a teach-
Ms. Q was extremely pleased with the new lesson and ing method) both through building the artifact (as described
its implementation. She described the process of getting to above) and through building Ms. Q’s knowledge, expertise,
this lesson with a haircut metaphor: “It’s like having long and willingness to take on aspects of a different role than the
hair. You try to trim here and there, making little changes, one she was used to.
but now it’s like I’ve gotten a big haircut that suits me so An important aspect of Ms. Q’s knowledge was her con-
well.” The “big haircut” for the lesson corresponded to sev- ception of what it meant for her students to understand linear
eral shifts in the artifact that had happened through cycles of functions. Several iterations of the lesson design focused
implementation addressing tentative hypotheses and design very much on procedural understanding. This was evident,
choices that Ms. Q and Mr. C made. First, it became clear for example, in the multiple exercises built into the lessons

Fig. 4  Second problem-posing

task in the most recent version
of the problem-posing lesson

13
1160 J. Cai, S. Hwang

in which students repeatedly practiced evaluating func- replace the income tax problem that was emphasized by the
tions for given values. As Ms. Q and Mr. C discussed the textbook with a problem-posing activity that she judged to
goals for the lesson, Ms. Q increasingly focused on the stu- better address the learning goals, reflects her independence
dents’ understanding of the components of linear functions and autonomy, taking control of the lesson away from the
(e.g., the k and b in the symbolic representation) and how book and putting it into her own hands (and Mr. C’s) as a
they corresponded to the situations that the functions were curriculum redesigner (Cai & Hwang, 2021).
describing. This evolution in Ms. Q’s focus meant that she
could now find space in the lesson for students to think about
and pose problems that would bring out key concepts, a key 5 Final remarks
consideration for teaching through problem posing.
One of the recurring themes that shaped Ms. Q and Mr. One of the major goals of educational research is to improve
C’s efforts was Ms. Q’s concern about the lesson not being students’ learning. Thus, the field of mathematics educa-
fully under control. She was uncomfortable creating situa- tion has long sought ways to improve the impact of research
tions in the classroom where she was unsure how to respond. on practice. For example, Burkhardt and Schoenfeld (2020)
This is not meant to be a critique of Ms. Q as a teacher. It proposed four roles that research might play in supporting
is natural to feel somewhat uncomfortable in an unpredict- implementability: (a) an inspirational role for engaging in
able situation, and, in her role as the teacher, Ms. Q felt a design toward implementation, (b) a guiding role for inform-
responsibility to make sure that the tasks she chose would ing implementation, (c) a limiting role by specifying con-
help the students understand the target concepts. As a result, straints to the design of implementations, and (d) an evalua-
Ms. Q was hesitant to make use of problem-posing tasks in tive role to determine the effectiveness of implementations
which the students might generate problems that she did not and move the field forward. Each of these roles is salient
expect. Recognizing that this was a challenge, Mr. C offered and should be considered when doing research relevant to
suggestions for how she might better predict her students’ implementation. However, this characterization also tends to
responses, and hypothesize about how the problem-posing position research as an outside or separate force acting on
tasks might be tailored to focus the students’ responses in a implementation (even when it is happening within imple-
productive direction. Ultimately, Ms. Q discovered through mentation). Research then is an external thing to ‘input’
implementing tasks and collecting students’ responses that into implementation efforts, whether as an inspiration for
she could use the students’ responses to the problem-posing creating new implementations or as guidelines or guardrails
tasks skillfully to bring out the targeted concepts. Once she against implementation going awry. That said, Burkhardt
realized this, she rapidly moved to incorporate greater (and and Schoenfeld’s analysis of evaluation research that could
freer) problem-posing tasks in the lesson. Her capacity to contribute to improving implementation resonates with our
implement teaching through problem posing had increased, desire to frame implementation and research as closely con-
and the resources in the teaching case to share this knowl- nected. Rather than, as Burkhardt and Schoenfeld critique,
edge and expertise became correspondingly more robust. treating evaluation research as a superficial summative
Ms. Q’s process of implementing problem posing in mul- activity, evaluation research that is implementation-integral
tiple design iterations of this lesson allows us to see that, for should provide formative input to implementation.
teachers to help their students learn mathematics through Fundamentally, we believe that concerted efforts are
problem posing, it is not sufficient to just study problem needed throughout the field to make implementation integral
posing and to see how other teachers use it. Taking imple- to research in education. Already, there are many in our field
mentation seriously as an integral part of research requires engaged in work that closely ties research and implementa-
a community (or network) of teachers and researchers to tion, including work such as lesson study, action research,
work together to address the details. Mr. C, as a mathemat- design-based research, and DBIR. We see the powerful con-
ics education researcher familiar with problem posing, tributions of these related forms of work as strong evidence
contributed not only encouragement and hypotheses to test that the four characteristics of implementation-integral
through implementation, but also concrete ideas concern- research that we have highlighted above (solves problems of
ing how to modify the lesson designs. It would not have practice; is an ongoing, continuous practice; involves devel-
been enough for him simply to critique the lesson or identify opment of an artifact; and includes capacity building) are
trouble spots. At the same time, this does not imply that fundamental to engaging intentionally and purposefully in
Ms. Q simply took Mr. C’s suggestions wholesale. Rather, making implementation fundamentally integral to research.
as a co-constructor of the lesson, she reflected on the ideas In particular, we urge those who would like to engage in such
within her own framework of understanding of teaching work to consider carefully how they might engage in col-
through problem posing, and she modified the ideas to best laborative construction of artifacts that can store and share
fit her students and her lesson. Indeed, Ms. Q’s decision to professional knowledge and act as a medium and mechanism

13
What does it mean to make implementation integral to research? 1161

for the interweaving of research and implementation. Such for storing and improving professional knowledge for teaching.
artifacts are, in our estimation, critical elements of building In C. Charalambous, & A. Praetorious (Eds.), Theorizing Teach-
ing. Springer (in press).
capacity in the field for this kind of work. Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., & Hiebert,
As with any relatively new mode of research in education, J. (2017). Making classroom implementation an integral part
there are several pressing questions that must be addressed. of research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
What are appropriate ways to communicate implementa- 48(4), 342–347.
Cobb, P., Jackson, K., & Sharpe, C. D. (2017). Conducting design
tion-integral research? This involves establishing accepted studies to investigate and support mathematics students’ and
modes of argumentation to warrant the claims that can be teachers’ learning. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research
made (what Kelly, 2004, referred to as an argumentative in mathematics education (pp. 208–233). National Council of
grammar in the case of design-based research). Typical Teachers of Mathematics.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research:
article formats in research and practitioner journals seem An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational
somewhat ill-suited to the products of research that makes Researcher, 32(1), 4–8.
implementation integral. Another key question concerns Fishman, B., & Penuel, W. (2018). Design-based implementation
the most effective ways to construct, maintain, and share research. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, &
P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sci-
artifacts. We have presented a lesson-based example that ences (pp. 393–400). Taylor & Francis.
includes both lesson plans and a teaching case. What other Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and
forms might those artifacts take, and to what kinds of work instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research,
are those forms most suited? Finally, sustaining research in 47(2), 335–397.
Hwang, S., & Cai, J. (2021). Hands, head, and heart (3H) frame-
which implementation is integral requires a critical mass of work for teacher professional learning: A journey of a teacher
dedicated participants. How can educators, both practition- learning to teach mathematics through problem posing (in
ers and researchers, be encouraged to take on this kind of preparation).
work? Answers to this question may require more substantial Jaworski, B. (2003). Research practice into/influencing mathemat-
ics teaching and learning development: Towards a theoretical
shifts in the culture and incentive structures of education and framework based on co-learning partnerships. Educational
educational research as a whole. Studies in Mathematics, 54, 249–282.
Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it method-
Acknowledgements We acknowledge helpful discussions with James ological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.
Hiebert, Charles Hohensee, and Anne Morris about the issues of inte- Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing
grating implementation as an integral part of research. We also would river: Research lessons and the improvement of Japanese educa-
like to thank Gabriele Kaiser, Boris Koichu, and several anonymous tion. American Educator, 22(4), 14–17. 50–52.
reviewers who made valuable comments concerning an earlier version Manfra, M. M. (2019). Action research and systematic, intentional
of this paper. Thanks also go to Ranran Xu and Yiling Yao for organ- change in teaching practice. Review of Research in Education,
izing the data related to the problem-posing teaching case included in 43, 163–196.
the paper. Means, B., & Harris, C. J. (2013). Towards an evidence framework
for design-based implementation research. Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, 112(2), 350–371.
Merseth, K. K. (2016). The early history of case-based instruction:
References Insights for teacher education today. Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 42(4), 243–249.
Aguilar, M.S., Kuzle, A., Wæge, K., & Misfeldt, M. (2019). Intro- Morris, A. K. (2012). Using “lack of fidelity” to improve teaching.
duction to the papers of TWG23: Implementation of research Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1(1), 71–101.
findings in mathematics education. In U.T. Jankvist, M. van Pinto, A., & Koichu, B. (2021). Implementation of mathematics edu-
der Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of cation research as crossing the boundary between disciplined
the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in inquiry and teacher inquiry. ZDM Mathematics Education.
Mathematics Education (pp. 4355–4362). Freudenthal Group & Puntambekar, S. (2018). Design-based research (DBR). In F. Fis-
Freudenthal Institute; Utrecht University; ERME. cher, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.),
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 383–392).
boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), Taylor & Francis.
132–169. Silver, E. A., & Lunsford, C. (2017). Linking research and practice
Arcavi, A. (2000). Problem-driven research in mathematics educa- in mathematics education: Perspectives and pathways. In J. Cai
tion. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 141–173. (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2020). Not just “implementation”: 28–47). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
The synergy of research and practice in an engineering research Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Bound-
approach to educational design and development. ZDM Math- ary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In
ematics Education. L. Gasser & M. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2021). Teachers as redesigners of curriculum to (pp. 37–54). Morgan Kaufmann.
teach mathematics through problem posing: Conceptualization Stein, M. K., Henningsen, M. A., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A.
and initial findings of a problem-posing project. ZDM Math- (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction:
ematics Education. A casebook for professional development (2nd ed.). Teachers
Cai, J., Hwang, S., Melville, M., & Robison, V. (2021). Theories for College Press.
teaching and teaching for theories: Artifacts as tangible entities

13
1162 J. Cai, S. Hwang

Takahashi, A., & McDougal, T. (2016). Collaborative lesson Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
research: Maximizing the impact of lesson study. ZDM Math- jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ematics Education, 48, 513–526.
Zhang, H., & Cai, J. (2021). Teaching mathematics through problem
posing: Insights from an analysis of teaching cases. ZDM Math-
ematics Education, 53, 961–973.

13
ZDM is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.