Meanings and perceptions of undergraduate Mathematics students regarding written textual production as educational practice

4.1 Experiences with textual production in Basic and Higher Education

This first category brings together the undergraduates' perceptions, understood as individual impressions and assessments arising from their experiences, regarding textual production throughout Basic Education and Higher Education, with an emphasis on the formative journey experienced in the Mathematics undergraduate program. The enunciations reveal trajectories marked by contrasts, in which moments of encouragement and learning intertwine with experiences of insecurity, technical difficulties, and a lack of appreciation for writing as a pedagogical practice.

By drawing on their school and academic memories, the participants reveal how writing was, or was no longer, used as a tool for learning and expression, both in contexts prior to university and in more recent formative experiences. The enunciations indicate that, despite some advances in Higher Education, writing still does not occupy a central position in the teacher education process, often being treated as an accessory, instrumental practice, and dissociated from Mathematics. This perception allows us to problematize the absence of a writing culture in teacher education programs, as discussed by authors such as Freitas and Fiorentini (2008), Silva and Marcuschi (2017), Nogaro, Porto, and Porto (2019), among others. Based on this category, we seek to understand how these experiences, sometimes promoting, sometimes limiting, influence the development of authorship, autonomy, and teaching identity among Mathematics undergraduate students.

The undergraduates' enunciations about their experiences with writing throughout their school and university careers reveal a formative journey marked by contrasts: on the one hand, positive experiences mediated by teachers, projects, and institutional programs; on the other, persistent challenges related to organizing ideas, mastering grammar, and little familiarity with academic writing practices. The enunciations reveal three main subcategories: incentives and opportunities, skill development, and challenges faced.

These three subcategories correspond to developments in the first category presented in Table 1 — Experiences with text production in Basic and Higher Education. In Table 1, the emerging subcategories were identified from the enunciations, and in Table 2, they are presented in detail, associated with the units of meaning extracted from the undergraduate students' enunciations. Thus, the direct relationship between the general categories established in the initial stage of the analysis and the more specific segments used in this section is maintained. The data are organized in Table 2.

The undergraduates' enunciations reveal that their experiences with writing are influenced by multiple factors: some are marked by institutional encouragement and teacher support; others by insecurity, discontinuity, and a lack of systematic practices. This ambivalence echoes what Nogaro, Porto, and Porto (2019) argue when they identify the fragile presence of writing in teacher education programs, despite its formative and communicative potential.

The Incentives and opportunities subcategory appears prominently in the enunciations of seventh-semester undergraduates, who point out that opportunities to develop written text production were mostly associated with extracurricular experiences, such as research and extension projects. When one participant states, “College gave me new opportunities to develop my writing skills”, it is evident that, although writing is not systematically integrated into the curriculum, its valorization can occur in alternative, more flexible educational contexts. This experience, although localized, is similar to what Bronckart (1999) conceptualizes as socially situated language practices: concrete discursive actions, anchored in specific communicative purposes and in real spheres of language use, in which people constitute themselves as authors of their own words.

Along the same lines, stating that “There were many incentives, especially in projects”, another undergraduate student highlights the importance of experiencing spaces that combine teaching, research, and outreach as enhancers of reflective, collaborative, and discursive practices. Such experiences are fundamental to breaking with the instrumental logic of school-based writing, centered on assessment or academic formality. As Marcuschi (2008) argues, textual production needs to be understood as an interactive, dialogical, and contextualized process, not as an isolated exercise devoid of social meaning. By participating in institutional projects, undergraduate students come into contact with diverse textual genres, communicative purposes, and processes of rewriting and revision, thus developing skills that go beyond the mechanical repetition of models.

These writing practices experienced in projects contribute to the formation of teaching identity, especially when understood as spaces of authorship, mediation, and experimentation. From Vygotsky's (1998) perspective, the development of higher cognitive functions, such as logical organization of thought, planning, and critical expression, occurs through symbolic mediation, with language, especially writing, being one of the main instruments in this process. Thus, when education offers opportunities for undergraduates to write about their practice, produce scientific texts, reports, articles, or pedagogical reflections, it contributes not only to improving communication but also to strengthening their professional awareness and intellectual autonomy.

In the Skill development subcategory, the grouped enunciations reveal that the development of writing skills does not occur linearly, nor spontaneously, but is directly related to personal trajectories, pedagogical mediation, and the length of exposure to writing practices. The account of a seventh-semester undergraduate student — “At the beginning of my undergraduate degree, I had a lot of difficulty because I had spent 21 years away from studying. But with dedication and the help of my doctor professor [...] I learned a lot and continue to learn” — is exemplary in this regard. It highlights that resuming writing, even after a long absence, becomes possible and productive when the formative process is anchored in meaningful pedagogical relationships. From Vygotsky's (1998) perspective, this expresses the essential function of mediation in learning: the teacher acts as an instrument connecting the student to the objects of knowledge, enabling the internalization of cognitive tools, such as written language.

Furthermore, it is clear that progress in writing proficiency is often related to overcoming emotional and cognitive barriers. The enunciation “I have some ease with textual development” (1st-semester undergraduate student) converges with an intermediate self-perception, in which the individual recognizes their productive capacity, although still in the process of maturing. This highlights that, even in the early stages of education, forms of partial appropriation of written language as a tool for organizing thought and expressing knowledge already emerge. As Marcuschi (2008) points out, writing is always situated and gradual, and its appropriation requires contexts that favor planning, textualization, and rewriting—elements absent when textual production is treated solely as an evaluative task.

On the other hand, the enunciation that “Text production was never my strong point” (1st-semester undergraduate student) expresses a common dimension in teacher education programs: the presence of individuals who recognize themselves as weak in writing, often due to a lack of systematic writing practices throughout their schooling. This type of perception highlights what Freitas and Fiorentini (2008) discuss when they point out that many students enter Higher Education with a history of school practices that did not encourage authorship or critical reflection on writing. For these individuals, the undergraduate program could function as a space for redefining their relationship with language, as long as it recognizes writing as a formative component, rather than a technical barrier to be overcome individually.

Based on the enunciations in the Challenges and difficulties subcategory, undergraduate students reveal that, despite recognizing the importance of textual production, many face structural difficulties related to organizing ideas, familiarity with academic genres, and mastering the standard language. The report of a seventh-semester student — “The greatest difficulties arise in how these texts should be presented, but mainly in organizing the ideas necessary for this” — highlights the lack of practices that favor textual planning and structuring as part of the education process. This gap compromises not only the clarity of written expression but also the development of pedagogical reasoning, since, as Marcuschi (2008) highlights, textual production requires a process that involves logical organization, internal cohesion, and discursive articulation, skills that need to be taught and practiced systematically in the context of teacher education.

The difficulty with academic writing, mentioned by a first-semester undergraduate student, expresses another critical dimension of the educational process: “Lack of familiarity with academic writing”. This enunciation reinforces the diagnosis of Silva and Marcuschi (2017), who point to the persistence of a school education centered on the reproduction of content and mechanical writing, to the detriment of an approach that prioritizes authorship, reflection, and the production of meaning. In the case of undergraduate students, this lack of prior contact with scientific and pedagogical language hinders not only the writing of academic papers but also the development of plans, reflective records, and didactic texts, essential for teaching practice. Academic writing, in this context, cannot be treated as an expected skill, but as a competency that needs to be developed throughout the education process, based on contextualized experiences and coordinated by teachers sensitive to the different trajectories of students.

Problems with grammar, frequently referred to as “grammar” and “grammatical errors” (1st and 7th semester undergraduate students) reinforce a restricted conception of writing still rooted in many school and university contexts, in which the focus is on normative correctness rather than the development of expression and argumentation. This view, as criticized by Marcuschi (2008), reduces textual production to an exercise in obeying grammatical rules, emptying its discursive, cognitive, and formative potential. For undergraduate students to overcome these difficulties, their education must promote a shift: from a concern with grammar as an end, to an understanding of language as a tool for thought, communication, and pedagogical practice. Such a shift requires that writing be treated as a procedural and situated practice, in which errors are part of learning and are opportunities for reflection, not grounds for censorship.

The analysis of the undergraduate students' enunciations in this category reveals a heterogeneous educational landscape, while also revealing structural trends in how written text production has been experienced by undergraduate Mathematics students. On the one hand, there is evidence that research projects, outreach, and sensitive teaching mediation have emerged as important opportunities for encouraging writing, fostering the development of a more positive relationship with written language. On the other hand, significant difficulties persist related to textual organization, mastery of academic writing, and the restrictive conception of grammar as an end in itself.

This ambivalence converges with the lack of systematic and cross-disciplinary work with textual production throughout the course, which contributes to the strengthening of perceptions such as writing as a technical task or isolated activity. In this sense, authors such as Marcuschi (2008) and Silva and Marcuschi (2017) argue that teacher education needs to understand writing as a situated discursive practice, permeated by cognitive, social, and historical processes, in which authorship, argumentation, and communicative clarity are constructed within meaningful social practices and not simply evaluated based on their normative correctness.

At the same time, the presence of reports highlighting progress in writing skills demonstrates that writing can be learned and improved throughout education, provided appropriate institutional, curriculum, and pedagogical conditions are provided. These findings echo Vygotsky's (1998) assertion that the development of higher functions, such as written language, is directly related to cultural mediation and social interaction. Thus, promoting textual production as a formative dimension in the initial education of Mathematics teachers is not just a question of method, but a commitment to the formation of people capable of reflecting, communicating, teaching and positioning themselves critically in the educational field.

4.2 Perceptions and meanings about textual production in/for Mathematics teaching

This second category focuses on the perceptions — understood as individual impressions and assessments — of undergraduate students regarding the possibilities, meanings, and challenges of textual production in the specific context of Mathematics teaching and learning. The perceptions gathered here, when analyzed in light of the theoretical framework, allow us to identify broader meanings attributed to writing, related to its role in the formation of mathematical knowledge, the organization of thought, and pedagogical practice.

The enunciations reveal diverse understandings of the role of writing in the formation of mathematical knowledge, the organization of thought, and pedagogical practice. While some participants expressed confidence in using written language to express mathematical content, others expressed insecurity and difficulties, particularly with regard to clarity, precision, and the connection between language and content.

At the same time, the data converge toward a recognition of writing as a formative and pedagogical resource, capable of fostering conceptual understanding, didactic communication, and the development of discursive skills essential to teaching. The enunciations indicate that, for most undergraduate participants, writing allows mathematical reasoning to become visible and constitutes a legitimate form of expression and systematization of knowledge. This perception is similar to the discussions of Marcuschi (2008) and Sfard (2008), who understand writing as a situated discursive practice, linked to specific ways of saying, representing, and signifying, and not simply as a technique for encoding previously organized ideas.

Thus, this category proposes a reflection on how undergraduate students understand writing as an integral part of their education, analyzing their experiences and perspectives on the relationship between writing and Mathematics. The aim, therefore, is to discuss the extent to which these perceptions reveal similarities or divergences from writing as a didactic, formative, and discursive practice within the process of becoming a Mathematics teacher.

The undergraduate students' perceptions of writing in the context of Mathematics teaching were organized into subcategories that express both the meanings attributed to the practice and the feelings related to its implementation. Among these, the issue of confidence in expressing mathematical concepts in writing stands out, highlighting the diversity of trajectories and levels of appropriation of written language as a pedagogical tool. While some participants expressed comfort and familiarity with writing as a means of expressing mathematical reasoning, others revealed insecurity, hesitation, or limitations regarding clarity, systematization, and word choice. These variations point to the influence of factors such as academic history, pedagogical practices experienced during the course, and opportunities, or lack thereof, to practice writing in formative contexts.

Table 3 details the subcategories related to the second category listed in Table 1, entitled Perceptions on text production in/for Mathematics Teaching. These subcategories — understanding mathematical concepts through text production; confidence in expressing mathematical concepts through texts; importance of text production practices in Mathematics teacher education; and influence of text production practices on the teaching and learning process — were constructed based on the participants' enunciations and associated with the units of meaning extracted from them. Thus, Table 3 constitutes an analytical framework that deepens and exemplifies, with empirical data, the categories already presented in Table 1. Next, Table 3 brings together representative excerpts of these perceptions, grouped according to the subcategory in question.

Based on the subcategory Understanding mathematical concepts through textual production, the undergraduate students' enunciations reveal a significant perception of textual production as a tool for learning Mathematics. Writing, in this context, is understood not only as a form of communication, but also as a cognitive practice that fosters the construction of meaning, the organization of thought, and conceptual understanding. As one participant states: “To understand what the Math questions are asking of us, we need to have a command of text production to better understand” (1st-semester undergraduate student). This enunciation highlights a direct relationship between reading and writing skills and mathematical performance, especially with regard to reading and interpreting problems, a skill often neglected in educational processes.

This connection between language and thought is extensively discussed by Vygotsky (1998), who emphasizes that the development of higher functions, such as logical reasoning, is intrinsically linked to language, especially written language. Textual production allows not only the recording of information but also the reformulation, reworking, and consolidation of knowledge. In this sense, the enunciation “Mathematics and textual knowledge are linked. To understand the statement of a question, textual knowledge is necessary” (1st-semester undergraduate student) reinforces the idea that there is no full understanding of mathematical content without the mediation of language, whether oral, written, or symbolic.

Furthermore, undergraduate students point to writing as a practice that fosters autonomous learning and investigative skills. One student stated: “Through these practices, we learn to deal with everyday situations. When writing about something, we must first research it, which helps in better understanding” (1st-semester undergraduate student). This excerpt shows that writing stimulates a movement of seeking and reconstructing knowledge, functioning as a mediating instrument between the individual and the world. This perspective resonates with Bronckart's (1999) theory, for which language is a social practice and organizer of human action; and with Marcuschi's (2008) view, which sees writing as a process that articulates reading, interpretation, planning, and rewriting — essential dimensions of learning.

Students also recognize that writing can enhance the learning process when integrated with mathematical content. A seventh-semester participant responded: “Through writing alone, we can achieve greater learning in our lives, so if we connect this mathematical knowledge to textual practice, it's possible to better utilize the content”. This enunciation highlights the epistemic function of writing, which, according to Marcuschi (2008), allows a person to think about what they are learning, organize arguments, and make explicit the cognitive operations involved in problem-solving. Writing about Mathematics, therefore, is a way of learning Mathematics, as it requires the explanation of reasoning, the justification of procedures, and the translation of concepts into accessible language.

The idea that “the more you write, the more you improve” (7th-semester undergraduate student) points to writing as a practice that develops through experience and consistency. This understanding is anchored in the notion that language proficiency is not a starting point, but a process socially constructed over time, as Sfard (2008) emphasizes when proposing that learning involves engaging in new discursive practices. For undergraduates, becoming able to write about Mathematics is also a step in the process of becoming a teacher, someone who not only masters content but also knows how to communicate it clearly, critically, and contextually.

In the subcategory Confidence in expressing mathematical concepts through texts, the undergraduate students' enunciations indicate that confidence in expressing mathematical concepts through writing is strongly related to educative experiences and mastery of the content to be communicated. The enunciation “I can do this as long as I have knowledge of the area to be presented” (1st semester undergraduate student) highlights that discursive confidence depends, to a certain extent, on conceptual confidence. This perception is consistent with Sfard's (2008) proposition, according to which learning is entering into new discursive practices. That is, for a person to appropriate mathematical discourse, they must first understand its internal structures, its vocabularies, and its forms of argumentation. Textual production requires more than mastery of linguistic norms; it requires familiarity with the meanings, ways of thinking, and objectives specific to school Mathematics.

However, some undergraduate students express insecurity when writing about mathematical concepts, as evidenced by the enunciation: “Most of the time, I feel quite insecure” (1st-semester undergraduate student). This enunciation reveals not only a technical difficulty but also an emotional obstacle, which may stem from education based on oral communication and the mechanical use of strategies, with no room for the written expression of reasoning, justifications, or reflections. As Freitas and Fiorentini (2008) point out, this gap is recurrent in teacher education programs, where written language is still treated as an isolated activity rather than as a constitutive practice of teaching. Insecurity, in this case, should not be seen as an individual weakness, but rather as an indication of the lack of formative experiences that value writing as a pedagogical and cognitive practice.

On the other hand, there are enunciations that express greater familiarity and comfort with writing as a tool for didactic explanation, as in the excerpt: “I like writing and explaining these concepts in the best way possible, so I see that in textual production it would be possible to achieve good results, so that whoever is reading can understand” (7th semester undergraduate student). This enunciation converges with an initial appropriation of the teaching discourse, in which the person begins to perceive writing as a means of pedagogical mediation. This perception aligns with what Marcuschi (2008) argues, when he states that writing is, at the same time, a communicative practice and a tool for organizing thought. In this context, writing becomes an exercise in explaining mathematical reasoning, didactic planning, and producing meaning for others — in other words, core skills for teaching.

Still, the participants recognize the complexity of expressing mathematical ideas in writing, as revealed by the following enunciation: “Some concepts are sometimes difficult to explain in words, but once you practice, it becomes a comfortable medium” (7th-semester undergraduate student). This enunciation expresses a procedural understanding of learning to write, based on practice and situated repetition. This understanding reinforces the thesis of Marcuschi (2008), Bronckart (1999), and Sfard (2008), for whom writing competence is socially constructed, through participation in real-life situations of textual production and mediation with other people, objects, and situations. Thus, offering undergraduate students opportunities to write about Mathematics, whether explaining concepts, developing assignments, or writing plans, is a powerful strategy for developing their discursive confidence and teaching competence.

In the subcategory Importance of text production practices in Mathematics teacher education the undergraduate students' enunciations reveal a growing understanding of text production as a fundamental element in Mathematics teacher education. The enunciation “Text production is very important for undergraduates to become qualified professionals” (7th semester undergraduate student) highlights the perception that, in addition to contributing not only to language proficiency, but also to the development of more qualified, articulate, and reflective teaching. This idea aligns with what Freitas and Fiorentini (2008) argue when they state that communicative competence, both oral and written, is an essential condition for teaching practice, especially in a field like Mathematics, which has historically been associated with technical language and impersonal discourse.

In this sense, the importance of textual production as a structuring part of the course is clearly expressed in enunciations such as: “Text production is essential. During the course, we learn about the practice of text production, which is very important” (1st-semester undergraduate student). This perception highlights the need to promote teaching that encourages the exercise of authorship, didactic explanation, and argumentation, understanding writing as a continuous educational practice. Marcuschi (2008) corroborates this perspective by conceiving textual production as a situated, procedural, and interactive discursive practice, dimensions that contribute to the development of teacher identity and intellectual autonomy.

The relationship between writing and pedagogical practice is also expressed in the enunciation “We need teachers to be increasingly didactic in their classes” (7th-semester undergraduate student), which suggests that clarity in communication, including in written form, is seen as one of the pillars of good teaching. This demand for didactics reflects the idea that teaching requires more than mastery of content; it also requires the ability to translate, organize, and make understandable what one intends to teach. Writing, in this context, constitutes one of the ways in which teachers structure their practice, communicate their objectives, plan their actions, and systematize their knowledge.

On the other hand, the enunciation “The teacher must have mastery of all areas of knowledge!” (First-semester undergraduate student), although somewhat rhetorical, expresses a broader view of the demands placed on the contemporary teacher, especially regarding the integration of different areas of knowledge and the ability to navigate multiple discourses. This perspective reinforces the importance of initial education addressing writing not only as a technique but also as a cultural, pedagogical, and political practice. As Bronckart (1999) and Silva and Marcuschi (2017) point out, education as a teacher also involves training as a discursive person who critically interacts with various fields of knowledge, and textual production is one of the central pathways to this development.

Based on the subcategory Influence of textual production practices on the teaching and learning process, the undergraduate students' enunciations reveal the perception that textual production can act as a pedagogical resource that significantly enhances the teaching and learning processes of Mathematics. The enunciation “The practice of writing helps students better understand the subject matter, which can benefit the teaching and learning process” (7th-semester undergraduate student) refers to writing as a tool for organizing and systematizing knowledge, expanding conceptual understanding and promoting more meaningful learning. This view is consistent with Marcuschi (2008), who understands writing as a discursive practice capable of activating cognitive, reflective, and communicative mechanisms, essential for the development of intellectual autonomy.

The relationship between textual production and the ability to formulate mathematical problems is evidenced in the enunciation “The fact that the student knows how to write well and has good oratory skills helps in formulating mathematical problems” (7th semester undergraduate student). This perception suggests that written language allows a person not only to understand enunciations but also to create problem situations and structure logical arguments. This creative dimension of writing is echoed by Bronckart (1999), who argues that language organizes human activity and mediates between thought and action. In the context of teacher education, this means that writing about Mathematics is also learning to teach Mathematics, through the production of tasks, examples, and didactic explanations.

Another relevant aspect is the association between writing and the professional development of undergraduate students, as indicated by the enunciation “Acquisition of knowledge that helps in future activities during and after the undergraduate degree in Mathematics” (1st semester undergraduate student). This understanding reinforces the idea that writing should not be treated as a practice restricted to the academic environment, but as a competency that permeates the entire teaching career, from the development of plans and reports to the production of teaching materials, intervention projects, and scientific texts. Freitas and Fiorentini (2008) draw attention to this point by stating that systematic writing during initial education contributes to consolidating teachers' professional identity, enabling them to reflect, communicate, and justify their pedagogical choices.

The enunciation “Having textual knowledge and understanding can help me create, express, report, and understand any situation” (1st-semester undergraduate student) broadens this perspective by highlighting that writing acts as a cross-cutting tool for a person's critical development. This understanding is in line with Vygotsky (1998), who recognizes language as a mediator of higher mental functions. When undergraduate students develop their textual competence, they not only enhance their ability to communicate but also develop metacognitive skills, such as reflecting on their own learning, constructing arguments, and restructuring their thoughts. This is a process that transcends discipline and contributes to conscious, ethical, and transformative professional practice.

Similarly, the recognition that “contextualizing mathematical examples is a good way to teach and stimulate mathematical understanding” (1st-semester undergraduate student) highlights the importance of connecting language and reality in Mathematics teaching. In this sense, textual production can function as a methodological strategy capable of fostering connections between mathematical concepts and concrete situations, fostering learning. This practice is consistent with Sfard's (2008) discursive approach, which argues that learning is about participating in a specific discourse. Producing texts that contextualize mathematical concepts, whether explanatory, reflective, or narrative, is a way to insert future teachers into the discourse of Mathematics teaching, fostering a critical appropriation of language and the knowledge that constitutes it.

In this context, the analyses presented in this category demonstrate that undergraduate students recognize, despite varying levels of formative maturity, the relevance of textual production in the teaching and learning processes of Mathematics and in the development of their teaching identity. The enunciations demonstrate that writing is perceived as a tool that organizes thought, makes reasoning visible, and enables the systematization of mathematical knowledge, both for the student and the future teacher.

The connection between language and Mathematics, considered by Vygotsky (1998) and Sfard (2008) as a mediator of cognitive development, appears in the enunciations as a decisive element for understanding content and clarifying explanations. The undergraduate students understand that writing helps them not only better understand concepts but also develop the ability to communicate them didactically. This epistemic and communicative dimension of language, as argued by Marcuschi (2008) and Bronckart (1999), reveals the formative potential of writing, especially when embedded in reflective, collaborative, and situated practices.

It was also evident that confidence in writing about mathematical content is a gradually developed aspect, influenced by educational opportunities, conceptual mastery, and experiences with written language throughout education. Undergraduate students who had access to systematic writing practices, especially in the context of projects or with teacher support, demonstrated greater confidence in using writing as a pedagogical tool. Conversely, reports of insecurity and difficulty point to the lack of consistent practices throughout the course, as Freitas and Fiorentini (2008) warn when criticizing curriculum fragmentation and the lack of emphasis on language in undergraduate Mathematics programs.

Furthermore, the enunciations reveal that undergraduate students attribute an expanded role to writing, one that goes beyond disciplinary communication and encompasses the organization of teaching work, the development of plans, the systematization of experiences, and engagement in investigative practices. This indicates that textual production, when treated as a cross-cutting dimension of education, can contribute to strengthening autonomy, authorship, and critical thinking — fundamental values ​​for teaching practice committed to an emancipatory education.

Thus, the data discussed in this category highlight the need for Mathematics teacher education programs to embrace written textual production not as an appendix to education practices, but as a constitutive dimension of teaching and professional development. By integrating language into the processes of teaching, learning, and reflection, the educational horizons of future teachers are broadened, enabling them to critically appropriate the pedagogical discourse of Mathematics and become active and authoritative individuals in the educational field.

By linking the undergraduate students' individual perceptions with the adopted theoretical frameworks, it was possible to identify broader meanings attributed to written text production in the context of initial Mathematics education. These socially constructed and shared meanings relate to the understanding of writing as a constitutive practice of teaching, capable of mediating the construction of mathematical knowledge, the organization of thought, pedagogical communication, and the exercise of authorship. This perspective reinforces that, beyond a technical or evaluative skill, written text production constitutes a structuring element of the teacher's professional identity and a resource for critical, reflective, and socially situated action in Mathematics teaching.