Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case of functions
 Ruhama Even
 … show all 1 hide
Abstract
Interest in teachers' subject matter knowledge has arisen in recent years. But most of the analysis has been general and not topicspecific. This paper shows how one may approach the question of teachers' knowledge about mathematical topics. It demonstrates the building of an analytic framework of subject matter knowledge for teaching a specific topic in mathematics and then uses the concept of function to provide an illustrative case of a paradigm for analyzing subject matter knowledge for teaching. The choice of the aspects, which form the main facets of the framework, was based on integrated knowledge from several bodies of work: the role and importance of the topic in the discipline of mathematics and in the mathematics curriculum; research and theoretical work on learning, knowledge and understanding of mathematical concepts in general and the specific topic in particular; and research and theoretical work on teachers' subject matter knowledge and its role in teaching. An application of the framework in the case of the concept of function is described and illustrated by anecdotes drawn from a study of prospective secondary teachers' knowledge and understanding of functions.
 Academic Preparation in Mathematics: 1985, Teaching for transition from high school to college, College Entrance Examination Board, New York.
 BallD. L.: 1988, Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
 BallD. L.: 1990, Examining the subject matter knowledge of prospective mathematics teachers', Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 21(2), 132–143.
 Ball, D. L.: In press, ‘Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation’, in J. Brophy (ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching (Vol. 2), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
 BellA. W., CostelloJ., and KuchemannD.: 1983, A Review of Research in Mathematics Education, Part A, NFERNELSON, Windsor, Canada.
 BellA. and JanvierC.: 1981, ‘The interpretation of graphs representing situations’, For the Learning of Mathematics 2(1), 34–42.
 Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession: 1986, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Washington, DC.
 ChambersD. L., BensonJ., ChandlerA., and BethkeE.: 1986, A Guide to Curriculum Planning in Mathematics, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, WI.
 CoxfordA. F. and PayneJ. N.: 1987, HBJ Algebra 1 Revised Edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Orlando, Florida.
 DavisR. B.: 1986, ‘Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: A summary analysis’, in J.Hiebert (ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 265–300.
 DeweyJ.: 1904, ‘The relation of theory to practice in education’, in M. L.Borrowman (ed.), 1971, Teacher Education in America: A Documentary History, Teachers' College Press, New York, pp. 140–171.
 DolcianiM. P., SorgenfreyR. H., BrownR. G., and KaneR. B.: 1986, Algebra and Trigonometry, Structure and Method Book 2, Houghton Mifflin Company, USA.
 DreyfusT. and EisenbergT.: 1983, ‘The function concept in college students: Linearity, smoothness and periodicity’, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 5(3&4), 119–132.
 Dreyfus, T. and Eisenberg, T.: 1987, ‘On the deep structure of functions’, in J. C. Bergeron and C. Kieren (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of PME, Vol. I, Montreal, Canada, pp. 190–196.
 DufourJanvierB., BednarzN., and BelangerM.: 1987, ‘Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation’, in C.Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 109–122.
 Educational Technology Center: 1988, Making Sense of the Future, Harvard Graduate School of Education, MA.
 Eisenberg, T. and Dreyfus, T.: 1986, ‘On visual versus analytical thinking in mathematics’, Proceedings of PME 10, London, England.
 Even, R.: 1989, Prospective secondary teachers' knowledge and understanding about mathematical functions, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
 FreudenthalH.: 1983, Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
 GreenoJ. G.: 1978, ‘Understanding and procedural knowledge in mathematics instruction’, Educational Psychologist 12(3), 262–283.
 HershkowitzR.: 1990, ‘Psychological aspects of learning geometry’, in P.Nesher and J.Kilpatrick (eds.), Mathematics and Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
 HiebertJ. and LefevreP.: 1986, ‘Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis’, in J.Hiebert (ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 1–27.
 Holmes Group.: 1986, Tomorrow's Teacher, Michigan State University, College of Education, East Lansing, MI.
 Janvier, C.: 1978, The interpretation of complex Cartesian graphs representing situations — Studies and teaching experiments, Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, Shell Centre for Mathematical Education and Universite du Quebec a Montreal.
 KeedyM. L., BittingerM. L., SmithS. A., and OrfanL. J.. 1986, Algebra, AddisonWesley Publishing Company, Inc., USA.
 Lampert, M.: 1988, ‘The teacher's role in reinventing the meaning of mathematical knowing in the classroom’, in M. J. Behr, C. B. Lacampagne and M. M. Wheeler (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of PMENA, DeKalb, Ill., pp. 433–480.
 LappanG. and EvenR.: 1989, Learning to Teach: Constructing Meaningful Understanding of Mathematical Content (Craft Paper 893), Michigan State University, National Center for Research of Teacher Education, East Lansing, MI.
 LappanG. and SchramP.: 1989, ‘Communication and reasoning: Critical dimensions of sense making in mathematics’, in P. R.Trafton and A. P.Shulte (eds.), New Directions for Elementary School Mathematics — 1989 Yearbook, NCTM, Reston, Virginia, pp. 14–30.
 LeinhardtG. and SmithD. A.: 1985, ‘Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge’, Journal of Educational Psychology 77, 247–271.
 LeshR., PostT., and BehrM.: 1987, ‘Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving’, in C.Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 33–40.
 LovellK.: 1971, ‘Some aspects of the growth of the concept of a function’, in M. F.Rosskopf, L. P.Steffe and S.Taback (eds.), Piagetian Cognitive Development Research and Mathematical Education, NCTM, Washington, D.C., pp. 12–33.
 MacLaneS.: 1986, Mathematics: Form and Function, SpringerVerlag New York Inc., USA.
 Malik, M. A.: 1980, ‘Historical and pedagogical aspects of the definition of function’, International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science & Technology 11.
 Markovits, Z., Eylon, B., and Bruckheimer, M.: 1983, ‘Functions linearity unconstrained’, in R. Hershkowitz (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of PME, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, pp. 271–277.
 MarkovitsZ., EylonB., and BruckheimerM.: 1986, ‘Functions today and yesterday’, For the Learning of Mathematics 6(2), 18–24, 28.
 MarnyanskiiI. A.: 1975, ‘Psychological characteristics of pupils' assimilation of the concept of a function’, in J.Kilpatrick, I.Wirszup, E.Begle and J.Wilson (eds.), Soviet Studies in the Psychology of Learning and Teaching Mathematics XIII, SMSG, University of Chicago Press. USA, pp. 163–172. (Original work published 1965).
 Michigan Essential Goals And Objectives For Mathematics Education: 1988, Michigan State Board of Education.
 Monk, G. S.: 1988, ‘Students' understanding of functions in calculus courses’, Humanistic Mathematics Network Newsletter 2.
 NCTM: 1989a, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, NCTM, Virginia, USA.
 NCTM: 1989b, Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (working draft), NCTM, Virginia, USA.
 NesherP.: 1986, ‘Are mathematical understanding and algorithmic performance related?’, For the Learning of Mathematics 6(3), 2–9.
 NicholsE. D., EdwardsM. L., GarlandE. H., HoffmanS. A., MamaryA., and PalmerW. F.: 1986, Holt Algebra 2 with Trigonometry, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Publishers, USA.
 Oregon Mathematics Concept Paper No. 2: 1987, Middle School Mathematics, 6–8.
 PetersonP. L.: 1988, ‘Teaching for higher order thinking in mathematics: The challenge for the next decade’, in D. A.Grouws, T. J.Cooney and D.Jones (eds.), Effective Mathematics Teaching, NCTM, Reston, Virginia, pp. 2–26.
 ResnickL. B.: 1987, Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
 ResnickL. B. and FordW. W.: 1984, The Psychology of Mathematics for Instruction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd., London.
 RombergT. A.: 1983, ‘A common curriculum for mathematics’, in G. D.Fenstermacher, J. I.Goodlad, and K. J.Rehage (eds.), Individual Differences and the Common Curriculum — 82nd Yearbook of the NSSE, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 121–159.
 Schoenfeld, A. H.: 1987, On mathematics as sensemaking: An informal attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics, Paper presented at the OERI/LRDC Conference on Informal Reasoning and Education, Pittsburgh, PA.
 SchoenfeldA. H.: 1988, ‘When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “welltaught” mathematics classes’, Educational Psychologist 23(2), 145–166.
 ShulmanL. S.: 1986, ‘Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching’, Educational Researcher 15(2), 4–14.
 SilverE. A.: 1986, ‘Using conceptual and procedural knowledge: A focus on relationships’, in J.Hiebert (ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 181–198.
 Tamir, P.: 1987, Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Educational Research, Washington, DC.
 ThomasH. L.: 1975, ‘The concept of function’, in M. E.Rosskopf (ed.), Children's Mathematical Concepts. Six Piagetian Studies in Mathematics Education, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 145–172.
 ThompsonA. G.: 1984, ‘The relationship of teachers' conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 15, 105–127.
 Tirosh, D., Nachmias, R., and Arcavi, A.: 1990, The effects of exploring a new representation on prospective teachers' conception of functions. Unpublished manuscript.
 VinnerS.: 1983, ‘Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function’, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 14, 239–305.
 VinnerS. and DreyfusT.: 1989, ‘Images and definitions for the concept of function’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20, 356–366.
 WilderR. L.: 1972, ‘The nature of modern mathematics’, in W. E.Lamon (ed.), Learning & the Nature of Mathematics, Science Research Associates, Inc., USA, pp. 35–48.
 WilsonS. M., ShulmanL. S., and RichertA. 1987, ‘“150 ways of knowing”: Representations of knowledge in teaching’, in J.Calderhead (ed.), Exploring Teacher Thinking, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Sussex, pp. 104–124.
 Title
 Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case of functions
 Journal

Educational Studies in Mathematics
Volume 21, Issue 6 , pp 521544
 Cover Date
 19901201
 DOI
 10.1007/BF00315943
 Print ISSN
 00131954
 Online ISSN
 15730816
 Publisher
 Kluwer Academic Publishers
 Additional Links
 Topics
 Industry Sectors
 Authors

 Ruhama Even ^{(1)}
 Author Affiliations

 1. Science Teaching Department, Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100, Rehovot, Israel