Abstract
The relationship between primary teachers’ subject knowledge and their approaches to teaching is an ongoing concern. This study reviews the relationship between prospective teachers’ subject knowledge in the topic of area and their approaches to teaching that topic. The research presents case studies of four primary prospective teachers on a 1-year postgraduate teaching course. The strengths and limitations of their subject knowledge are examined, in relation to their selection of teaching activities. The results suggest connections between these strengths and limitations, in relation to espoused teaching activities and pedagogical orientations. This questions the assumption that secure subject knowledge is necessarily transformed into effective teaching and concurs with other research that suggests other factors may be involved, such as knowledge of learners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ambrose, R. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary school teachers’ orientations to mathematics teaching by building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 91–119.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D., & Wiliam, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy. London: King’s College.
Aubrey, C. (1997). Mathematics teaching in the early years: An investigation of teachers’ subject knowledge. London: Falmer Press.
Ball, D. L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8, 40–48.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In E. Simmt & B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian mathematics education study group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton, Alberta: CMESG/GCEDM.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29, 14–46.
Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematics knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 433–456). New York: Macmillan.
Battista, M. (1982). Understanding area and area formulas. The Mathematics Teacher, 75, 362–368.
Baturo, A., & Nason, R. (1996). Student teachers’ subject matter knowledge within the domain of area measurement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 235–268.
Begel, E. G. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education: Findings from a survey of the empirical literature. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Berenson, S., van der Valk, T., Oldham, E., Runesson, U., Queiroz Moreira, C., & Broekman, H. (1997). An international study to investigate prospective teachers’ content knowledge of the area concept. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20, 137–150.
Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. New York: State University of New York Press.
Chinnapan, M., & Thomas, M. (2003). Teachers’ function schemas and their role in modelling. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15, 151–170.
DfES. (2006). Primary national strategy: Primary framework for literacy and mathematics. London: Department for Education and Skills (DfES).
Dickson, L. (1989). Area of a rectangle. In D. Johnson (Ed.), Children’s mathematical frameworks 8–13: A study of classroom teaching (pp. 89–125). Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-Nelson.
Dickson, L., Brown, M., & Gibson, O. (1984). Children learning mathematics: A teacher’s guide to recent research. London: Cassell.
Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13–33.
Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Ginsburg, H. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.
John, P. (1991). A qualitative study of lesson plans. Journal of Education for Teaching, 17, 301–320.
Lehrer, R., & Chazan, D. (Eds.). (1998). Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Lunzer, E. (1968). Formal reasoning. In E. Lunzer & J. Morris (Eds.), Development in human learning. New York: Elsevier.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nitabach, E., & Lehrer, R. (1996). Developing spatial sense through area measurement. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2, 473–476.
Pesek, D., & Kirshner, D. (2000). Interference of instrumental instruction in subsequent relational learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 524–540.
Rizvi, N. F. (2004). Prospective teachers’ knowledge about the concept of division. Bedford Park, South Australia: Flinders University of South Australia.
Rowland, T., Martyn, S., Barber, P., & Heal, C. (2001). Investigating the mathematics subject matter knowledge of pre-service elementary school teachers. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 121–128). Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.
Rowland, T., Turner, F., Thwaites, A., & Huckstep, P. (2009). Developing primary mathematics teaching. London: Sage.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 1–7.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of ‘more of A—more of B’. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 653–667.
Stipek, D., Givvin, K., Salmon, J., & MacGyvers, V. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213–226.
Swanson, D., Schwartz, R., Ginsburg, H., & Kossan, N. (1981). The clinical interview: Validity, reliability and diagnosis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2, 31–38.
Thompson, A. (Ed.). (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. New York: Macmillan.
Tierney, C., Boyd, C., & Davis, G. (1990). Prospective primary teachers’ conceptions of area. In G. Booker, P. Cobb, & T. D. Mendecuti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th conference of the international group of the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 307–315). Mexico: IGPME.
Zacharos, K. (2006). Prevailing educational practices for area measurement and students’ failure in measuring areas. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 25, 224–239.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murphy, C. The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers’ approaches to teaching the topic of area. J Math Teacher Educ 15, 187–206 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9194-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9194-8