Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 521–544 | Cite as

Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case of functions

  • Ruhama Even


Interest in teachers' subject matter knowledge has arisen in recent years. But most of the analysis has been general and not topic-specific. 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.


  1. Academic Preparation in Mathematics: 1985, Teaching for transition from high school to college, College Entrance Examination Board, New York.Google Scholar
  2. 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1988, Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  3. BallD. L.: 1990, Examining the subject matter knowledge of prospective mathematics teachers', Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 21(2), 132–143.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. BellA. W., CostelloJ., and KuchemannD.: 1983, A Review of Research in Mathematics Education, Part A, NFER-NELSON, Windsor, Canada.Google Scholar
  6. BellA. and JanvierC.: 1981, ‘The interpretation of graphs representing situations’, For the Learning of Mathematics 2(1), 34–42.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. ChambersD. L., BensonJ., ChandlerA., and BethkeE.: 1986, A Guide to Curriculum Planning in Mathematics, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  9. CoxfordA. F. and PayneJ. N.: 1987, HBJ Algebra 1 Revised Edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. DolcianiM. P., SorgenfreyR. H., BrownR. G., and KaneR. B.: 1986, Algebra and Trigonometry, Structure and Method Book 2, Houghton Mifflin Company, USA.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Dufour-JanvierB., 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.Google Scholar
  16. Educational Technology Center: 1988, Making Sense of the Future, Harvard Graduate School of Education, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Eisenberg, T. and Dreyfus, T.: 1986, ‘On visual versus analytical thinking in mathematics’, Proceedings of PME 10, London, England.Google Scholar
  18. Even, R.: 1989, Prospective secondary teachers' knowledge and understanding about mathematical functions, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  19. FreudenthalH.: 1983, Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  20. GreenoJ. G.: 1978, ‘Understanding and procedural knowledge in mathematics instruction’, Educational Psychologist 12(3), 262–283.Google Scholar
  21. HershkowitzR.: 1990, ‘Psychological aspects of learning geometry’, in P.Nesher and J.Kilpatrick (eds.), Mathematics and Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Holmes Group.: 1986, Tomorrow's Teacher, Michigan State University, College of Education, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. KeedyM. L., BittingerM. L., SmithS. A., and OrfanL. J.. 1986, Algebra, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., USA.Google Scholar
  26. 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 PME-NA, DeKalb, Ill., pp. 433–480.Google Scholar
  27. LappanG. and EvenR.: 1989, Learning to Teach: Constructing Meaningful Understanding of Mathematical Content (Craft Paper 89-3), Michigan State University, National Center for Research of Teacher Education, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. LeinhardtG. and SmithD. A.: 1985, ‘Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge’, Journal of Educational Psychology 77, 247–271.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. MacLaneS.: 1986, Mathematics: Form and Function, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., USA.Google Scholar
  33. Malik, M. A.: 1980, ‘Historical and pedagogical aspects of the definition of function’, International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science & Technology 11.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. MarkovitsZ., EylonB., and BruckheimerM.: 1986, ‘Functions today and yesterday’, For the Learning of Mathematics 6(2), 18–24, 28.Google Scholar
  36. 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).Google Scholar
  37. Michigan Essential Goals And Objectives For Mathematics Education: 1988, Michigan State Board of Education.Google Scholar
  38. Monk, G. S.: 1988, ‘Students' understanding of functions in calculus courses’, Humanistic Mathematics Network Newsletter 2.Google Scholar
  39. NCTM: 1989a, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, NCTM, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  40. NCTM: 1989b, Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (working draft), NCTM, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  41. NesherP.: 1986, ‘Are mathematical understanding and algorithmic performance related?’, For the Learning of Mathematics 6(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
  42. NicholsE. D., EdwardsM. L., GarlandE. H., HoffmanS. A., MamaryA., and PalmerW. F.: 1986, Holt Algebra 2 with Trigonometry, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Publishers, USA.Google Scholar
  43. Oregon Mathematics Concept Paper No. 2: 1987, Middle School Mathematics, 6–8.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. ResnickL. B.: 1987, Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  46. ResnickL. B. and FordW. W.: 1984, The Psychology of Mathematics for Instruction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. Schoenfeld, A. H.: 1987, On mathematics as sense-making: 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.Google Scholar
  49. SchoenfeldA. H.: 1988, ‘When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics classes’, Educational Psychologist 23(2), 145–166.Google Scholar
  50. ShulmanL. S.: 1986, ‘Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching’, Educational Researcher 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. ThompsonA. G.: 1984, ‘The relationship of teachers' conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 15, 105–127.Google Scholar
  55. Tirosh, D., Nachmias, R., and Arcavi, A.: 1990, The effects of exploring a new representation on prospective teachers' conception of functions. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  56. VinnerS.: 1983, ‘Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function’, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 14, 239–305.Google Scholar
  57. VinnerS. and DreyfusT.: 1989, ‘Images and definitions for the concept of function’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20, 356–366.Google Scholar
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruhama Even
    • 1
  1. 1.Science Teaching DepartmentWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations