Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 309–331 | Cite as

Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development

  • Martin A. Simon
  • Deborah Schifter


A constructivist perspective provided the basis for a four stage intervention with teachers. The intervention which combined intensive summer courses with ongoing support in the classroom was designed to stimulate teachers' development of a constructivist view of learning to serve as a basis for their instructional decision-making. Impact of the intervention was studied through analysis of teachers' writings and the use of an interview-based instrument developed by the researchers. The results indicated that this intervention had an important effect on teachers' beliefs about learning which in turn affected the decisions that they made in the classroom.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nichols, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., and Perlwitz, M.: 1991, ‘Assessment of a problem-centered second grade mathematics project’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22, 3–29.Google Scholar
  2. Confrey, J.: 1985, ‘A constructivist view of mathematics instruction part I; a theoretical perspective’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  3. Cooney, T.: 1988, ‘The issue of reform: What have we learned from yesteryear?’, Mathematics Teacher 81, 352–363.Google Scholar
  4. Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., and Newlove, B. W.: 1975, Levels of Use of the Innovation: A Framework for Analyzing Innovation Adoption, The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  5. Joyce, B. and Showers, B.: 1988, Student Achievement Through Staff Development, Longman, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  6. Marton, F.: 1988, ‘Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understanding of reality’, in R. Sherman and R. Webb (eds.), Qualtitative Research in Education: Focus and Methods, The Falmer Press, London, pp. 141–161.Google Scholar
  7. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM): 1989, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  8. National Research Council (NRC): 1989, Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Pulaski, M.: 1980, Understanding Piaget. Harper & Row Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Simon, M.: 1986, ‘The teacher's role in increasing student understanding of mathematics’, Educational Leadership 43, 40–43.Google Scholar
  11. Simon, M.: 1989, ‘The impact of intensive classroom followup in a constructivist mathematics teacher education program’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA, San Franciso, ERIC ED313351.Google Scholar
  12. Simon, M. and Schifter, D.: 1990, ‘Teacher education from a constructivist perspective: The educational leaders in mathematics project’, ERIC ED313361.Google Scholar
  13. Sinclair, H.: 1987, ‘Constructivism and the psychology of mathematics’, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Psychology of Mathematics Education Conference, pp. 28–41.Google Scholar
  14. Steffe, L., Cobb, P., and von Glasersfeld, E.: 1988, Construction of Arithmetical Meanings and Strategies, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  15. von Glasersfeld, E.: 1983, ‘Learning as a constructive activity’, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of Psychology of Mathematics Education, pp. 41–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin A. Simon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Deborah Schifter
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkU.S.A.
  2. 2.Summer Math for TeachersMount Holyoke CollegeSouth HadleyU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations