Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 124–144 | Cite as

Secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge of slope

  • Sheryl Stump

Abstract

This study, conducted in the United States, investigated secondary mathematics teachers’ concept definitions, mathematical understanding, and pedagogical content knowledge of slope. Surveys were collected from 18 preservice and 21 inservice teachers; 8 teachers from each group were also interviewed. Geometric ratios dominated teachers’ concept definitions of slope. Problems involving the recognition of parameters, the interpretation of graphs, and rate of change challenged teachers’ thinking. Teachers’ descriptions of classroom instruction included physical situations more often than functional situations. Results suggest that mathematics teacher education programs need to specifically address slope as a fundamental concept, emphasising its connection to the concept of function.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Azcarate, C. (1992). Estudio de los esquemas conceptuales y de los perfiles de unos alumnos de segundo de bup en relacion con el concepto de pendiente de una recta [A study of the conceptual schemes and the profiles of some BUP students in relation to the concept of the slope gradient].Epsilon, 24, 9–22.Google Scholar
  2. Barr, G. (1980). Graphs, gradients and intercepts.Mathematics in School, 9 (1), 5–6.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, G. (1981). Some student ideas on the concept of gradient.Mathematics in School, 10(1), 14–17.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, A., Janvier, C. (1981). The interpretation of graphs representing situations.For the Learning of Mathematics, 2(1), 34–42.Google Scholar
  5. Cooney, T. J. (1994). Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation. In D. B. Aichele (Ed.),Professional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 9–22). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  6. Day, R. P. (1995). Using functions to make mathematical connections. In P. A. House & A. F. Coxford (Eds.),Connecting mathematics across the curriculum (pp.54–64). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  7. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Even, R. (1993). Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective secondary teachers and the function concept.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 94–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fey, J. T. (1990). Quantity. In L. A. Steen (Ed.),On the shoulders of giants (pp. 61–94). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fey, J. T. & Good, R. A. (1985). Rethinking the sequence and priorities of high school mathematics curricula. In C. R. Hirsch (Ed.),The secondary school mathematics curriculum (pp. 43–52). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  11. Hart, K. M. (Ed.) (1981).Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  12. 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. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Heller, P. M., Post, T. R., Behr, M., Lesh, R. (1990). Qualitative and numerical reasoning about fractions and rates by seventh- and eighth-grade students.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 388–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes-Hallett, D., Osgood, B. G., Gleason, A. M., Pasquale, A., Gordon, S. P., Tecosky-Feldman, J., Lomen, D. O., Thrash, J. B., Lovelock, D., Thrash, K. R., McCallum, W. G., Tucker, T. W. (1992).Calculus. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Janvier, C. (1981). Use of situations in mathematics education.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janvier, C. (1987). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.),Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 27–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Kaput, J. J., & West, M. M. (1994). Missing-value proportional reasoning problems: Factors affecting informal reasoning patterns. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.),The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 235–287). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  18. Karplus, R., Pulos, S., & Stage, E. K. (1983). Early adolescents’ proportional reasoning in “rate” problems.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. Hart (Ed.),Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16 (pp. 120–136). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  20. Lamon, S. J. (1995). Ratio and proportion: Elementary didactical phenomenology. In J. T. Sowder & B. P. Schappelle (Eds.),Providing a foundation for teaching mathematics in the middle grades (pp. 167–198). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  21. Livingston, C., Borko, H. (1990). High school mathematics review lessons: Expert-novice distinctions.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 372–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lloyd, G. M., Wilson, M. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher’s conceptions of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 248–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mathematical Association of America. (1991).A call for change: Recommendations for the mathematical preparation of teachers of mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  24. McConnell, J. W., Brown, S., Eddins, S., Hackworth, M., & Usiskin, Z. (1990).UCSMP: Algebra. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  25. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., Van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics.American Journal of Physics, 55, 503–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.),Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 193–205). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  27. Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). (1993). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
  28. Moschkovich, J. (1990). Students’ interpretations of linear equations and their graphs.Proceedings of the 14th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 109–116). Oaxtepex, Mexico: Program Committee.Google Scholar
  29. Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.),Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 69–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  31. Norman, A. (1992). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge of the concept of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.),The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (MAA Notes Vol. 25, pp. 215–232). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  32. Orton, A. (1984). Understanding rate of change.Mathematics in School, 23(5), 23–26.Google Scholar
  33. Rizzuti, J. M. (1991). Students’ conceptualizations of mathematical functions: The effects of a pedagogical approach involving multiple representations (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1991).Dissertation Abstracts International, 52-10A, 3549.Google Scholar
  34. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, M. A. & Blume, G. W. (1994). Mathematical modeling as a component of understanding ratio-as-measure: A study of prospective elementary teachers.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13,183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Singer, J. A., Resnick, L. B. (1992). Representations of proportional relationships: Are children part-part or part-whole reasoners?Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stein, M. K., Baxter, J. A., Leinhardt, G. (1990). Subject-matter knowledge and elementary instruction: A case from functions and graphing.American Educational Research Journal, 27, 639–663.Google Scholar
  39. Stump, S. L. (1996).Secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge of the concept of slope. Unpublished doctoral dissertation/Illinois State University, Normal, IL.Google Scholar
  40. Tall, D. & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson, A. G., Thompson, P. W. (1996). Talking about rates conceptually, Part II: Mathematical knowledge for teaching.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thompson, P. W. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to the concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.),The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 179–234). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  43. Thompson, P. W., Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, Part I: A teacher’s struggle.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.),Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 127–173). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Vergnaud, G. (1988). Multiplicative structures. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.),Number concepts and operation in the middle grades (pp. 141–161). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, M. R. (1994). One preservice secondary teacher’s understanding of function: The impact of a course integrating mathematical content and pedagogy.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 346–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheryl Stump
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesBall State UniversityMuncie

Personalised recommendations