Advertisement

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 10, Issue 4–6, pp 205–215 | Cite as

Taken-as-shared: a review of common assumptions about mathematical tasks in teacher education

  • Anne Watson
  • John Mason
Article

Taken as shared

The call for outline papers to be considered for inclusion in this special issue elicited 111 offers. This presented a formidable problem for the three editors, ourselves and Orit Zaslavsky who contributes the final paper in this collection. During our reading of the submissions we identified many aspects of working on mathematical tasks with teachers which seem to be common and which were frequently referred to in the literature.

In the interests of offering a special issue which gives an up-to-date description of the field, and which moves forward from currently shared practices, we summarise these aspects here in an introductory paper rather than include them in individual papers as if they are somehow novel. In this paper we shall describe elements of the design and use of mathematics-related tasks1 with teachers, whether in a pre-service or in-service structure, which appear to be taken as shared. We do not claim that everyone conforms with, or agrees with...

Keywords

Teacher Education Pedagogic Content Knowledge Teacher Education Programme Mathematical Thinking Lesson Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, A. (1986). Diagnostic teaching 2: Developing conflict: Discussion lesson. Mathematics Teaching, 116, 26–29.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, A. (1987). Diagnostic teaching 3: Provoking discussion. Mathematics Teaching, 118, 21–23.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, A., & Purdy, D. (1986). Diagnostic teaching. Mathematics Teaching, 115, 39–41.Google Scholar
  5. Brousseau, G. (1984). The crucial role of the didactical contract in the analysis and construction of situations in teaching and learning mathematics. In H. Steiner (Ed.), Theory of mathematics education (pp. 110–119). Bielefeld: Institut fur Didaktik der Mathematik der Universitat Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  6. Brousseau, G. (1986). Fondements et méthodes de la didactique des mathematiques. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 7(2), 33–115.Google Scholar
  7. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactiques des mathématiques, 1970–1990, (trans: Balacheff, N., Cooper, M., Sutherland, R., & Warfield, V.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J., & van Lehn, K. (1980). Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science, 4, 379–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
  11. Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives in mathematics education (pp. 243–307). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, B. (1996). Teaching mathematics: Towards a sound alternative. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An ongoing investigation of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 293–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  15. Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1991). On the reluctance to visualize in mathematics. In W. Zimmermann & S. Cunningham (Eds.), Visualization in teaching and learning mathematics. MAA Notes No. 19, 25–37.Google Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fletcher, T. (Ed.) (1964). Some lessons in mathematics: A handbook on the teaching of ‘modern’ mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  19. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  20. Gattegno, C. (1987). The science of education part I: Theoretical considerations. New York: Educational Solutions.Google Scholar
  21. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study (NCES 2003-013). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  23. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and student learning in second grade. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mason, J. (1992). Doing and construing mathematics in screen space. In B. Southwell, B. Perry, & K. Owens (Eds.), Space – The first and final frontier: Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (MERGA-15), 1–17. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
  26. Mason, J. (1998). Enabling teachers to be real teachers: Necessary levels of awareness and structure of attention. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(3), 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mason, J., Gates, P., Griffin, P., & Jaworski, B. (1988). Project mathematics update. Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
  28. Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2004a). Designing and using mathematical tasks. Milton Keynes: Open University; (2006 reprint) St. Albans: QED.Google Scholar
  29. Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2004b). Fundamental constructs in mathematics education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  30. Maturana, H. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 25–82.Google Scholar
  31. Michener, E. (1978). Understanding understanding mathematics. Cognitive Science, 2, 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  33. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology (trans: Mays, W.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  35. Piaget, J. (1980). Adaptation and intelligence: Organic selections and phenocopy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rowland, T., Heal, C., Barber, P., & Martyn, S. (1998). Mind the gaps: Primary trainees’ mathematics subject knowledge. In E. Bills (Ed.), Proceedings of the BSRLM day conference at Birmingham (pp. 91–96). Coventry: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  37. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge and growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  38. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  39. Simpson, A., & Stehlikova, N. (2006). Apprehending mathematical structure: A case study of coming to understand a commutative ring. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  41. Snyder, B. (1970). The hidden curriculum. New York: Alfred-Knopf.Google Scholar
  42. Stein, M., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237–269.Google Scholar
  44. Tahta, D. (1980). About geometry. For the Learning of Mathematics, 1(1), 2–9.Google Scholar
  45. Tahta, D., & Brookes, W. (1966). The genesis of mathematical activity. In W. Brookes (Ed.), The development of mathematical activity in children: The place of the problem in this development (pp. 3–8). Slough: ATM, Nelson.Google Scholar
  46. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson, A. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  48. Ulrich, R. (1947, 2nd edition 1999). Three thousand years of educational wisdom: Selections from great documents. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. van Lehn, K. (1989). Mind bugs. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Zaslavsky, O. (1995). Open-ended tasks as a trigger for mathematics teachers’ professional development. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(3), 15–20.Google Scholar
  52. Zaslavsky, O. (2005). Seizing the opportunity to create uncertainty in learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationOxford UniversityOxfordUK
  2. 2.Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations