Advertisement

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 193–212 | Cite as

Connecting with the horizon: developing teachers’ appreciation of mathematical structure

  • Colleen Vale
  • Alasdair McAndrew
  • Siva Krishnan
Article

Abstract

A professional learning program for teachers of junior secondary mathematics regarding the content and pedagogy of senior secondary mathematics is the context for this study of teachers’ mathematical and pedagogical knowledge. The analysis of teachers’ reflections on their learning explored teachers’ understanding of mathematical connections and their appreciation of mathematical structure. The findings indicate that a professional learning program about senior secondary mathematics can enable practicing teachers to deepen and broaden their knowledge for teaching junior secondary mathematics and develop their practice to support their students’ present and future learning of mathematics. Further research is needed about professional learning approaches and tasks that may enable teachers to imbed and develop awareness of structure in their practice.

Keywords

Mathematical structure Mathematical connections Mathematics knowledge for teaching Pedagogical content knowledge Mathematics on the horizon Senior secondary mathematics Professional learning program design Junior secondary mathematics 

References

  1. Anthony, G. (2007). Professional development of mathematics teachers. In G. C. Leder & H. J. Forgasz (Eds.), Stepping stones for the 21st century: Australasian mathematics education research (p. 38). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Askew, M. (2008). Mathematical discipline knowledge requirements for prospective primary teachers, and the structure and teaching approaches of programs designed to develop that knowledge. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education, the international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 13–36). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (2002). Standards for excellence in teaching mathematics in Australian schools. <http://www.aamt.edu.au/standards/> June 17, 2005.
  4. Australian Council of Deans of Science. (2006). The preparation of mathematics teachers in Australia. Melbourne: ACDS.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Ball, D., Charalambous, C., Lewis, J., Thames, M., Bass, H., Cole, Y., et al. (2009a). Mathematical knowledge for teaching: Focussing on the work of teaching and its demands. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 140–146). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, D., Thames, M., Bass, H., Sleep, L., Lewis, J., & Phelps, G. (2009b). A practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 95–98). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.Google Scholar
  8. Barnes, M. (1991). Investigating change: An introduction to calculus for Australian schools (Teachers’ handbook for units 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  9. Biza, I., Nardi, E., & Zachariades, T. (2007). Using tasks to explore teacher knowledge in situation-specific contexts. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, T. P., Blanton, M. L., Cobb, P., Franke, M. L., Kaput, J., & McClain, K. (2004). Scaling up innovative practices in mathematics and science. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Centre for Education Research.Google Scholar
  11. Cherednichenko, B., Gay, J., Hooley, N., Kruger, T., & Mulraney, R. (1998). Case writing: Making teachers’ knowledge public. In B. Down, C. Hogan, & P. Swam (Eds.), Reclaiming professional knowledge: New ways of thinking about teachers’ learning. Murdoch, WA: Murdoch University, Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development and the Innovative Links Project.Google Scholar
  12. Chick, H., Baker, M., Pham, T., & Cheng, H. (2006). Aspects of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for decimals. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 297–304). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, D. (1994). Ten principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. B. Aichele & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics (NCTM 1994 Yearbook, pp. 37–48). Reston, VA: National Council of Mathematics Teachers.Google Scholar
  14. Clarke, B. (2008). A framework of growth points as a powerful teacher development tool. In D. Tirosh & T. Woods (Eds.), Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education, the international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 235–256). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Council of Australian Governments (2008). National numeracy review report May 2008 (Commissioned by the Human Capital Working Group, Council of Australian Governments). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, B., & Renert, M. (2009). Concept study as a response to algorithmetic. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 126–132). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Forgasz, H. J. (2006). Australian year 12 “intermediate” level mathematics enrolments 2000–2004: Trends and patterns. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces (Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 211–220). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  19. Goos, M., Dole, S., & Makar, K. (2007). Supporting an investigative approach to teaching secondary school mathematics: A professional development model. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice (Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 325–334). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, K., & Jensz, F. (2006). The preparation of mathematics teachers in Australia: Meeting the demand for suitably qualified mathematics teachers in secondary schools. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. http://www.acds.edu.au/.
  21. Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leikin, R., & Winicki-Landman, G. (2001). Defining as a vehicle for professional development of secondary school mathematics teachers. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 3, 62–73.Google Scholar
  23. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oakes: CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Mason, J., Stephens, M., & Watson, A. (2009). Appreciating structure for all. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 10–32.Google Scholar
  26. McKenzie, P., Kos, J., Walker, M., & Hong, J. (2008). Staff in Australia’s schools. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  27. Mulligan, J., Vale, C., & Stephens, M. (2009). Understanding and developing structure—Its importance for mathematics learning. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
  28. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2002). Algebraic insight: The algebra needed to use computer algebra systems. The Mathematics Teacher, 95(8), 622–627.Google Scholar
  29. Prestage, S., & Perks, P. (2000). Subject knowledge: Developing the fourth sense. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University, September 7–10, 2000.Google Scholar
  30. Rowland, T. (2008). Researching teachers’ mathematics disciplinary knowledge. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and belief in mathematics teaching and teaching development, the international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 273–298). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Sanjakdar, F. (Ed.). (2009). Digital portfolios: Reconceptualising inquiry in pre-service teacher education. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  32. Schoenfeld, A. H., & Kilpatrick, J. (2008). Toward a theory of proficiency in teaching mathematics. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education, the international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 321–354). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Schwarz, B., Leung, I. K. C., Buchholtz, N., Kaiser, G., Stillman, G., Brown, J., et al. (2008). Future teachers’ professional knowledge on argumentation and proof: A case study from universities in three countries. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 791–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  35. Silver, E. A., Clark, L. M., Ghousseini, H. N., Charalambous, C. Y., & Sealy, J. T. (2007). Where is the mathematics? Examining teachers’ mathematical learning opportunities in practice-based professional learning tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stacey, K. (2008). Mathematics for secondary teaching: Four components of discipline knowledge for a changing teacher workforce. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and belief in mathematics teaching and teaching development, the international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 1, pp. 87–113). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Vale, C., & McAndrew, A. (2008). Deepening the mathematical knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers who lack tertiary mathematics qualifications. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions (Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 539–545). Brisbane: MERGA.Google Scholar
  39. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2006). Mathematical methods: Written examination 2. http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/exams/index.html.
  40. Watson, J., Beswick, K., Caney, A., & Skalicky, J. (2005). Profiling teacher change resulting from a professional learning program in middle school numeracy. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 7, 3–17.Google Scholar
  41. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2007). Taken-as-shared: A review of common assumptions about mathematical tasks in teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colleen Vale
    • 1
  • Alasdair McAndrew
    • 1
  • Siva Krishnan
    • 2
  1. 1.Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations