Abstract
We discuss the teachers’ disciplinary knowledge of mathematics in this article, arguing two main points as we report on a 2-year study involving 22 practicing teachers. First we argue that teachers’ knowledge of mathematics might be productively construed as a complex evolving form, a significant dimension of which is tacit knowledge. Second, based on our first point, we suggest that this knowledge is better understood as a learnable disposition than a domain to be mastered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See, e.g., the Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M), the most recent reports of which are available at http://teds.educ.msu.edu/.
The “M4T [mathematics-for-teaching] cohort” is the title of the Master’s of Education program that served as the context of the events described in this article.
The term metarealizations might be better fit to the discussion here, given our usage of Sfard’s “realizations” in prior levels. However, for this writing, we use “metarepresentation” for two reasons. First, it is the term that was used during the concept study. Second, it is a term that can be found in the broader research literature.
References
Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for teaching mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 270–296.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 83–104). Westport: Ablex.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180.
Begle, E. G. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education: Findings from a survey of the empirical literature. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactiques des mathématiques, 1970–1990. (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Trans.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Burger, E. B., & Starbird, M. (2005). The heart of mathematics: An invitation to effective thinking (2nd ed.). Emeryville: Key College Publishing.
Burton, L. (Ed.). (1999). Learning mathematics: From hierarchies to networks. London: Falmer.
Capra, F. (2005). The hidden connections: A science for sustainable living. New York: Harper.
Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2, 99–122.
Davis, B. (2008). Is 1 a prime number? Developing teacher knowledge through concept study. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School (NCTM), 14(2), 86–91.
Davis, B. (2011). Mathematics teachers’ subtle, complex disciplinary knowledge. Science, 332, 1506–1507.
Davis, B., & Renert, M. (2009). Mathematics for teaching as shared, dynamic participation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3), 37–43.
Davis, B., & Renert, M. (2013). The math teachers know. New York: Routledge (in press).
Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics teaching and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137–167.
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.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
English, L. (Ed.). (1997). Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ericsson, A. K., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Cambridge handbook on expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.
Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653–689.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychologist, 15(1), 1–38.
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 1(1), 49–72.
Greer, B. (1994). Extending the meaning of multiplication and division. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 61–87). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Harel, G., & Confrey, J. (Eds.). (1994). The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
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.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Mazur, B. (2003). Imagining numbers (particularly the square root of minus fifteen). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Richards, J. F., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (1986). Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249.
Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. S. (2011). Preparing future math teachers. Science, 332, 1266–1267.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand teach: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 57, 1–22.
Usiskin, Z., Peressini, A., Marchisotto, E. A., & Stanley, D. (2003). Mathematics for high school teachers: An advanced perspective. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and representation. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 41–72.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davis, B., Renert, M. Profound understanding of emergent mathematics: broadening the construct of teachers’ disciplinary knowledge. Educ Stud Math 82, 245–265 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9424-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9424-8