Advertisement

TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONCEPT OF A FUNCTION: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

  • Maroni Runesu NyikahadzoyiEmail author
Article

Abstract

In order to teach mathematics effectively, mathematics teachers need to have a sound mathematical knowledge, but what constitutes sound mathematical knowledge for teaching is subject to debate. This paper is an attempt to unpack what constitutes teacher knowledge of the concept of a function which is a unifying idea in the mathematics curriculum. The central components of the framework, which will be elaborated on in this paper, are: teachers’ subject matter knowledge, teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge, technological content knowledge, and technological pedagogical content knowledge in relation to the concept of a function. The framework is informed by Shulman’s (Educational Researcher 15:4–14, 1986) Types of Teachers Knowledge Framework, Ball, Bass & Hill 29:14–17, 20–22, 43–46 (2005) Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Framework, and Mishra & Koehler’s (Teachers College Record 108:1017–1054, 2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework.

Key words

concept of a function mathematics pedagogical content knowledge teachers’ knowledge technological pedagogical content knowledge theoretical framework 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC) (1995). Crossroads in mathematics: Standards for introductory college mathematics before calculus. Memphis, TN: AMATYC.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach knowing and using mathematics. In J. D. Phillips (Ed,), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Constructivism in Education, University of Chicago Press, Westport, Ct: Ablex, pp 83-104.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., Bass, H. & Hill, C. H. (2004). Knowing and using mathematical knowledge in teaching: Learning what matters. In Proceedings of 12th Annual Conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., Bass, H. & Hill, H. C. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29(1), 14–17, 20–22, 43–46.Google Scholar
  5. Ball D. L., Thames, M. & Phelps, L. (2007). A theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Retrieved November10, 2008, from http://tinyurl.com/3d6vl6a.
  6. Barnes, M. (1988). Understanding the concept of a function: Some results of interviews with secondary and tertiary students. Research in Mathematics and Education in Australia (pp. 26–33).Google Scholar
  7. Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 153–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Cuoco, A. A. (1994). Multiple representations of functions. In J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research Issues in Undergraduate Mathematics Learning (pp. 121–140). Washington, D.C.: MAA.Google Scholar
  9. Dhliwayo, N., Gudza, E., Ngaru, M., Kilborn W. (1996). Mathematics: A handbook for teacher trainers. Zimbabwe: Curriculum Development Unit, Ministry of Education Sport and Culture.Google Scholar
  10. Dreyfus, T. (1990). On difficulties with diagrams: Theoretical issues. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education. Oaxtepec, Mexico: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  11. Dreyfus, T. (1992). Advanced Mathematical thinking. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition: A research synthesis by the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dubinsky, Ed. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In Tall, D. O. (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 95-124.Google Scholar
  13. Dubinsky, Ed. & Harel, G. (1992). The Nature of the process conception of function. In G. Harel & Ed. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of a function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedaogy (pp. 85–106). Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenberg, T. (1991). Functions and associated learning difficulties. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 140–152). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Even, R. (1992). Subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective teachers and the concept of a function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(2), 94–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Donchrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  17. Kaput, J. (1992). Representation systems and mathematics. The notion of function as an example. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics pp, 67-71. Hillsdale: Erlbuan.Google Scholar
  18. Kyvatinsky, T. & Even, R. (2004). Framework for teacher knowledge and understanding about probability. ICOSTS6.Google Scholar
  19. Laughbaum, E. (2000). On teaching intermediate algebra from a function approach. Virginia Mathematics Teacher. Volume 25, Number 2, pp. 36–39.Google Scholar
  20. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monk, G. S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of a function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy (pp. 175–194). Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in America (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston Va. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  23. Newman, W. L. (1991). Social Research Methods. London: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  24. Piaget, J. & Garcia, R. (1989). Psychogenesis and the history of science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ponte, J. P. M. (1984). Functional reasoning and the interpretation of cartesian graphs. A doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Romberg, T. A., Carpenter, T. P. & Fennema, E. (1993). Towards a common research perspective. In T, A. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Schifter, D. & Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meetings the challenges of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schwartz, D. & Dreyfus, T. (1992). Transfer between function representations: A computational model. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education. Assisi, Italy: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  30. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.Google Scholar
  31. Sfard, A. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification: The case of function. In G. Harel& Ed. Dubinsky (eds.) The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy. Mathematical Association of America, pp 15-232.Google Scholar
  32. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of a function. In: G. Harel& Ed. Dubinsky (eds.) The concept of a function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy, Mathematical Association of America, pp 25-28.Google Scholar
  34. Tall, D. (1999). Cognitive growth in elementary and advanced mathematical thinking. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education, Recife, Brazil International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  35. Tall, D. (2001). Theory of precepts: Flexible use of symbols as both process and concept in Arithmetic, Algebra Calculus (pp. 590–597). Melbourne: Proceedings of the International Congress on Mathematical Instruction (ICMI).Google Scholar
  36. Tall, D. O. & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics, with special reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. Schoenfeld & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education. CBMS Issues In mathematics Education, 4, 21–44.Google Scholar
  38. Vinner, S. (1989). The lesson: A preconceptual stage. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education, Paris. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  39. Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking, Mathematics Education Library (pp. 65–81). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Vinner, S. (1992). The concept of a function as a prototype of problems in mathematics learning. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of a function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy (pp. 195–214). Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  41. Yerushalmy, M. & Shavarts, J. L. (1993). Seizing the opportunity to make algebra mathematically and pedagogically interesting. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. P. Carpenter. (Eds.), Integrating research in the Graphical Representation of Function (pp. 41–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bindura University of Science EducationBinduraZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations