Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 187–206 | Cite as

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers’ approaches to teaching the topic of area



The relationship between primary teachers’ subject knowledge and their approaches to teaching is an ongoing concern. This study reviews the relationship between prospective teachers’ subject knowledge in the topic of area and their approaches to teaching that topic. The research presents case studies of four primary prospective teachers on a 1-year postgraduate teaching course. The strengths and limitations of their subject knowledge are examined, in relation to their selection of teaching activities. The results suggest connections between these strengths and limitations, in relation to espoused teaching activities and pedagogical orientations. This questions the assumption that secure subject knowledge is necessarily transformed into effective teaching and concurs with other research that suggests other factors may be involved, such as knowledge of learners.


Elementary mathematics education Teacher knowledge Area measurement 


  1. Ambrose, R. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary school teachers’ orientations to mathematics teaching by building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D., & Wiliam, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  4. Aubrey, C. (1997). Mathematics teaching in the early years: An investigation of teachers’ subject knowledge. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8, 40–48.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In E. Simmt & B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian mathematics education study group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton, Alberta: CMESG/GCEDM.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29, 14–46.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematics knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 433–456). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Battista, M. (1982). Understanding area and area formulas. The Mathematics Teacher, 75, 362–368.Google Scholar
  10. Baturo, A., & Nason, R. (1996). Student teachers’ subject matter knowledge within the domain of area measurement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Begel, 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.Google Scholar
  12. Berenson, S., van der Valk, T., Oldham, E., Runesson, U., Queiroz Moreira, C., & Broekman, H. (1997). An international study to investigate prospective teachers’ content knowledge of the area concept. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chinnapan, M., & Thomas, M. (2003). Teachers’ function schemas and their role in modelling. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15, 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DfES. (2006). Primary national strategy: Primary framework for literacy and mathematics. London: Department for Education and Skills (DfES).Google Scholar
  16. Dickson, L. (1989). Area of a rectangle. In D. Johnson (Ed.), Children’s mathematical frameworks 8–13: A study of classroom teaching (pp. 89–125). Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  17. Dickson, L., Brown, M., & Gibson, O. (1984). Children learning mathematics: A teacher’s guide to recent research. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  18. Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  20. Ginsburg, H. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. John, P. (1991). A qualitative study of lesson plans. Journal of Education for Teaching, 17, 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lehrer, R., & Chazan, D. (Eds.). (1998). Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Lunzer, E. (1968). Formal reasoning. In E. Lunzer & J. Morris (Eds.), Development in human learning. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Nitabach, E., & Lehrer, R. (1996). Developing spatial sense through area measurement. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2, 473–476.Google Scholar
  28. Pesek, D., & Kirshner, D. (2000). Interference of instrumental instruction in subsequent relational learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 524–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rizvi, N. F. (2004). Prospective teachers’ knowledge about the concept of division. Bedford Park, South Australia: Flinders University of South Australia.Google Scholar
  30. Rowland, T., Martyn, S., Barber, P., & Heal, C. (2001). Investigating the mathematics subject matter knowledge of pre-service elementary school teachers. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 121–128). Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Rowland, T., Turner, F., Thwaites, A., & Huckstep, P. (2009). Developing primary mathematics teaching. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  33. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  34. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 1–7.Google Scholar
  35. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of ‘more of A—more of B’. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 653–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stipek, D., Givvin, K., Salmon, J., & MacGyvers, V. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Swanson, D., Schwartz, R., Ginsburg, H., & Kossan, N. (1981). The clinical interview: Validity, reliability and diagnosis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2, 31–38.Google Scholar
  38. Thompson, A. (Ed.). (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Tierney, C., Boyd, C., & Davis, G. (1990). Prospective primary teachers’ conceptions of area. In G. Booker, P. Cobb, & T. D. Mendecuti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th conference of the international group of the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 307–315). Mexico: IGPME.Google Scholar
  40. Zacharos, K. (2006). Prevailing educational practices for area measurement and students’ failure in measuring areas. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 25, 224–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations