Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 79–103 | Cite as

Pedagogies of practice and opportunities to learn about classroom mathematics discussions

  • Hala GhousseiniEmail author
  • Patricio Herbst


In this paper, we argue that to prepare pre-service teachers for doing complex work of teaching like leading classroom mathematics discussions requires an implementation of different pedagogies of teacher education in deliberate ways. In supporting our argument, we use two frameworks: one curricular and one pedagogical. The curricular framework is based on the work of Hammerness et al. (Preparing teachers for a changing world. What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Educational Series, pp 358–388, 2005) outlining four main goals of teacher learning: a vision of practice, knowledge of students and content, dispositions for using this knowledge, and a repertoire of practices and tools. The pedagogical framework is based on the work of Grossman et al. (Teach Teach Theory Pract 15(2):273–289, 2009a; Teach Coll Record 111(9):2055–2100, 2009b) outlining three pedagogies of practice: representations, decompositions, and approximations of practice. We use the curricular framework to examine the opportunities for teacher learning that were afforded by these three different pedagogies of practice in a unit on leading classroom mathematics discussion in a secondary mathematics methods course. We use evidence from our analysis to show how the coordination of those pedagogies of practice is better than any one of them in addressing important goals for teacher learning about classroom discussions.


Classroom discussions Instructional practices Reflection Enactment 


  1. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Wilson, S. M. (1996). Integrity in teaching: Recognizing the fusion of the moral and intellectual. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanton, M. (2002). Using an undergraduate geometry course to challenge preservice teachers’ notions of discourse. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(2), 117–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boerst, T., Sleep, L., Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2011). Preparing teachers to lead mathematics discussions. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2844–2877.Google Scholar
  5. Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, grades K-6 (2nd ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2012). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Educational Series.Google Scholar
  9. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feimen-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraivillig, J. L., Murphy, L. A., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 148–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009a). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.Google Scholar
  14. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009b). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world. What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–388). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Educational Series.Google Scholar
  16. Herbst, P. (2011). Promoting and managing students’ discourse. Deep blue at The University of Michigan.
  17. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2011). On creating and using representations of mathematics teaching in research and teacher development: Introduction to this issue. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jansen, A., Bartell, T., & Berk, D. (2009). The role of learning goals in building a knowledge base for elementary mathematics teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kennedy, M. (1999). The role of pre-service teacher education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 54–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Knight, S. L., Lloyd, G. M., Arbaugh, F., Gamson, D., McDonald, S. P., & Nolan, J. (2014). Professional development and practices of teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 268–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lampert, M., Franke, M., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., et al. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1992). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. (2013). Core practices and teacher education pedagogies: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 378–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris, A. (2006). Assessing pre-service teachers’ skills for analyzing teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(5), 471–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moss, P. A. (2011). Analyzing the teaching of professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2878–2896.Google Scholar
  29. Santagata, R., & Yeh, C. (2013). Learning to teach mathematics and to analyze teaching effectiveness: Evidence from a video- and practice-based approach. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,. doi: 10.1007/s10857-013-9263-2.Google Scholar
  30. Sherin, M. G. (2001). Developing a professional vision of classroom events. In T. Wood, B. S. Nelson, & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 75–93). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A study of elementary prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2), 161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage, Newbury Park.Google Scholar
  34. Van Es, E. A., & Conroy, J. (2009). Using the performance assessment for California teachers to examine pre-service teachers’ conceptions of teaching mathematics for understanding. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 83–100.Google Scholar
  35. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Zazkis, R., Sinclair, N., & Liljedahl, P. (2013). Lesson play in mathematics education: A tool for research and professional development. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Educational Studies ProgramUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations