Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 143–166 | Cite as

A Structure to Enable Preservice Teachers of Mathematics to Reflect on Their Teaching

  • Alice F. Artzt
Article

Abstract

This article presents a conceptual framework for studying the relationship between cognition and instructional practices of preservice secondary mathematics teachers. It describes how the framework was used as a basis for activities in which preservice teachers engaged in structured reflection on their teaching as a means towards their professional growth. The approach required student teachers to engage in both prelesson and postlesson reflective activities. These activities are described, and details of two cases are given. This article demonstrates how this approach can facilitate the progression of preservice teachers' pedagogical techniques and conceptions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Artzt, A.F. & Armour-Thomas, E. (1993, April). Mathematics teaching as problem solving: A framework for studying the relationship between instructional practice and teachers' cognitive and metacognitive thoughts and behaviors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  2. Artzt, A.F. & Armour-Thomas, E. (1996, April). Evaluation of instructional practice in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Artzt, A.F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1998). Mathematics teaching as problem solving: A framework for studying teacher metacognition underlying instructional practice in mathematics. Instructional Science, 26, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, D.L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. In J.E. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2, Teachers' subject matter knowledge and classroom instruction (pp. 1–48) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, C.A. & Baird, J. (1993). Inside the teacher: Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes. In P.S.Wilson, (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: High school mathematics (pp. 245–259). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, T.P. (1989). Teaching as problem solving. In R. Charles & E. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 187–202). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, C.M. & Elmore, J.L. (1981). Transforming curriculum in mathematics, science and writing: A case study of teacher yearly planning (Research Series 99). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, C.M. & Peterson, P.L. (1981). Stimulated-recall. In B.R. Joyce, C.C. Brown, & L. Peck (Eds.), Flexibility in teaching: An excursion into the nature of teaching and training. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, C.M. & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M.C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd edn. (pp. 255–296). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, C.M., & Yinger, R.J. (1979). Teachers' thinking. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching (pp. 231–263). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  11. Cooney, T.J. (1994). Research and teacher education: In search of common ground. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 608–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooney, T.J. & Shealy B. (1997). On understanding the structure of teachers' beliefs and their relationship to change. In E. Fennema & B.N. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 87–110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Cooney, T.J., Shealy, B.E. & Arvold, B. (1998). Conceptualizing belief structures of preservice secondary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 306–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ernest, P. (1988, July). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. Paper prepared for ICME VI, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  15. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T.P., Franke, M.L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V.R. & Empson, S.B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T.P. & Peterson, P.L. (1989). Teachers' decision making and cognitively guided instruction: A new paradigm for curriculum development. In N.F. Ellerton & M.A. (Ken) Clements (Eds.), School mathematics: The challenge to change (pp. 174–187). Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fennema, E. & Franke, M.L. (1992). Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. Fogarty, J., Wang, M. & Creek, R. (1983). A descriptive study of experienced and novice teachers' interactive instructional thoughts and actions. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 22–32.Google Scholar
  19. Goldsmith, L.T. & Shifter, D. (1997). Understanding teachers in transition: Characteristics of a model for the development of mathematics teaching. In E. Fennema & B.S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 19–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Hiebert, J., (Ed.) (1986). Conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, P.W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  22. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kemmis, S. (1985). Action research and the politics of reflection. In D. Boud, R. Keogh & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  25. Lappan, G. & Theule-Lubienski, S. (1994). Training teachers or educating professionals? What are the issues and how are they resolved? In D. Robitaille, D.Wheeler & C. Kieran (Eds.), Selected lectures from the 7th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 249–261). Sainte-Foy, Quebec: Les Presses de L'Universite Laval.Google Scholar
  26. Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB) and National Research Council (NRC) (1991). Counting on you: Actions supporting mathematics teaching standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  29. Pajares, F. (1992). Teacher's beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy concept. Review in Educational Research, 62, 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peterson, P.L. (1988). Teachers' and students' cognitional knowledge for classroom teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross, D.D. (1989). First steps in developing a reflective approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 22–30.Google Scholar
  32. Schifter, D. & Simon, M.A. (1992). Assessing teachers' development of a constructivist view of mathematics learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(2), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schön, D.S. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  34. Schram, P., Wilcox, S., Lappan, G. & Lanier, P. (1989). Changing preservice beliefs about mathematics education. In C.A. Maher, G.A. Goldin, & R.B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 296–302). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Mathematics, Science and Computer Education.Google Scholar
  35. Shavelson, R.J. (1986). Interactive decision making: Some thoughts on teacher cognition. Invited address, I. Congreso Internacional, "Pensamientos de los Profesores Y Toma de Decisiones," Seville, Spain.Google Scholar
  36. Shavelson, R.J. & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions and beliefs. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silver, E.A. (1986). Using conceptual and procedural knowledge: A focus on relationships. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 181–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Simmons, J.M., Sparks, G.M., Starko, A., Pasch, M., Colton, A. & Grinberg, J. (1989 March). Exploring the structure of reflective pedagogical thinking in novice and expert teachers: The birth of a developmental taxonomy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson, A.G. (1991). The development of teachers' conceptions of mathematics teaching. In R.G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 8–14). Blacksburgh, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
  41. Thompson, A.G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alice F. Artzt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Secondary Education and Youth ServicesQueens College of the City University of New YorkFlushing

Personalised recommendations