Teaching Mathematics as the Contextual Application of Mathematical Modes of Enquiry

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Mathematics Education Library book series (MELI, volume 50)

Abstract

Teachers whose lessons make a significant difference to students’ understanding of mathematical ideas appear to adapt mathematical modes to the restricted frames of school mathematics. We explored one of these frames, the preparation of teaching resources, to investigate our hypothesis about the central role of mathematical modes of enquiry. We set up an artificial resource preparation exercise amongst a group of knowledgeable mathematics educators and recorded their collaboration. We found that our personal mathematical modes were transforming, and the results of this process were embedded into our planning. We argue that teachers’ fluency with mathematical modes is the basis of their unique contribution in providing something that a textbook or annotated website cannot provide.

Keywords

Mathematics Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge Mathematical Knowledge Mathematical Object Mathematical Idea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barton, B., & Gordeau, F. (2008). Disciplinary mathematics and school mathematics: Report of Working Group 1. In M. Menghini, F. Furlinghetti, L. Giacardi, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), The first century of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (1908–2008). Reflecting and shaping the world of mathematics education (pp. 253–264). Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, B., & Paterson, J. (2009). Teachers learning mathematics: Professional development research: A TLRI final report. Wellington: NZCER. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from http://www.tlri.org.nz/school-sector/
  3. Carlson, M., & Bloom, I. (2005). The cyclic nature of problem solving: An emergent multidimensional problem-solving framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(1), 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gardner, M. (1970). Mathematical games: The fantastic combinations of John Conway’s new solitaire game “Life”. Scientific American, 223, 120–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hadamard, J. (1945). An essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kennedy, M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development. National Institute for Science Education Brief, 3(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
  8. Kane, R. G. (2002). How we teach the teachers: New ways to theorize practice and practice theory. Prospects, 32(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children (J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup, Eds., J. Teller, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Mason, J. (1988). Learning and doing mathematics. London: Macmillan Educational.Google Scholar
  12. Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2004). Fundamental constructs in mathematics education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  13. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Polya, G. (1962). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Prestage, S., & Perks, P. (2001). Adapting and extending secondary mathematics activities: New tasks for old. London: David Fulton.Google Scholar
  16. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  17. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  18. Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. (2008). Towards a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simon, M. A. (2006). Key developmental understandings in mathematics: A direction for investigating and establishing learning goals. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(4), 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Watson, A. (2008). School mathematics as a special kind of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(3), 3–7.Google Scholar
  21. Watson, A. (2009). Notation. Mathematics Teaching, 213, 35–38.Google Scholar
  22. Watson, A., & DeGeest, E. (2008). Changes in Mathematics Teaching Project. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://www.cmtp.co.uk/what_were_lessons_like/
  23. Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry (with discussion). International Statistical Review, 67(3), 223–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching & Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations