Examining the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching of Proving in Scenarios Written by Pre-service Teachers

  • Orly BuchbinderEmail author
  • Alice Cook
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)


In this chapter, we examine what aspects of Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching of Proving (MKT-P) can be observed in written scenarios of classroom interactions, produced by pre-service teachers (PSTs) of mathematics. A group of 27 elementary and middle school PSTs completed an online interactive module, intended to trigger reflection on, and crystallization of their knowledge of the roles of examples in proving. To ground these processes in the context of teaching, the module engaged PSTs in analysis of several representations of practice such as a questionnaire about quadrilaterals with sample student work imbedded in it, and a classroom scenario in a storyboard format realized with cartoon characters. In addition, PSTs wrote a one-page continuation of that scenario describing how they would handle the situation if they were teaching the class. These scenarios proved to be a rich source of data on several aspects of MKT-P as well as general pedagogical knowledge.


Pre-service teachers Written scenarios Conceptions of proving The role of examples in proving Geometry 


  1. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2017). Standards for preparing teachers of mathematics. Available online at:
  2. Buchbinder, O., Ron, G., Zodik, I., & Cook, A. (2016). What can you infer from this example? Applications of on-line, rich-media task for enhancing pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the roles of examples in proving. In A. Leung & J. Bolite-Frant (Eds.), Digital technologies in designing mathematics education tasks—Potential and pitfalls (pp. 215–235). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2009). A framework for understanding the status of examples in establishing the validity of mathematical statements. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & C. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 225–232). Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  4. Chazan, D. (1993). High School geometry students’ justification of their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS). (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society. Obtained from:
  6. Corleis, A., Schwarz, B., Kaiser, G., & Leung, I. K. (2008). Content and pedagogical content knowledge in argumentation and proof of future teachers: A comparative case study in Germany and Hong Kong. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(5), 813–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crespo, S., Oslund, J. A., & Parks, A. N. (2011). Imagining mathematics teaching practice: Prospective teachers generate representations of a class discussion. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(1), 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durand-Guerrier, V. (2003). Which notion of implication is the right one? From logical considerations to a didactic perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis, A. B., Bieda, K., & Knuth, E. (2012). Developing essential understanding of proof and proving for teaching mathematics in grades 9-12. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  10. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanna, G., & deVillers, M. D. (2012). Proof and proving in mathematics education: The 19th ICMI study. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 805–842). NCTM. Reston, VA.: Information Age Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herbst, P., Chazan, D., Chieu, V. M., Milewski, A., Kosko, K., & Aaron, W. (2016). Technology-mediated mathematics teacher development: Research on digital pedagogies of practice. In M. Niess, K. Hollebrands, & S. Driskell (Eds.), Handbook of research on transforming mathematics teacher education in the digital age (pp. 78–106). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  16. Ko, Y. Y. (2010). Mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof: Implications for educational research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 1109–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Leron, U., & Zaslavsky, O. (2013). Generic Proving: Reflections on scope and method. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(3), 24–30.Google Scholar
  19. Lesseig, K. (2016). Investigating mathematical knowledge for teaching proof in professional development. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically. Essex, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
  21. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, US: Sage publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Ponte, J. P., & Chapman, O. (2008). Preservice mathematics teachers’ knowledge and development. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 223–261). New York: Routldge.Google Scholar
  23. Reid, D., & Knipping, C. (2010). Proof in mathematics education: Research, learning and teaching. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Santagata, R., & Yeh, C. (2014). Learning to teach mathematics and to analyze teaching effectiveness: Evidence from a video-and practice-based approach. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(6), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steele, M. D., & Rogers, K. C. (2012). Relationships between mathematical knowledge for teaching and teaching practice: The case of proof. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  28. Stylianides, A. J. (2011). Towards a comprehensive knowledge package for teaching proof: A focus on the misconception that empirical arguments are proofs. Pythagoras, 32(1), 10.Google Scholar
  29. 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(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Usiskin, Z., & Dougherty, B. J. (2007). The classification of quadrilateral: A study of definition. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Yoop, D. A. (2017). Eliminating counterexamples: A Grade 8 student’s learning trajectory for contrapositive proving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 45, 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zazkis, R., Sinclair, N., & Liljedahl, P. (2013). Lesson play in mathematics education: A tool for research and professional development. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zazkis, R., & Zazkis, D. (2014). Script writing in the mathematics classroom: Imaginary conversations on the structure of numbers. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations