Abstract
This study examines differences in connectedness in instruction between two novice teachers and an expert teacher. Three types of data related to lessons on equivalent algebraic expressions were collected: lesson plans, lesson observations, and post-lesson interviews. Although connectedness is an important characteristic of mathematics teaching and learning, only the expert teacher used both lesson and content connections to guide her teaching. Differences in the teachers’ views and uses of connectedness in instruction are discussed and illustrated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Australian Education Council (1991).A national statement on mathematics for Australian Schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.),Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 2 (pp. 1–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue.Educational Researcher, 15, 5–13.
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers.American Educational Research Journal, 26, 473–498.
Dienes, Z. P. (1960).Building up mathematics. London: Hutchinson.
Even, R. (1990). Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case of functions.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 521–544.
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). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hoffman, K. M. (March, 1989).The science of patterns: A practical philosophy of mathematical education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, San Francisco.
Lampert, M. (1988). The teacher’s role in reinventing the meaning of mathematical knowledge in the classroom. In M. J. Behr, C. B. Lacampagne, & M. M. Wheeler (Eds.),Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting for the PME-NA (pp. 433–480). DeKalb, IL: PME-NA.
Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and expert competence.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 52–75.
Moore, E. H. (1926). On the foundations of mathematics. In R. Schorling (Ed.),A general survey of progress in the last 25 years (1st Yearbook of NCTM). Oak Park, IL: NCTM (Original work published in 1903).
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989).Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991).Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council (1989).Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics classes.Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding.Arithmetic Teacher, 26, 9–15.
Steen, L. E. (1990). Pattern. In L. E. Steen (Ed.),On the shoulders of giants: New approaches to numeracy (pp. 1–10). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice,Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–127.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Even, R., Tirosh, D. & Robinson, N. Connectedness in teaching equivalent algebraic expressions: Novice versus expert teachers. Math Ed Res J 5, 50–59 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217254
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217254