Abstract
This study is grounded in the theoretical position that solving problems in different ways creates mathematical connections when learning and teaching mathematics. It acknowledges the central role teachers play in providing students with learning opportunities, and it is based on the empirical finding that mathematics teachers are reluctant to solve problems in different ways in the classroom. In this paper we address the contradiction between theory-based recommendations and school mathematics practice. Based on analysis of individual interviews and two group meetings with 12 Israeli secondary school mathematics teachers, we demonstrate that in the context of multiple-solution connecting tasks this discrepancy is caused by the situated nature of the teachers’ knowledge. We also reveal the complex relationship between different types of teacher knowledge and argue the significance of developing a common language between members of the mathematics education community, including teacher educators and researchers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Askew, M. (2001). Policy, practices and principles in teaching numeracy: What makes a difference? In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 105–119). London: Routledge.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, fall 2005, 14–17, 20–22, 43–46.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Diguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 1, 32–41.
Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experience in collaboration with teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–333). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooney, T. J. (1994). Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation. In D. B. Aichele & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics. 1994 yearbook (pp. 9–22). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Cooney, T. J., & Krainer, K. (1996). Inservice mathematics teacher education: The importance of listening. In A. J. Bishop, et al. (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 1155–1185). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A statement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.
Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.) (1999). Classrooms that promote mathematical understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.
House, P.A., & Coxford, A. F. (1995). Connecting mathematics across the curriculum: 1995 Yearbook. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Kennedy, M. M. (2002). Knowledge and teaching. Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 355–370.
Krainer, K. (1993). Powerful tasks: A contribution to a high level of acting and reflecting in mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 65−93.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Aligning teacher education with contemporary K-12 reform visions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 33–53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3, 149–164.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leikin, R. (2003). Problem-solving preferences of mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 297–329.
Leikin, R. (2006). Learning by teaching: The case of the Sieve of Eratosthenes and one elementary school teacher. In R. Zazkis & S. Campbell (Eds.), Number theory in mathematics education: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leikin, R., Levav-Vineberg, A., Gurevich, I., & Mednikov, L. (2006). Implementation of multiple solution connecting tasks: Do students’ attitudes support teachers’ reluctance? FOCUS on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 28, 1–22.
Leinhardt, G. (1993). On teaching. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teacher’s understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Neubrand, M. (2005). “COACTIV”: Cognitive activation in the classroom and the professional knowledge of teachers of Mathematics. Personal communication at ICMI-Study 15: The Professional Education and Development of Teachers of Mathematics, Brazil, 15–21 May 2005.
Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it. A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roth, W.-M. (1998). Designing communities. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publication.
Scheffler, I. (1965). Conditions of knowledge. An introduction to epistemology and education. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An informal attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In J. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 311–343). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowing growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 5(2), 4–14.
Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Font Strawhun, B. T. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 287–301.
Simon, A. M. (1997). Developing new models of mathematics teaching: An imperative for research on mathematics teacher development. In E. Fennema & B. Scott-Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 55–86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steinbring, H. (1998). Elements of epistemological knowledge for mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(2), 157–189.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. (2003). Challenging and changing mathematics teaching classroom practices. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, D. Brunei, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), The second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 643–687). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Richert, A. E. (1987). “150” Different ways of knowledge in teaching. Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 1–37). London, UK: Cassell.
Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2002). Flux in school algebra: Curricular change, graphing technology, and research on student learning and teacher knowledge. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 725–755). New Jersey, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zazkis, R., & Leikin, R. (in press). Learner generated examples: From pedagogical to a research tool. For the Learning of Mathematics.
Acknowledgment
This research was made possible by grant #891/03 from the Israel Science Foundation. We wish to thank Irena Gurevich for her assistance in data collection. We are indebted to the teachers who participated in the study for their collaboration and goodwill. We would like to thank Anna Sfard and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and stimulating comments on the earlier version of the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The names of the teachers have been changed to protect their privacy.
Appendix 1
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leikin, R., Levav-Waynberg, A. Exploring mathematics teacher knowledge to explain the gap between theory-based recommendations and school practice in the use of connecting tasks. Educ Stud Math 66, 349–371 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9071-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9071-z