Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to link.springer.com

Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case of functions

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interest in teachers' subject matter knowledge has arisen in recent years. But most of the analysis has been general and not topic-specific. This paper shows how one may approach the question of teachers' knowledge about mathematical topics. It demonstrates the building of an analytic framework of subject matter knowledge for teaching a specific topic in mathematics and then uses the concept of function to provide an illustrative case of a paradigm for analyzing subject matter knowledge for teaching. The choice of the aspects, which form the main facets of the framework, was based on integrated knowledge from several bodies of work: the role and importance of the topic in the discipline of mathematics and in the mathematics curriculum; research and theoretical work on learning, knowledge and understanding of mathematical concepts in general and the specific topic in particular; and research and theoretical work on teachers' subject matter knowledge and its role in teaching. An application of the framework in the case of the concept of function is described and illustrated by anecdotes drawn from a study of prospective secondary teachers' knowledge and understanding of functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from £29.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Academic Preparation in Mathematics: 1985, Teaching for transition from high school to college, College Entrance Examination Board, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • BallD. L.: 1988, Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • BallD. L.: 1990, Examining the subject matter knowledge of prospective mathematics teachers', Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 21(2), 132–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L.: In press, ‘Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation’, in J. Brophy (ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching (Vol. 2), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

  • BellA. W., CostelloJ., and KuchemannD.: 1983, A Review of Research in Mathematics Education, Part A, NFER-NELSON, Windsor, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • BellA. and JanvierC.: 1981, ‘The interpretation of graphs representing situations’, For the Learning of Mathematics 2(1), 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession: 1986, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Washington, DC.

  • ChambersD. L., BensonJ., ChandlerA., and BethkeE.: 1986, A Guide to Curriculum Planning in Mathematics, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  • CoxfordA. F. and PayneJ. N.: 1987, HBJ Algebra 1 Revised Edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., Orlando, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • DavisR. B.: 1986, ‘Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: A summary analysis’, in J.Hiebert (ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 265–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeweyJ.: 1904, ‘The relation of theory to practice in education’, in M. L.Borrowman (ed.), 1971, Teacher Education in America: A Documentary History, Teachers' College Press, New York, pp. 140–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • DolcianiM. P., SorgenfreyR. H., BrownR. G., and KaneR. B.: 1986, Algebra and Trigonometry, Structure and Method Book 2, Houghton Mifflin Company, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • DreyfusT. and EisenbergT.: 1983, ‘The function concept in college students: Linearity, smoothness and periodicity’, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 5(3&4), 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, T. and Eisenberg, T.: 1987, ‘On the deep structure of functions’, in J. C. Bergeron and C. Kieren (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of PME, Vol. I, Montreal, Canada, pp. 190–196.

  • Dufour-JanvierB., BednarzN., and BelangerM.: 1987, ‘Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation’, in C.Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Educational Technology Center: 1988, Making Sense of the Future, Harvard Graduate School of Education, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T. and Dreyfus, T.: 1986, ‘On visual versus analytical thinking in mathematics’, Proceedings of PME 10, London, England.

  • Even, R.: 1989, Prospective secondary teachers' knowledge and understanding about mathematical functions, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

  • FreudenthalH.: 1983, Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • GreenoJ. G.: 1978, ‘Understanding and procedural knowledge in mathematics instruction’, Educational Psychologist 12(3), 262–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • HershkowitzR.: 1990, ‘Psychological aspects of learning geometry’, in P.Nesher and J.Kilpatrick (eds.), Mathematics and Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • HiebertJ. and LefevreP.: 1986, ‘Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis’, in J.Hiebert (ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes Group.: 1986, Tomorrow's Teacher, Michigan State University, College of Education, East Lansing, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janvier, C.: 1978, The interpretation of complex Cartesian graphs representing situations — Studies and teaching experiments, Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, Shell Centre for Mathematical Education and Universite du Quebec a Montreal.

  • KeedyM. L., BittingerM. L., SmithS. A., and OrfanL. J.. 1986, Algebra, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M.: 1988, ‘The teacher's role in reinventing the meaning of mathematical knowing in the classroom’, in M. J. Behr, C. B. Lacampagne and M. M. Wheeler (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of PME-NA, DeKalb, Ill., pp. 433–480.

  • LappanG. and EvenR.: 1989, Learning to Teach: Constructing Meaningful Understanding of Mathematical Content (Craft Paper 89-3), Michigan State University, National Center for Research of Teacher Education, East Lansing, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • LappanG. and SchramP.: 1989, ‘Communication and reasoning: Critical dimensions of sense making in mathematics’, in P. R.Trafton and A. P.Shulte (eds.), New Directions for Elementary School Mathematics — 1989 Yearbook, NCTM, Reston, Virginia, pp. 14–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeinhardtG. and SmithD. A.: 1985, ‘Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge’, Journal of Educational Psychology 77, 247–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeshR., PostT., and BehrM.: 1987, ‘Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving’, in C.Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • LovellK.: 1971, ‘Some aspects of the growth of the concept of a function’, in M. F.Rosskopf, L. P.Steffe and S.Taback (eds.), Piagetian Cognitive Development Research and Mathematical Education, NCTM, Washington, D.C., pp. 12–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLaneS.: 1986, Mathematics: Form and Function, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik, M. A.: 1980, ‘Historical and pedagogical aspects of the definition of function’, International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science & Technology 11.

  • Markovits, Z., Eylon, B., and Bruckheimer, M.: 1983, ‘Functions linearity unconstrained’, in R. Hershkowitz (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of PME, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, pp. 271–277.

  • MarkovitsZ., EylonB., and BruckheimerM.: 1986, ‘Functions today and yesterday’, For the Learning of Mathematics 6(2), 18–24, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • MarnyanskiiI. A.: 1975, ‘Psychological characteristics of pupils' assimilation of the concept of a function’, in J.Kilpatrick, I.Wirszup, E.Begle and J.Wilson (eds.), Soviet Studies in the Psychology of Learning and Teaching Mathematics XIII, SMSG, University of Chicago Press. USA, pp. 163–172. (Original work published 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Essential Goals And Objectives For Mathematics Education: 1988, Michigan State Board of Education.

  • Monk, G. S.: 1988, ‘Students' understanding of functions in calculus courses’, Humanistic Mathematics Network Newsletter 2.

  • NCTM: 1989a, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, NCTM, Virginia, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCTM: 1989b, Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (working draft), NCTM, Virginia, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • NesherP.: 1986, ‘Are mathematical understanding and algorithmic performance related?’, For the Learning of Mathematics 6(3), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • NicholsE. D., EdwardsM. L., GarlandE. H., HoffmanS. A., MamaryA., and PalmerW. F.: 1986, Holt Algebra 2 with Trigonometry, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Publishers, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Mathematics Concept Paper No. 2: 1987, Middle School Mathematics, 6–8.

  • PetersonP. L.: 1988, ‘Teaching for higher order thinking in mathematics: The challenge for the next decade’, in D. A.Grouws, T. J.Cooney and D.Jones (eds.), Effective Mathematics Teaching, NCTM, Reston, Virginia, pp. 2–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • ResnickL. B.: 1987, Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • ResnickL. B. and FordW. W.: 1984, The Psychology of Mathematics for Instruction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • RombergT. A.: 1983, ‘A common curriculum for mathematics’, in G. D.Fenstermacher, J. I.Goodlad, and K. J.Rehage (eds.), Individual Differences and the Common Curriculum — 82nd Yearbook of the NSSE, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 121–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H.: 1987, On mathematics as sense-making: An informal attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics, Paper presented at the OERI/LRDC Conference on Informal Reasoning and Education, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • SchoenfeldA. H.: 1988, ‘When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics classes’, Educational Psychologist 23(2), 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • ShulmanL. S.: 1986, ‘Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching’, Educational Researcher 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • SilverE. A.: 1986, ‘Using conceptual and procedural knowledge: A focus on relationships’, in J.Hiebert (ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey, pp. 181–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamir, P.: 1987, Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Educational Research, Washington, DC.

  • ThomasH. L.: 1975, ‘The concept of function’, in M. E.Rosskopf (ed.), Children's Mathematical Concepts. Six Piagetian Studies in Mathematics Education, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 145–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • ThompsonA. G.: 1984, ‘The relationship of teachers' conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 15, 105–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirosh, D., Nachmias, R., and Arcavi, A.: 1990, The effects of exploring a new representation on prospective teachers' conception of functions. Unpublished manuscript.

  • VinnerS.: 1983, ‘Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function’, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 14, 239–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • VinnerS. and DreyfusT.: 1989, ‘Images and definitions for the concept of function’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20, 356–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • WilderR. L.: 1972, ‘The nature of modern mathematics’, in W. E.Lamon (ed.), Learning & the Nature of Mathematics, Science Research Associates, Inc., USA, pp. 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • WilsonS. M., ShulmanL. S., and RichertA. 1987, ‘“150 ways of knowing”: Representations of knowledge in teaching’, in J.Calderhead (ed.), Exploring Teacher Thinking, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Sussex, pp. 104–124.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Teaching Department, Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100, Rehovot, Israel

    Ruhama Even

Authors
  1. Ruhama Even
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Recipient of a Sir Charles Clore Post-Doctoral Fellowship.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Even, R. Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case of functions. Educ Stud Math 21, 521–544 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00315943

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00315943

Keywords