Student teachers' subject matter knowledge within the domain of area measurement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 235-268

  Baturo, Annette ^a   Nason, Rod ^a  

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000707072     PISSN: 00131954     EISSN: 15730816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF00376322     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Ball, D. L.: 1990, Teaching mathematics for understanding: What do teachers need to know about subject matter knowledge, in M. M. Kennedy (ed.), Teaching academic subjects to diverse learners, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 63-83.
2. Ball, D. L.: 1991, Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter part of the equation, in J. Brophy (ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2. Teachers' knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practices, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-48.
3. Ball, D. L. and McDiarmid, G. W.: 1989, The subject matter preparation of teachers (Issue Paper 89-4). Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education, East Lansing, MI.
4. Baturo, A. R. and Cooper, T. C.: 1993, Theories of mathematical understanding. (Tech. Rep. No. 5). Queensland University of Technology, Centre for Mathematics and Science Education, Brisbane.
5. Carpenter, T., Coburn, T. G., Reys, R. E. and Wilson, J. W.: 1981, Results from the First Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NCTM, Reston, VA.
6. Del Grande, J.: 1990, Spatial sense, Arithmetic Teacher, February, 14-20.
7. DeLoache, J. S. and Marzols, D. P.: 1992, When a picture is not worth a thousand words: Young children's understanding of pictures and models, Cognitive Development 7, 317-329.
8. Douady, R.: 1985, The interplay between different settings, tool-object dialectic in the extension of mathematical ability, Proceeding of PME 9, Noordwijkerhout 2, 33-52.
9. Erlwanger, S. H.: 1975, Case studies of children's conceptions of mathematics, Journal of Children's Mathematical Behaviour 1(3), 157-283.
10. Freudenthal, H.: 1983, Didactical phenomology of mathematical structures, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.
11. Grossman, P. L.: 1991, What are we talking about anyway? Subject matter knowledge of secondary English teachers, in J. Brophy (ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2. Teachers ' knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practices, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 265-304.
12. Hill, D.: 1988, Misleading illustrations, Research in Science Education 18, 290-297.
13. Hirstein, J. J.: 1981, The second National Assessment in Mathematics: Area and Volume. Mathematics Teacher 74(9), 704-708.
14. Kaput, J. J.: 1987, Representation systems and mathematics, in C. Janvier (ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 19-26.
15. Kouba, V. L., Brown, C. A., Carpenter, T. P., Lindquist, M. M., Silver, E. A. and Swafford, J. O.: 1988, Results of the Fourth NAEP Assessment of Mathematics: Measurement, Geometry, Data Interpretation, Attitudes, and Other Topics, Arithmetic Teacher 36(9), 10-16.
16. Lampert, M.: 1986, Knowing, doing and teaching multiplication, Cognition and Instruction 3, 305-342.
17. Leinhardt, G.: 1988, Getting to know: Tracing students' mathematical knowledge from intuition to competence, Educational Psychologist 23(2), 119-144.
18. Leinhardt, G. and Smith, D. A.: 1986, Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology 77(3), 247-271.
19. Mayer Committee.: 1992, Employment-related key competencies: A proposal for consultation, Australian Education Council, Melbourne.
20. McDiarmid, G. W.: 1988, The liberal arts: Will more result in better subject matter understanding. Theory into Practice 29(1), 21-29.
21. McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L. and Anderson, C. W.: 1990, Why staying one chapter ahead doesn't really work: Subject-specific pedagogy, in M. C. Reynolds (ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher, Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 193-205.
22. National Research Council.: 1989, Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
23. Nunes, T., Light, P. and Mason, J.: 1993, Tools for thought: The measurement of length and area, Learning and Instruction 3, 39-54.
24. Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. and Seminska, A.: 1960, The child's conception of geometry, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
25. Romberg, T. A. and Uprichard, A. E.: 1977, The nature of the clinical investigation, Clinical investigation in mathematics education, Research Council for Diagnostic and Prescriptive Mathematics, 1-14.
26. Roth, K. J. and Anderson, C. W.: 1990, Promoting conceptual change: Learning from science texts, in P. Ramsden (ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 126-141.
27. Speedy, G.: 1989, Discipline review of teacher education in mathematics and science, Australian Government Printer, Canberra, ACT.
28. Tierney, C., Boyd, C. and Davis, G.: 1990, Prospective primary teachers' conception of area, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Psychology in Mathematics Education Conference, Volume 2, Mexico.
29. Wheeler, A. and Hill, D.: 1990, Diagram-ese, Science Teacher 57(5), 59-63.
30. Wilson, S. M.: 1988, Understanding historical understanding: Subject matter knowledge and the teaching of US history, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
31. Wineburg, S. S. and Wilson, S. M.: 1988, Models of wisdom in the teaching of history, Phi Delta Kappan 70(1), 50-58.
32. Woodward, E. and Byrd, P.: 1983, Area: Included topic, neglected concept, School, Science and Mathematics 83(4), 343-346.