A spectrum of pedagogical awareness for undergraduate mathematics: From "tricks" to "techniques"

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 284-316

  Nardi, Elena ^a,d   Jaworski, Barbara ^b   Hegedus, Stephen ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AGDER   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

College mathematics; Grounded theory; Pedagogical knowledge; Professional development; Qualitative methods; Teacher beliefs; Teachers (characteristics of); Teaching (role, style, methods)

Indexed keywords

EID: 20444362129     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Aisina, C. (2001). Why the professor must be a stimulating teacher: Towards a new paradigm of teaching mathematics at university level. In D. A. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 3-12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
2. Artigue, M. (2001). What can we learn from educational research at university level? In D.A. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 207-220). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
3. Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
4. Burton, L., & Morgan, C. (2000). Mathematicians' writing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 429-453.
5. Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique. Grenoble, France: La Pensée Sauvage.
6. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teacher's thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
7. Cobb, P. (1996). Constructivism and activity theory: A consideration of their similarities and differences as they relate to mathematics education. In H. Mansfield, N. Patemen, & N. Bednarz (Eds.), Mathematics for tomorrow's young children: International perspectives on curriculum (pp. 10-56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
8. Confrey, J. (2000). Constructivism and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Dawson, S. (1999). The Enactive perspective on teacher development: "A Path Laid While Walking." In B. Jaworski, T. Wood, & S. Dawson (Eds.), Mathematics teacher education: International critical perspectives (pp. 148-162). London: Palmer.
10. Dreyfus, H. I., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine. New York: Free Press.
11. Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process conception of function. In E. Dubinsky, & G. Harel (Eds.), The Concept of Function: Aspects of Epislemology and Pedagogy, MAA Notes No. 25 (pp. 85-106). Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America.
12. Dubinsky, E., & Lewin, P. (1986). Reflective abstraction and mathematics education: The genetic decomposition of induction and compactness. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 55-92.
13. Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. New York: Nichols.
14. Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teachers' knowledge and understanding of students' mathematical learning. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Research on Mathematics Education (pp. 219-240). New York: Erlbaum.
15. Fenstermacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research in teaching: Three aspects. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 37-49). New York: Macmillan.
16. Ganter, S. L. (2000). Calculus renewal: Issues for undergraduate mathematics education in the new decade. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
17. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
18. Haggarty, L. (1996). New ideas for teacher education: A mathematics framework (children, teachers & learning). London: Continuum.
19. Hall, E. T. (1981/1959). The silent language. New York: Anchor Press, Doubleday.
20. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (1996). Mathematics learning and assessment: Sharing innovative practices. London: Arnold.
21. Hillel, J. (2001). Trends in curriculum: A working group report. In D. A. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 59-70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
22. Holton, D. A. (Ed.). (2001). The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
23. Jalling, H., & Carlsson, M. (1995). An attempt to raise the status of undergraduate teaching: Five years with the Council for the Renewal of Undergraduate Education. Stockholm: Council for Studies of Higher Education.
24. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London: The Palmer Press.
25. Jaworski, B. (1998). Mathematics teacher research: Process, practice and the development of teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 3-31.
26. Jaworski, B. (2002). Sensitivity and challenge in university mathematics tutorial teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 71-94.
27. Jaworski, B., Nardi, E., & Hegedus, S. (2000). Characterising undergraduate mathematics teaching: A report on preliminary findings. In L. Bills & T. Harries (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th British Congress of Mathematics Education (pp. 117-122). Northampton, UK: University College.
28. Kahn. P. E., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The changing undergraduate experience: A case study of single honours mathematics in England and Wales. Higher Education, 22, 349-362.
29. Kieran C., Forman E., & Sfard A. (2002). Learning discourse: Discursive approaches to research in mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
30. Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32. Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational Researcher 19(2), 18-25.
33. Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: A challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 133-150.
34. London Mathematical Society. (1995). Tackling the mathematics problem. London: Author.
35. Mason, J. (2002). Mathematics teaching practice: A guide for university and college lecturers. Chichester, UK: Horwood Publishing.
36. Morine-Dershimer, G. (1990, April). To think like a teacher. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
37. Nardi, E. (1996). The novice mathematician's encounter with mathematical abstraction: Tensions in concept-image construction and formalisation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oxford Oxford, UK.
38. Nardi, E. (1997). El encuentro del matemático principiante con la abstracción matemática: una imagen conceptual de los conjuntos generadores en el análisis vectorial [The novice mathematician's encounter with mathematical abstraction: A concept image of spanning sets in vectorial analysis]. Educacion Matematica, 9(1), 47-60.
39. Nardi, E. (1999a). The challenge of teaching first-year undergraduate mathematics: Tutors' reflections on the formal mathematical enculturation of their students. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 7, 29-53.
40. Nardi, E. (1999b). Using semi-structured interviewing to trigger university mathematics tutors' reflections on their teaching practices. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 321-328). Technion City, Israel: Technion University.
41. Nardi, E. (2000). Zeros and ones in advanced mathematics: Transcending the intimacy of number. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(3), 44-51.
42. Nardi, E., & Iannone, P. (2003). Mathematicians on concept image construction: Single "landscape" vs. "your own tailor-made brain version." Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 365-372). Technion City, Israel: Techinion University.
43. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
44. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Franscisco: Jossey Bass.
45. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
46. Sierpinska, A. (1994). Understanding in mathematics, London: The Falmer Press.
47. Skemp, R. (1979). Intelligence, learning and action. London: Wiley.
48. Tall, D. (1992). The transition to advanced mathematical thinking: Functions, limits, infinity and proof. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 495-511). New York: Macmillan.
49. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
50. Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 65-81). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
51. Vinner, S., & Tall, D. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151-169.
52. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.
53. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.