Profound understanding of emergent mathematics: Broadening the construct of teachers' disciplinary knowledge

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 245-265

  Davis, Brent ^a   Renert, Moshe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Concept study; Mathematics education; Mathematics knowledge for teaching; Tacit knowledge; Teacher education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872493271     PISSN: 00131954     EISSN: 15730816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-012-9424-8     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for teaching mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 270-296.
2. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 83-104). Westport: Ablex.
3. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133-180.
4. Begle, E. G. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education: Findings from a survey of the empirical literature. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
5. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactiques des mathématiques, 1970-1990. (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Trans.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
6. Burger, E. B., & Starbird, M. (2005). The heart of mathematics: An invitation to effective thinking (2nd ed.). Emeryville: Key College Publishing.
7. Burton, L. (Ed.). (1999). Learning mathematics: From hierarchies to networks. London: Falmer.
8. Capra, F. (2005). The hidden connections: A science for sustainable living. New York: Harper.
9. Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.
10. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2, 99-122.
11. Davis, B. (2008). Is 1 a prime number? Developing teacher knowledge through concept study. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School (NCTM), 14(2), 86-91.
12. Davis, B. (2011). Mathematics teachers' subtle, complex disciplinary knowledge. Science, 332, 1506-1507.
13. Davis, B., & Renert, M. (2009). Mathematics for teaching as shared, dynamic participation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3), 37-43.
14. Davis, B., & Renert, M. (2013). The math teachers know. New York: Routledge (in press).
15. Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics teaching and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137-167.
16. Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An ongoing investigation of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 293-319.
17. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.
18. English, L. (Ed.). (1997). Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Ericsson, A. K., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Cambridge handbook on expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-187.
21. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
22. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers' generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653-689.
23. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychologist, 15(1), 1-38.
24. Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 1(1), 49-72.
25. Greer, B. (1994). Extending the meaning of multiplication and division. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 61-87). Albany: State University of New York Press.
26. Harel, G., & Confrey, J. (Eds.). (1994). The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
27. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study (NCES 2003-013). U. S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
28. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
29. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
30. Mazur, B. (2003). Imagining numbers (particularly the square root of minus fifteen). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
31. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.
32. Richards, J. F., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (1986). Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249.
33. Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. S. (2011). Preparing future math teachers. Science, 332, 1266-1267.
34. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand teach: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 57, 1-22.
36. Usiskin, Z., Peressini, A., Marchisotto, E. A., & Stanley, D. (2003). Mathematics for high school teachers: An advanced perspective. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
37. Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and representation. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 41-72.