How teachers think about student thinking informs the ways in which teachers teach. By examining teachers’ anticipation of student thinking we can begin to unpack the assumptions teachers make about teaching and learning. Using a “mathematics for teaching” framework, this research examines and compares the sorts of assumptions teachers make in relation to “student content knowledge” versus actual “learning paths” taken by students. Groups of teachers, who have advanced degrees in mathematics, education, and mathematics education, and tenth grade students engaged in a common mathematical task. Teachers were asked to model, in their completion of the task, possible learning paths students might take. Our findings suggest that teachers, in general, had difficulty anticipating student learning paths. Furthermore, this difficulty might be attributed to their significant “specialized content knowledge” of mathematics. We propose, through this work, that examining student learning paths may be a fruitful locus of inquiry for developing both pre-service and in-service teachers’ knowledge about mathematics for teaching.

• Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for teaching in mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 270-296.
• Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2001). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics perspectives on teaching and learning (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
• Ball, D. L. (1989). Breaking with experience in learning to teach mathematics: The role of a preservice methods course. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
• Ball, D. L., Bass, H., Sleep, L., & Thames, M. (2005). A theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Paper presented at the The Fifteenth ICMI Study: The Professional Education and Development of Teachers of Mathematics, 15-21 May 2005, State University of Sao Paolo at Rio Claro, Brazil. Retrieved December 1, 2006 from http://stwww.weizmann.ac.il/G-math/ICMI/log_in.html.
• Ball Loewenberg, D. (2000). Bridging Practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241-247.
• Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 5th edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Beknp Press of Harvard University Press.
• Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-338.
• Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics teaching and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137-167.
• 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.
• Dewey, J. (1969). The logical and psychological aspects of experience. In V. D. (Ed.), Theory of knowledge and problems of education. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
• Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1990). Making subject matter part of the conversation in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 32-43.
• Gadanidis, G., & Namukasa, I. (2005). Math Therapy. Paper presented at the Fifteenth ICMI Study: The Professional Education and Development of Teachers of Mathematics (pp.15-21), State University of Sao Paolo at Rio Claro, Brazil.
• AUTHOR 1, & AUTHOR 2. (2007). What is water pressure? Reflecting on a grade 10 academic performance task. The Ontario Mathematics Gazette, 45(3), 25-28.
• Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 29-63.
• Langrall, C. W., Thornton, C. A., Jones, G. A., & Malone, J. A. (1996). Enhanced pedagogical knowledge and reflective analysis in elementary mathematics teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 271-282.
• Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.
• McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers' beliefs during early field experience: A quixotic undertaking? Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 12-20.
• Murata, A., & Fuson, K. (2006). Teaching as assisting individual constructive paths within an interdependent class learning zone: Japanese first graders learning to add using 10. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(5), 421-456.
• Nesbitt Vacc, N., & Bright, G., W. (1999). Elementary pre-service teachers' changing beliefs and instructional use of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 89-110.
• Norton, S., McRobbie, C. J., & Cooper, T. J. (2000). Exploring secondary mathematics teachers' reasons for not using computers in their teaching: Five case studies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 87-109.
• Ontario Ministry of Education/OME. (2005). The Ontario curriculum Grades 9 and 10 mathematics - Revised. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
• Sfard, A. (1997). The many faces of mathematics: Do mathematicians and researchers in mathematics education speak about the same thing? In J. Kilpatrick & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity: An ICMI study, Book 2 (pp. pp. 491-512). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4- 14.
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
• Stipek, J. S., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213-226.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.