Submit Manuscript

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education Indexed in ESCI
How Prospective Teachers Conceptualized Mathematics: Implications for Teaching
Eric Fredua-Kwarteng
APA
In-text citation: (Fredua-Kwarteng, 2015)
Reference: Fredua-Kwarteng, E. (2015). How Prospective Teachers Conceptualized Mathematics: Implications for Teaching. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 10(2), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/293
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Fredua-Kwarteng E. How Prospective Teachers Conceptualized Mathematics: Implications for Teaching. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2015;10(2), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/293
Chicago
In-text citation: (Fredua-Kwarteng, 2015)
Reference: Fredua-Kwarteng, Eric. "How Prospective Teachers Conceptualized Mathematics: Implications for Teaching". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2015 10 no. 2 (2015): 77-95. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/293
Harvard
In-text citation: (Fredua-Kwarteng, 2015)
Reference: Fredua-Kwarteng, E. (2015). How Prospective Teachers Conceptualized Mathematics: Implications for Teaching. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 10(2), pp. 77-95. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/293
MLA
In-text citation: (Fredua-Kwarteng, 2015)
Reference: Fredua-Kwarteng, Eric "How Prospective Teachers Conceptualized Mathematics: Implications for Teaching". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 10, no. 2, 2015, pp. 77-95. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/293
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Fredua-Kwarteng E. How Prospective Teachers Conceptualized Mathematics: Implications for Teaching. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2015;10(2):77-95. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/293

Abstract

What is mathematics? The difficulty of having a precise, universal definition of mathematics has led prospective teachers to define the term in ways that make sense to them. This paper is part of a larger research project conducted in 2000 in an Ontarian university, Canada. The objectives were to identify and discuss conceptualizations of mathematics that prospective teachers brought to their preparation program and to explore the implications of such conceptualizations in terms of teaching and learning. It was believed that both the identification tools and understandings of prospective teachers’ conceptualizations of mathematics were significant for designing an effective pedagogy in accordance with mathematics reform-based perspectives. The research sample consisted of ten prospective teachers enrolled in a one-year bachelor of education program at an Ontarian university. The research used mathematics autobiographies of the respondents and semi-structured interviews of them as sources of data. Guided by the theory of personal construct for analysis of the data, the results showed that the respondents conceptualized mathematics in terms of metaphor, metonymy and combination of the two. The conclusion explores implications of such conceptualizations for mathematics teaching, learning and assessment.

Keywords

conceptions of mathematics language metaphoric metonymic pre-service teachers teachers' math autobiographies

References

  • Alagic, M. & Emery, S. (2003). Differentiating instruction with marbles: Is this algebra or what? International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning,(July,8th). Accessed Dec.20, 2007 from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/algicemery
  • Andrews, P. And Hatch, G. (1999). A new look at secondary teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and its teaching, British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 203-223.
  • Baig, S. & Halai, A. (2006). Learning mathematical rules with reasoning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 2(2), 15-39.
  • Bako', M. (2002) Why we need to teach logic and how we can teach it. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Accessed April 20, 2005 from.http://www.cimt  plymouth.ac.uk/journal/bakom
  • Ball, D. L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For The Learning of Mathematics, 8(2), 40-46.
  • Ball, D. L. (1990). Breaking with experience in learning to teach mathematics: The role of a preservice methods course. For The Learning of Mathematics, 10(2), 10-16.
  • Ball, D. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject-matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1–48) Greenwich, CN: JAI Press
  • Ball, D.L., Goffney, I. M. & Bass, H. (2005). The role of mathematics instruction in building a socially just and diverse democracy. The Mathematics Educator, 15(1), 2-6.
  • Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In RékaBenczes, 
  • Antonio Barcelona and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáňez, (eds). Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View (pp. 7-57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John  Benjamins.
  • Brown, A. (1999). A mathematics teaching even that changed my belief. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal # 12. Accessed Nov. 12, 2007 from http://www.people.ex.ac
  • Borba, M.C. (1992). Teaching mathematics: Challenging the sacred cow of mathematical certainty. The Learning House,65(6), 332-333.
  • Burns, M. (1994). Arithmetic: The last holdout. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6) 471-476.
  • Catalano, T. and Waugh, R.L (2013). The language of money: How verbal and visual metonymy shapes public opinion about financial events. International Journal of Language Studies, 7(2), 11-60.
  • Countryman, C. (1992). Writing to learn mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books Inc.
  • Davis, A. (1994). ‘Constructivism’. In A. Davis and D. Pettit (Eds.).Developing Understanding in   primary mathematics (pp.11-13). London: The Falmer Press.
  • Devlin, K. (1994). Mathematics: The science of patterns: The search for order in life, mind, and the universe. New York: Scientific American Library.
  • Dossey, J. (1992). The nature of mathematics: Its role and its influence. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 39-48). New York: Macmillan.
  • Ellis, M. W. and Berry III, R. Q. (2005). The paradigm shift in mathematics education: Explanation and implications of reforming conceptions of mathematics teaching and learning. The Mathematics  Educator, 15(1), 1-17.
  • Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13-33.
  • Ernest, P. (1996).The nature of mathematics and teaching. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Newsletter, 9, November
  • Ernest, P. (2002). Empowerment in mathematics education. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, # 15. Accessed Nov. 2007 from http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/PErnest/pome15
  • Ernest, P. (2010). Mathematics and metaphor: A response to Elizabeth Mowat & Brent Davis . Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 7(1), 98-104
  • Fass, D. (1991). Met: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by computer.  Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 49-90.
  • Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching.Teacher College Record, 103, 1013-1055.
  • Gates, P. (2006). Going Beyond Belief Systems: Exploring a Model for the Social Influence on Mathematics Teacher Beliefs.Educational Studies in Mathematics 63(3). 347–369
  • Goulding, M., Rowland, T. & Barber, P. (2002). Does it matter? Primary trainees’ subject knowledge in mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 28(5), 689-704.
  • Hersh, R. (1986). Some proposals for revising the philosophy of mathematics. In T. Tymoczko(Ed.), New Directions in the philosophy of mathematics. Boston: Birkhauser.
  • Hewitt, D. (1987) Mixed ability mathematics: Losing the building block metaphor. Forum 1, 39(2), 46-49.
  • Jamnik, M. (2001). Mathematical reasoning with diagrams. Sanford, U.S.A: CSLI Press.
  • Jeffery, B. (1997). Metaphors and representation: Problems and heuristic possibilities in ethnography and social science writing. International Education, 27(1), 26-28.
  • Kelly,G. A. (1995). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W.W. Norton& Comp. Inc.
  • Kovecses, Z, (2006). Language, mind, and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  • Krulik, S. & Rudnick, J. A. (1982). Teaching problem solving too preservice teachers. Arithmetic Teacher, 23(2), 42-47.
  • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago    Press.
  • Leatham, K. R. (2006). Viewing teachers’ beliefs as sensible systems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 91-102.
  • Lehrer, R. & Franke, M. L(1992). Applying personal construct psychology to the study of teachers’ knowledge of fractions.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 223-241
  • McQualter, J.W. (1986). Becoming a mathematics teacher: The use of personal construct theory Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 1-14
  • Merseth, K. (1993). How old is the shepherd? An essay about mathematics education. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(7), 548-554.
  • Murphy, C. (2007). The constructive role of conceptual metaphor in children arithmetic: A comparison and contrast of Piagetian and embodied learning perspectives. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, Nov., 22.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.(2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Nebesniak, A. L (2012). Learning to teach mathematics with reasoning and sense-making. Unpublished  doctoral dissertation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska.
  • Nerlich, B. (2006). Metonymy. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 109-113
  • Nesher, P. (1986) Are mathematical understanding and algorithmic performance related? For The Learning of Mathematics, 3, 7-11.
  • New Zealand Ministry of Education (1992). Mathematics in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington:  N.Z: Author.
  • Noyes, A. (2006). Using metaphor in mathematics teacher preparation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 898-909
  • Ontario Ministry of Education (2005a) Mathematics: The Ontario curriculum grades 1-8. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
  • Ontario Ministry of Education (2005b). Mathematics: The Ontario curriculum grades 9-10. Toronto, Ontario: Author
  • Ontario Ministry of Education (2007) Mathematics: The Ontario curriculum grades 11-12. Toronto, Ontario: Author
  • Padmanabahan, R. (2000). Logical reasoning in mathematics vs. brute force calculations. Manitobamath Links, 1(1). Accessed December 12, 2005 from http://www.umanitoba.ca/Faculties/science/mathematics/new/issue1.pdf
  • Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones. Metaphors and Symbol, 19(4), 245-264
  • Presmeg, N. (2002). Beliefs about the nature of mathematics in the bridging of everyday and school mathematical practices. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Torner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 293-312). Dordrecht: Kluwer
  • Quilter, D. & Harper, E. (1988). Why we didn’t like mathematics and why we can’t do it. Educational Research, 30(2), 121-128.
  • Radden, G. & Kovecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther-U & Radden, G. (eds). Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Ruthven, K. (1987).Ability stereotyping in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 243-253.
  • Sam, C.L. (1999). Using metaphor analysis to explore adults’ images of mathematics. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 12. Accessed December 2,2007 from  http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/PErnest/pome12/article9.htm
  • Silver, E.A, Kilpatrick, J, & Schlesinger, B. (1990). Thinking through mathematics. New York:  College Entrance Examination Board.
  • Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A Ortony (Ed.) metaphor and thought (pp.92-123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Song, S, (2011). Metaphors and metonymy- A tentative research into modern cognitive linguistics. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(1), 68-73
  • Steel, D. and Widman, T. F. (1997). Practitioner’s research: A study in changing perspective  teachers’ conceptions about mathematics and mathematics teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics, 97(3), 192-199.
  • Steen, L.A.(1989). Teaching mathematics for tomorrow world. Educational Leadership, 47(1), 18-22
  • Steen, L. A. (1999). Twenty questions about mathematical reasoning. .L Stiff (ed.) in   Developing mathematical reasoning in grades k-12 (pp.270-285), Reston, VA: National  Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Steinbring, H. (1989) Routine and meaning in mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(1), 24-33.
  • Stinson, D.W. (2004). Mathematics as “gate-keeper”(?): Three theoretical perspectives that ai towardempowering all children with the key to the gate. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 8-18.
  • Strauss, A.L, & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Tapson, F. (2002). The language of mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics     Teaching and Learning. Accessed November 25, 2009 frohttp://www.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/ftlag
  • The Alliance education Organization (2006). Closing the achievement gap: But practices in teaching mathematics.Charleston, West Virgin: Author. Accessed Dec.20, 2007 from http:///www.educationalliance.org
  • Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(2), 105-127.
  • Timmerman, M. A. (2004). The influence of three interventions on perspective elementary  teachers’ beliefs about the knowledge base needed for teaching mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 104(8), 369-382.
  • Wood, T. (2001). Teaching differently: Creating opportunities for learning mathematics. Theory into Practice(Spring), 40(2), 110-117.
  • Yetkin, E. (2003). Student difficulties in learning elementary mathematics. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, Reproduction No ED482727.
  • Zazkis, R. & Campbell, S. (1996). Prime composition: Understanding uniqueness. The Journal of Mathematics Behavior,15(2), 207-218.
  • Zazkis, R. & Gunn, C. (1997). Sets, subsets and the empty set: Student constructions and mathematics conventions. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science, 16(1), 133-169.
  • Zazkis, R. (1999). Challenging basic assumptions: Mathematical experience for preservice teachers. Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 30(5), 631-650.

License

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.
e-ISSN: 1306-3030 | Publisher: Modestum Publishing LTD