The aim of this study is to explore pre-service teachers’ procedural and conceptual understanding of pupils’ understanding of mean value, before and after an intervention. Participants are 66 pre-service teachers, and two teacher educators. The data consists of five video-recorded lessons and pre-service teachers’ pre- and post-test discussions. Based on variation theory, the analysis aimed to identify pre-service teachers’ expressed knowledge of procedural and conceptual understanding, focusing four categories of expressions: procedural (P), procedural didactics (PD), conceptual (C), and conceptual didactics (CD). The pre-service teachers’ expressed understanding of pupils’ knowledge developed differently in the five teacher student groups. A shift from procedural to conceptual focus occurred in two groups. The number of procedural related words expressed in the first group decreased from 104 (pre-test: 65 P and 39 PD) to 16 (post-test: 9 P and 7 PD), at the same time as the conceptual related words increased (pre 4 C and 0 CD and post 11 C and 16 CD). In the second group, 87 procedure-related words (36 P and 51 PD) identified during pre-test decreased after the intervention (3 P and 9 PD). Instead, concept-related words increased from 16 (12 C and 4 CD) to 29 (10 C and 19 CD). The changes occurred among participants who had got, except of theoretical instruction, challenging hands-on tasks about the Mathematical content in focus. The findings from this study contribute to understand how design of instruction for pre-service teacher contributes to enhance teacher students’ didactic perspective on pupils’ learning.

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

• Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
• Brante, G., Holmqvist Olander, M., Holmquist, P. O., & Palla, M. (2015). Theorising teaching and learning: pre-service teachers’ theoretical awareness of learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.902437
• Chapman, O. (2013). Investigating teachers’ knowledge for teaching mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(4), 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9247-2
• Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (2011). Chapter 4. Introduction. A journey in mathematics education research—Insights from the work of Paul Cobb, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9729-3_4
• Goulding, M., Rowland, T., & Barber, P. (2002). Does it matter? Primary teacher trainees’ subject knowledge in mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 28(5), 689-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192022000015543a
• Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
• Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American educational research journal, 42(2), 371-406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
• Holmqvist, M. (2004). En främmande värld: om lärande och autism [A foreign world: about learning and autism]. Studentlitteratur.
• Holmqvist, M. (2011). Teachers’ learning in a learning study. Instructional science, 39(4), 497-511. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.23882877&lang=sv&site=eds-live&scope=site
• Holmqvist, M. (2017). Models for collaborative professional development for teachers in mathematics. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 6(3), 190-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-12-2016-0051
• Holmqvist, M. (Ed.). (2006). Att teoretisera lärandet. [To theorize learning]. In M. Holmqvist (Ed.), Lärande i skolan: Learning study som skolutvecklingsmodell [Learning in School: Learning Study as School Development Model] (pp. 9-24). Studentlitteratur.
• Holmqvist, M., & Selin, P. (2019). What makes the difference?: An empirical comparison of critical aspects identified in phenomenographic and variation theory analyses. Palgrave Communications, 5, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0284-z
• Kullberg, A., Runesson, U., Marton, F., Vikström, A., Nilsson, P., Mårtensson, P., & Häggström, J. (2016). Teaching one thing at a time or several things together?–Teachers changing their way of handling the object of learning by being engaged in a theory-based professional learning community in mathematics and science. Teachers and teaching, 22(6), 745-759. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1158957
• Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The case of elementary science instruction. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093970120502
• Liljekvist, Y. (2014). Lärande i matematik: Om resonemang och matematikuppgifters egenskaper. [About reasoning and the characteristics of mathematical problems] (Doctoral dissertation, Karlstads universitet).
• Lo, L. M., Chik, P., & Pang, M. F. (2006). Patterns of variation in teaching the colour of light to Primary 3 students. Instructional Science, 34(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-3348-y
• Lo, M. L. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching and learning. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
• Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Routledge.
• Marton, F., & Lo, M. L. (2007). Learning from “The Learning Study”. Tidskrif foer Laerarutbildning och Forskning [Journal of Research in Teacher Education], 2007(1), 31-44.
• Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton (Ed.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3-36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609762
• Pang, M. F., & Marton, F. (2003). Beyond ``lesson study’’: Comparing two ways of facilitating the grasp of some economic concepts. Instructional Science, 31(3), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023280619632
• PRIM (2020). Examples of tasks for assessment in mathematics Grade 6. Stockholm University, Department of Mathematics and Didactics. https://www.su.se/primgruppen/matematik/%C3%A5rskurs-6/exempel-ur-tidigare-prov
• Radford, L. (2013). Three key concepts of the theory of objectification: Knowledge, knowing, and learning. REDIMAT-Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 7-44. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1112191&lang=sv&site=eds-live&scope=site
• Rowland, T. (2014) The Knowledge Quartet: the genesis and application of a framework for analysing mathematics teaching and deepening teachers’ mathematics knowledge. SISYPHUS Journal of Education, 1(3), 15-43. https://doi.org/10.25749/sis.3705
• Rowland, T., Martyn, S., Barber, P., & Heal, C. (2000). Primary teacher trainees’ mathematics subject knowledge and classroom performance. Research in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520064
• Shulman, L (1986) Those who understand, knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
• Skott, J., Mosvold, R., & Sakonidis, C. (2018): Classroom practice and teachers’ knowledge beliefs, and identity. In T. Dreyfus, M. Artigue, D. Potari, S. Prediger, & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Developing research in mathematics education. Twenty years of communication, cooperation, and collaboration in Europe (pp. 162-180). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315113562-13
• Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for research in mathematics education, 36(5), 404-411. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=18830665&lang=sv&site=eds-live&scope=site
• Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. Free Press.
• Tutak, F. A., & Adams, T. L. (2017). A study of geometry content knowledge of elementary preservice teachers. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 301-318. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.50746d225684271b5eb0766e964675e&lang=sv&site=eds-live&scope=site

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.