Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 48–72 | Cite as

Investigating quality of undergraduate mathematics lectures

  • Christer Bergsten


The notion of quality in undergraduate mathematics lectures is examined by using theoretical notions and research results from the literature and empirical data from a case study on lecturing on limits of functions. A systemic triangular model is found to catch critical quality aspects of a mathematics lecture, consisting of mathematical exposition, teacher immediacy, and general quality criteria for mathematics teaching. Mathematical exposition involves the dynamic interplay of mathematical content, mathematical process, and institutionalisation. The discussion is a contribution to an increased pedagogical awareness in undergraduate mathematics teaching.


Standard Limit Lecture Format Undergraduate Mathematics Pedagogical Awareness Mathematic Education Research Journal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alsina, C. (2001). Why the professor must be a stimulating teacher. In D. Holton (Ed.),The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: an ICMI Study (pp. 3–12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, G. (1997). Students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of factors influencing students’ success in first-year undergraduate mathematics courses. In F. Biddulph & K. Carr (Eds.),People in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 58–64). Rotoura, NZ: MERGA.Google Scholar
  3. Anthony, G., Hubbard, R., & Swedosh, P. (2000). Undergraduate mathematics teaching and learning. In K. Owens & J. Mousley (Eds.),Mathematics education research in Australasia 1996–1999 (pp. 243–269). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  4. Barbé, J., Bosch, M., Espinoza, L., & Gascon, J. (2005). Didactic restrictions on the teacher’s practice: the case of limits of functions in Spanish high schools.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(2–3), 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnard, T., & Morgan, C. (1996). Theory and practice in undergraduate mathematics teaching: A case study. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.),Proceedings of 20th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 43–50). València, Spain: PME.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. (2003).Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bligh, D. (1972).What’s the use of lectures? Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  8. Blum, W. (2004).Opportunities and problems for “Quality Mathematics Teaching” — the SINUS and DISUM projects. Paper presented as a regular lecture at ICME 10, Copenhagen 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Bradley, K., Sampson, S., & Royal, K. (2006). Applying the Rasch rating scale model to gain insights into students’ conceptualisation of quality mathematics instruction.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(2), 11–26.Google Scholar
  10. Forgasz, H. & Swedosh, P. (1997). The University of Melbourne’s mathematics students: Who are they? Why are they? Will they stay? In F. Biddulph & K. Carr (Eds.),People in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 170–176). Rotoura, NZ: MERGA.Google Scholar
  11. Fritze, Y., & Nordkvelle, Y.T. (2003). Comparing lectures: effects of the technological context of a studio.Education and Information Technologies, 8(4), 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frymier, A. B. (1994). Amodel of immediacy in the classroom.Communication Quarterly, 42 (2), 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harel, G., & Trgalova, J. (1996). Higher mathematics education. In A. Bishop et al. (Eds.),International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 675–700). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Holton, D. (Ed.). (2001).The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: an ICMI Study, (New ICMI Study Series Vol. 7). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Hubbard, R. (1997).Why do students attend lectures and what do they learn? Paper presented at the Delta’97 Symposium on Undergraduate Mathematics, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  16. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001).Adding it up. Helping children to learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. Krantz, S. (1999).How to teach mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  18. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000).Where mathematics comes from. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Leron, U., & Dubinsky, E. (1995). An abstract algebra story.American Mathematical Monthly, 102(3), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lester, F. (2005). On the theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundations for research in mathematics education.Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 37(6), 457–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E, & Smerdon, B. (1999).Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: National Centre for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  22. Nardi, E., Jaworski, B., & Hegedus, S. (2005). A spectrum of pedagogical awareness for undergraduate mathematics: From “tricks” to “techniques”.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4), 284–316.Google Scholar
  23. Niss, M. (2004). The Danish “KOM” project and possible consequences for teacher education. In R. Strässer, G. Brandell, B. Grevholm, & O. Helenius (Eds.),Educating for the future. Proceedings of an international symposium on mathematics teacher education. Göteborg, Sweden: The Royal Swedish Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  24. Przenioslo, M. (2004). Images of the limit of function formed in the course of mathematical studies at the university.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55(1–3), 103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and sprouting of signs: Asemiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization.Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rodd, M. (2003). Witness as participation: the lecture theatre as a site for mathematical awe and wonder.For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(1), 15–21.Google Scholar
  27. Saroyan, A., & Snell, L.S. (1997). Variations in lecturing styles.Higher Education, 33, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weber, K. (2004). Traditional instruction in advanced mathematics courses: a case study of one professor’s lectures and proofs in an introductory real analysis course.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(2), 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wood, L., & Smith, G. (2004).Language of university mathematics. Paper presented at Topic Study Group 25 (Language and communication in mathematics education) at ICME10, Copenhagen 2004. Retrieved July 25, 2006 from http://www.icme10.dkGoogle Scholar
  30. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christer Bergsten
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations