Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 121–139 | Cite as

Analyzing and attempting to overcome prospective teachers’ difficulties during problem-solving instruction

  • Alexander Karp


This article analyzes the experiences of prospective secondary mathematics teachers during a teaching methods course, offered prior to their student teaching, but involving actual teaching and reflexive analysis of this teaching. The study focuses on the pedagogical difficulties that arose during their teaching, in which prospective teachers lacked pedagogical content knowledge and skills. It also analyzes the experience of the course itself, which was aimed at scaffolding the work of prospective teachers on developing their pedagogical content knowledge and skills.


Pedagogical content knowledge Problem solving Scaffolding 


  1. Anghileri, J. (2006). Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2004). Knowing mathematics for teaching. In R. Strässer, G. Brandell, B. Grevholm, & O. Helenius (Eds.), Educating for the future. Proceedings of an international symposium on mathematics teacher education (pp. 159–178). Sweden: Swedish Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D., Hill, H., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching. Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade and how can we decide? American Educator, 29(3), 14–22, 43–46.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D., Lubenski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 433–455). Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, D., & McDiarmid, G. (1990). The subject matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 437–449). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., Bass, H., Sleep, L., Lewis, J., & Phelps, G. (2009). A practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 95–98). Thessaloniki: PME.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, C., & Clark, L. (Eds.). (2006). Learning from NAEP: Professional development materials for teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1991). Research and cognitively guided instruction. In E. Fennema, T. P. Carpenter, & J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 1–16). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cooney, T., & Wiegel, H. (2003). Examining the mathematics in mathematics teacher education. In A. Bishop, M. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 795–822). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: exploring changes in preservice teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Even, R. (1993). Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective secondary teachers and the function concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 94–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (1995). Subject-matter knowledge and knowledge about students as sources of teacher presentations of the subject-matter. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feinman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 63–91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. Graeber, A. (1999). Forms of knowing mathematics: What preservice teachers should learn. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahan, J., Cooper, D., & Bethea, K. (2003). The role of mathematics teachers’ content knowledge in their teaching: A framework for research applied to a study of student teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laborde, C., & Perrin-Glorian, M.-J. (2005). Introduction. Teaching situations as object of research: Empirical studies within theoretical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Aligning teacher education with contemporary K-12 reform visions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 33–53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Lester, F. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem solving research: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 660–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Merseth, K. (2003). Windows on teaching math: Cases of middle and secondary classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. Peterson, B. (2005). Student teaching in Japan: The lesson. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning; Vol. 1. Introduction and analogy in mathematics; Vol. 2. Patterns of plausible inference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  29. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stigler, J. W., & Stevenson, H. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York, NY: Summit Books.Google Scholar
  31. Vacc, N., & Bright, G. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’ changing beliefs and instructional use of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity. Learners generating examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Wilson, P., Cooney, T., & Stinson, D. (2005). What constitutes good mathematics teaching and how it develops: Nine high school teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations