Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 295–311 | Cite as

Teacher lust: reconstructing the construct for mathematics instruction

  • Andrew M. Tyminski


Two collegiate mathematics courses for prospective elementary and middle grades teachers provide the context for the examination of Mary Boole’s construct of teacher lust. Through the use of classroom observations and instructor interviews, the author presents a refined conception of teacher lust. Two working aspects of the construct were identified: (1) enacted teacher lust; an observable action that may remove an opportunity for students to think about or engage in mathematics for themselves; and (2) experienced teacher lust; an internal impulse to act in the manner described. Empirical examples of each facet, differences between conscious and unconscious interactions with teacher lust, along with potential antecedents are discussed.


Teacher lust Mathematics teacher preparation Mathematics reform Constructivist teaching 



The author wishes to acknowledge Denise Mewborn, Signe Kastberg, and John Staver for their thoughtful written critiques of this paper.


  1. Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boole, M. E. (1931). Teacher-lust. In E. M. Cobham (Ed.), Mary Everest Boole: Collected works (Vol. 4, pp. 1411–1413). London: C.W. Daniel.Google Scholar
  3. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
  4. Hatfield, L. (2001). On becoming a constructivist teacher. In F. Stephenson (Ed.), Extraordinary teachers: The essence of excellent teaching (pp. 193–201). Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Inquiry in the mathematics classroom. Academic Connections, Summer, 1–2.Google Scholar
  7. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  9. Maddern, S., & Court, R. (1989). Improving mathematics practice and classroom teaching. Nottingham, UK: Shell Centre for Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  10. Mason, J. (1998). Asking mathematics questions mathematically. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mason, J. (2003). Seeing worthwhile things: A response to Alan Schoenfeld’s Review of Researching Your Own Practice in JMTE 6.1. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Steffe, L. P., & D’Ambrosio, B. S. (1995). Toward a working model of constructivist teaching: A reaction to Simon. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stein, M. K., Schwan Smith, M., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Tahta, D. (1991). Understanding and desire. In D. Pimm & E. Love (Eds.), Teaching and learning school mathematics (pp. 221–246). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  17. Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Woodward, J., & Irwin, K. (2005). Language appropriate for the New Zealand numeracy project. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 799–806). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations