Advertisement

What Kind of Opportunities Do Abstract Algebra Courses Provide for Strengthening Future Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching?

  • Sean LarsenEmail author
  • Erin Glover
  • Anna Marie Bergman
  • John Caughman
Chapter
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)

Abstract

The previous two chapters drew insights from studies featuring very different methodologies, but focused on very similar types of connections between abstract algebra and preservice teacher education. A central idea of each chapter was the way that preservice teachers’ learning of abstract algebra could both reinforce and build on their knowledge of secondary mathematics. We focus our commentary primarily on this idea. First, we will characterize the possible benefits of this bidirectional relationship in terms of supporting the development of preservice teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Then, we will critically consider whether such benefits are worthy of being intentionally pursued by teacher education programs and (if so) how they might be best realized.

Keywords

Mathematical knowledge for teaching Backward transfer Preservice teacher education Mathematical preparation of teachers 

References

  1. Asiala, M., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D. M., Morics, S., & Oktaç, A. (1997). Development of students’ understanding of cosets, normality, and quotient groups. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(3), 241–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asiala, M., Kleiman, J., Brown, A., & Mathews, D. (1998). The development of students’ understanding of permutations and symmetries. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(1), 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2009). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Knowing mathematics for teaching to learners’ mathematical futures. Paper presented at the 43rd Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Mathematik, Oldenburg. Retrieved from www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/ieem/BzMU/BzMU2009/BzMU2009-Inhalt-fuer-Homepage.htm
  5. Brown, A., DeVries, D. J., Dubinsky, E., & Thomas, K. (1997). Learning binary operations, groups, and subgroups. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(3), 187–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences (CBMS). (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, J. P. (2014). The emergence of algebraic structure: Students come to understand units and zero-divisors. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubinsky, E., Dautermann, J., Leron, U., & Zazkis, R. (1994). On learning fundamental concepts of group theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 267–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dubinsky, E., & Leron, U. (1994). Learning abstract algebra with ISETL. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hohensee, C. (2014). Backward transfer: An investigation of the influence of quadratic functions instruction on students’ prior ways of reasoning about linear functions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(2), 135–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, E. M., & Larsen, S. P. (2012). Teacher listening: The role of knowledge of content and students. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kieran, C. (1979). Children’s operation thinking within the context of bracketing and the order of operations. In D. Tall (Ed.), Proceedings of the third international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 128–133). Coventry: Warwick University, Mathematics Education Research Centre.Google Scholar
  14. Larsen, S. (2009). Reinventing the concepts of group and isomorphism: The case of Jessica and Sandra. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2–3), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Larsen, S. (2010). Struggling to disentangle the associative and commutative properties. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(1), 37–42.Google Scholar
  16. Larsen, S., Johnson, E., & Bartlo, J. (2013). Designing and scaling up an innovation in abstract algebra. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 693–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leron, U., Hazzan, O., & Zazkis, R. (1995). Learning group isomorphism: A crossroads of many concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(2), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Melhuish, K. (2018). Three conceptual replication studies in group theory. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(1), 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean Larsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Erin Glover
    • 2
  • Anna Marie Bergman
    • 1
  • John Caughman
    • 1
  1. 1.Fariborz Maseeh Department of Mathematics and StatisticsPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations