Challenging and Changing Mathematics Teaching Classroom Practices

  • Dina Tirosh
  • Anna O. Graeber
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 10)

Abstract

This chapter summarizes general factors influencing change, and discusses matters which need to be considered by those working to achieve change in mathematics teaching practices. In the first section, we discuss two major sources of impetus for teacher change: (1) values and beliefs, and (2) technological advances. In the next two sections we explore the question: What important considerations in implementing planned changes in mathematics teaching are suggested by the existing body of knowledge? We focus on two seemingly essential dimensions of anyplanned effort to change teacher classroom practices: organizational approach and the nature of the professional development. Examples presented in the text are drawn from a variety of countries. We conclude with comments on the role of the specific goals of the planned change in framing the professional development and in assessing the change effort, and on the impact of culturally based views on the goals, content and availability of professional development. We acknowledge, throughout this chapter, that when considering research on either challenging or changing mathematics teaching classroom practices, readers should remember that care needs to be exercised in generalizing conclusions reached in one culture to another.

Keywords

Assure Baranes Stein Rium Verse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler, J. (1996). Lave and Wenger’s social practice theory and learning school mathematics. In L. Puig & A. Guttierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 3–10). Valencia, Spain: University of Valencia.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Educational Council. (1991). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. (1997). Developing mathematics reform: What we don’t know about teacher learning — but would make good hypotheses. In S. Friel & G. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on our work (pp. 77–111). Lanham, MD: University Press America.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, C, & Friedman, S. (1997). Mathematics case discussion: Nothing is sacred. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 381–399). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, J. R., & Pence, B. J. (1996). Mathematics teacher development: Connections to change in teachers’ beliefs and practices. In L. Puig & A. Guttierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 103–118). Valencia, Spain: University of Valencia.Google Scholar
  6. Bentzen, M., Bishop, J. Lieberman, A., & Seeman, A. (1974). Changing schools: The magic feather principle. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Berman, R., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. viii: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 159289).Google Scholar
  8. Bottino, R. M., & Furinghetti, F. (1998). The computer in mathematics teaching: Scenes from the classroom. In D. Tinslet & D. Johnson (Eds.), Information and communications technologies in school mathematics (pp. 131–139). London: Chapman and Hall (IFIR Series, 16).Google Scholar
  9. Brown, G (1985). A study of the socialization to teaching of a beginning secondary mathematics teacher. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.Google Scholar
  10. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Calderhead, J. (2001). International experiences of teaching reform. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 777–802). Washington, D. G.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, P. F., & Robles, J. (1997). Project IMPACT: Increasing the mathematical power of all children and teachers. In S. Friel & G. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on our work (pp. 173–178). Lanham, MD: University Press America.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, P. F., & White, D. (1997). Project IMPACT: Influencing and supporting teacher change in predominantly minority schools. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 309–355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Castle, S., & Watts, G. D. (1992). The tyranny of time. A Forum on School Transformation from the NEA National Center for Innovation, 7(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
  15. Chin, R., & Benne, K. (1969). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In W. Bennis, K. Benne & R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change (2nd ed.) (pp. 32–59). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Chisholm, L., Ndholvu, J., Mahomed, E., Lubisi, J, Ngozi, P., & Mphahlete, B. (2000). A South African curriculum for the twenty-first century: Report of the Review Committee of Curriculum 2000. Retrieved, August 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.polity.org.za
  17. Clark, G. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. G Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, D. (1994). Ten key principles for research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. B. Aichele & F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics (1994 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 37–48). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  19. Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2001). An approach to supporting teachers’ learning in social context. In F. Lin & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of teacher education (pp. 207–232). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & McNeal, E. (1993). Mathematics as procedural instruction and mathematics as meaningful activity: The reality of teaching for understanding. In R. Davis & C. Maher (Eds.), Schools, mathematics and the world of reality (pp. 119–134). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Cobb, P. Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 99–122.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, D., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works .New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Colvin, R. L. (1997, February 23). Why tiny Singapore is at the top of the class. Los Angeles Times. Google Scholar
  24. Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R. B. Davis, C. Maher & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph #4) (pp. 107–124). Reston, VA: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. Cooney, T. (1985). A beginning teacher’s view of problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 324–336.Google Scholar
  26. Croom, L. (1997). Mathematics for all students: Access, excellence and equity. In J. Trentacosta & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), Multicultural and gender equity in the mathematics classroom: The gift of diversity (1997 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 1–9). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  27. Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools (1980s to the present). In P. Jackson (Ed.), Contribution to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 85–106). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen.Google Scholar
  28. D’Ambrosio, U. (1997). Diversity, equity, and peace: from dream to reality. In J. Trentacosta & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), Multicultural and gender equity in the mathematics classroom: The gift of diversity (1997 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 243–348). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  29. Department of Education and Employment. (1998a). Numeracy matters: The preliminary report of the Numeracy Task Force. London: Department of Education and Employment.Google Scholar
  30. Department of Education and Employment. (1998b). The implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy: The Final Report of the Numeracy Task Force. London: Department of Education and Employment.Google Scholar
  31. Department of Education and Employment. (1999). The National Numeracy Strategy: Framework for teaching mathematics from Reception to Year 6. London: Department of Education and Employment.Google Scholar
  32. Department of Education and Skills. (2002). Organizing the daily mathematics lesson in Mixed Reception/Year 1 Classes. Retrieved August 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://ards.dfes.gov.uk
  33. Educational Resources Information Center. (1997). Striving for excellence: The national educational goals, Vol. III. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414633).Google Scholar
  34. Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P., & McCarthey, S. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Even, R. (1999a). Integrating academic and practical knowledge in a teacher leaders’ development program. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 235–252.Google Scholar
  36. Even, R. (1999b). The development of teacher-leaders and in-service teacher educators. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 3–24.Google Scholar
  37. Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (1995). Subject-matter knowledge and knowledge about students as sources of teacher presentations and subject matter. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 1–20.Google Scholar
  38. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Levi, L., Jacobs, V., & Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.Google Scholar
  39. Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. (Eds.) (1999). Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Fennema, E., Sowder, J., & Carpenter, T. (1999). Creating classrooms that promote understanding. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 185–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Ferrini-Mundy, J. (1997). Reform efforts in mathematics education: Reckoning with the realities. In S. Friel & G. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on our work: NSF teacher enhancement in K-6 Mathematics (pp.113–132). Lanham, MD: University Press America.Google Scholar
  42. Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Johnson, L. (1997). Highlights and implications. In J. Ferrini-Mundy & T. Schram (Eds.), The recognizing and recording reform in mathematics education project: insights, issues and implications (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph #8) (pp. 111-128). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  43. Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Schram, T. (Eds.) (1997). The recognizing and recoding reform in mathematics education projects: Insights, issues, and implications (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph #8). Reston, VA: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  44. Flavell, J. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Franke, M., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1997). Changing teachers: Interactions between beliefs and classroom practice. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 255–282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  47. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47, 335–397.Google Scholar
  48. Graham, K., & Johnson, L. (1998). What is the role of parents and community members? In J. Ferrini- Mundy, K. Graham, L. Johnson & G. Mills (Eds.), Making change in mathematics education: Learning from the field (pp. 73–86). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  49. Grant, S. G. (1998). Reforming reading, writing, and mathematics: Teachers’ responses and the prospects for systemic reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  50. Groves, S., & Stacey, K. (1998). Calculators in primary mathematics: Exploring numbers before teaching algorithms. In L. J. Morrow & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics (1998 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 120–129). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  51. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–12.Google Scholar
  52. Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73,290–294.Google Scholar
  53. Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (1999). Reflective processes in technology-based mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 65–91.Google Scholar
  54. Hino, K., & Shigematsu, K. (2002). A study of teacher change through inservice mathematics education programs in graduate school. In National Research Council, H. Bass, Z. Usiskin & G. Burrill (Eds.), Studying classroom teaching as a medium for professional development (pp. 35–45). Washington, D. C: Proceedings of a U.S.-Japan Workshop, Mathematical Sciences Education Board, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and U.S. National Commission on Mathematics Instruction, International Organizations Board. Press.Google Scholar
  55. Hord, S., & Loucks, S. (1980). A concerns-based model for the delivery of inservice. Austin: Texas University at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206620).Google Scholar
  56. Howson, G., Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum development in mathematics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Jacobs, J. E., & Becker, J. R. (1997). Creating a gender-equitable multicultural classroom using feminist pedagogy. In J. Trentacosta & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), Multicultural and gender equity in the mathematics classroom: The gift of diversity (1991 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 107–114). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  58. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  59. Jaworski, B. (1999). The plurality of knowledge growth in mathematics teaching. In B. Jaworski, T. Wood & S. Dawson (Eds.), Mathematics teacher education: Critical international perspectives (pp. 180–209). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  60. Jaworski, B. (2001). Developing mathematics teaching: Teachers, teacher educators and researchers as co-learners. In F. Lin & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 295–320). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  61. Jones, D. (1997). A conceptual framework for studying the relevance of context to mathematics teachers’ change. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 131–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  62. Kaiser, G., & Rogers, P. (1995). Equity in mathematics education: Influences of feminism and culture. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  63. Kearns, D. (1995). Business and industry perspective. In I. M. Carl (Ed.), Prospects for school mathematics (pp. 323–328). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  64. Kennedy, M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin at Madison, National Institute for Science Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Services, No. ED 435552).Google Scholar
  65. Kim, J. (1997). Republic of Korea. In D. Robitallile (Ed.). National contexts for mathematics and science education (pp. 226–234). Vancouver: Pacific Educational.Google Scholar
  66. Khisty, L. L. (1997). Making mathematics accessible to Latino students: Rethinking instructional practice. In J. Trentacosta & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), Multicultural and gender equity in the mathematics classroom: The gift of diversity (1997 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 92–101). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  67. Klein, R., Barkai, R., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (1998). Increasing teachers’ awareness of students’ conceptions of operations with rational numbers. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 120–127). Johannesburg, South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  68. Knapp, M. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamic of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 227–266.Google Scholar
  69. Koch, L. (1997). The growing pains of change: A case study of a third-grade teacher. In J. Ferrini-Mundy & T. Schram (Eds.), Recognizing and recording reform in a mathematics education project: Insights, issues and implications (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph 8) (pp. 87–109). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  70. Krainer, K. (1999). Guest editorial: Teacher growth and school development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(3), 223–225.Google Scholar
  71. Krainer, K. (2001). Teachers’ Growth is more than the growth of individual teachers: The case of Gisela. In F. Lin & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of teacher education (pp. 271–294). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  72. Laborde, C. (2001). The use of new technologies as a vehicle for restructuring teachers’ mathematics. In F. Lin & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of teacher education (pp. 87–110). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  73. Lampert, M. (1993). Teacher’s thinking about students’ thinking about geometry: The effects of new teaching tools. In J. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 143–177). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  74. Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 527–569). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. Leder, G., & Sampson, N. (Eds.) (1989). Educating girls: Practice and research. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  76. Lerman, S. (2001). A review of research perspectives on mathematics teacher education. In F. Lin & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of teacher education (pp. 33–52): Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  77. Little, J. K. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325–340.Google Scholar
  78. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., & Hewson, P. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis of standards. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin at Madison, National Institute for Science Education.Google Scholar
  80. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. S. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  81. Lubinski, C, & Jaberg, P. (1997). Teacher change and mathematics K-4: Developing a theoretical perspective. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 223–254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  82. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  83. Markovits, Z., & Even, R. (1999). Mathematics classroom situations: An inservice course for elementary school teachers. In B. Jaworski., T. Wood & S. Dawson (Eds.), Mathematics teacher education: Critical international perspectives (pp. 59–67). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  84. Markovitz, Z (in press). Analyzing mathematics classroom situations. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Mofet (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  85. McHenry, K. (1992). Mathematics education: An industrial view. In I. Wirzup & R. Streit (Eds.), Developments in school mathematics education around the world (Vol. 3, pp. 14–24). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  86. Mevarech, Z. (1995). Teachers’ paths on the way to and from the professional development forum. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 151–170). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  87. Ministry of Education. (1993). Tomorrow 1998. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  88. Miyake, M., & Nagasaki, E. (1997). Japan. In D. Robitallile (Ed.), National contexts for mathematics and science education (pp. 218–225). Vancouver: Pacific Educational.Google Scholar
  89. Morgan, C. (2000). Better assessment in mathematics education: A social perspective. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–242). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  90. Moses, R., Kamii, M., McAllister, S., & Howard, J. (1989). The Algebra Project: Organizing in the spirit of Ella. Harvard Educational Review, 59(4), 423–443.Google Scholar
  91. Nachmias, R., Midouser, D., & Shemla, A. (2001). Information and communication technologies usage by school students in an Israeli school: Equity, gender, and inside/outside school learning issues. Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 43–53.Google Scholar
  92. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it’s too late. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center.Google Scholar
  93. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  94. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  95. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  96. National Research Council (1997). Learning from TIMSS: Results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Washington, D. C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  97. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee. Washington, D. C.: Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  98. National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation, Directorate for Education and Human Resources (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED404158).Google Scholar
  99. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  100. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1997). Moderator’s guide to eighth-grade mathematics lessons: United States, Japan, and Germany. Washington, D. C: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  101. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2000). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  102. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.Google Scholar
  103. Pelgrum, W., & Anderson, R. (Eds.) (1999). ICT and the emerging paradigm for lifelong learning: A worldwide educational assessment of infrastructure, goals and practices. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Evaluation Association (IEA).Google Scholar
  104. Ponte, J. P., Matos, J. F., Guimarães, H. M., Leal, L. C., & Canavarro, A. P. (1994). Teachers’ and students’ views and attitudes towards a new mathematics curriculum: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, 347–365.Google Scholar
  105. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.Google Scholar
  106. Prawat, R. (1992). Are changes in views about mathematics teaching sufficient? The case of a fifth-grade teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 93(2), 195–211.Google Scholar
  107. Putnam, R. T., Lampert, M., & Peterson, P. L. (1990). Alternative perspectives on knowing mathematics in elementary schools. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 57–150). Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  108. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 905–947). Washington, D. C: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  109. Romberg, T. (1997). Mathematics in context: Impact on teachers. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 357–380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  110. Romberg, T., Zarinnia, E., & Williams, S. (1989). The influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade 8 teachers’ perceptions. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education.Google Scholar
  111. Ruthven, K. (1999). Constructing a calculator-aware number curriculum: The challenges of systematic design and systematic reform. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, 56–71.). Haifa, Israel: Technion Printing Center.Google Scholar
  112. Sarason, S. B. (1971, The culture of the school and the problem of change. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  113. Schifter, D. (1998). Learning mathematics for teaching: From a teachers’ seminar to the classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 1, 55–87.Google Scholar
  114. Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  115. Schmidt, W., McKnight, C, Cogan, L., Jakwerth, P., & Houang, R. (1999). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at US Mathematics and Science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  116. Schuck, S. (1999, April). Driving a mathematics education reform with unwilling passengers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED431734).Google Scholar
  117. Schwan Smith, M. (2001). Practice-based professional development for teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  118. Secada, W., Fennema, E., & Adajian, L. (Eds.) (1995). New directions for equity in mathematics education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (in collaboration with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics).Google Scholar
  119. Servant, A. (1997). France. In D. Robitallile (Ed.), National contexts for mathematics and science education. Vancouver: Pacific Educational.Google Scholar
  120. Shuard, H., Walsh, A., Goodwin, J., & Worcester, V. (1991). Calculators, children and mathematics. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  121. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  122. Simon, M., & Schifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Educational Studies in Mathematics 23, 309–331.Google Scholar
  123. Skott, J. (2000). The forced autonomy of mathematics teachers. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 169–176). Hiroshima, Japan: Nishiki.Google Scholar
  124. Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (2001). Breaking political neutrality: The critical engagement of mathematics education with democracy. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz & B. Nebres (Eds.), Socio-cultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective (pp. 37–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  125. South Africa Ministry of Education. (1997). Curriculum 2005. Retrieved August 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.polity.org.za.
  126. Sowder, J. T, Phillips, R. A., Armstrong, B. E., & Schappelle, B. (1998). Middle-grade teachers’ mathematical knowledge and its relationship to instruction. Albany, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  127. Sparks, G. M. (1988). Teachers’ attitudes toward change and subsequent improvements in classroom teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 111–117.Google Scholar
  128. Stein, M., & Brown, C. (1997). Teacher learning in a social context: Integrating collaborative and institutional processes with the study of teacher change. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics Teachers in Transition (pp. 155–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  129. Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., & Stigler, J. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science, 231, 693–699.Google Scholar
  130. Stevenson, H. W., & Nerison-Low, R. (2000). To sum it up: TIMSS case studies of education in Germany, Japan and the United States. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  131. Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap. New York: Summit Books.Google Scholar
  132. Stigler, J., & Baranes, R. (1988). Culture and mathematics learning. In E. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 15, pp. 253–306). Washington, D. G: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  133. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS Video Project. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 14–21.Google Scholar
  134. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  135. Strauss, V. (2000). Looking East for math techniques. Retrieved August 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.washingtonpost.com.
  136. Swafford, J., Jones, G., & Thornton, C. (1997). Increased knowledge in geometry and instructional practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 467–483.Google Scholar
  137. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the NET-generation, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  138. Thompson, A. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics teaching to instruc-tional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–127.Google Scholar
  139. Thompson, A. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handhook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  140. Trentacosta, J., & Kenney, M. J. (Eds.) (1997). Multicultural and gender equity in the mathematics classroom: The gift of diversity (1997 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  141. Undervisningsministeriet (1995). Matematik faghoefte 12. Kobenhavn: Undervisnings-ministeriet.Google Scholar
  142. Valero, P., & Jess, K. (2000). Supporting change through a mathematics team forum for teachers’ professional development. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.4, 249–256). Hiroshima, Japan: Nishiki.Google Scholar
  143. Waits, B., & Demana, F. (2000). Calculators in mathematics teaching and learning: Past, present and future. In M. Burke & F. Curcio (Eds.), Learning mathematics for a new century (pp. 51–66). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  144. Webb, N. L. (1992). Assessment of students’ knowledge of mathematics: steps toward a theory. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 661–683). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  145. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.Google Scholar
  146. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27,458–477.Google Scholar
  147. Yerushalmy, M., Chazan, D., & Gordon, M. (1993). Posing problems: One aspect of bringing inquiry into the classroom. In J. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 117–142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  148. Yingkang, U. (2002). The impact of Excel on the school mathematics curriculum. In D. Edge & Y. Hap (Eds.), Knowledge education for a knowledge-based era (pp. 479–485). Singapore: The Association of Mathematics Educators.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dina Tirosh
    • 1
  • Anna O. Graeber
    • 2
  1. 1.Tel-Aviv UniversityIsrael
  2. 2.University of MarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations