Research Framework on
Mathematics Teacher Behaviour:
Koehler and Grouws’ Framework
Revisited

Suriza van der Sandt

doi:10.12973/ejmste/75413

Research Framework on Mathematics Teacher Behaviour: Koehler and Grouws’ Framework Revisited

Full Text (PDF)

Suriza van der Sandt ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ , USA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Educational reform centres on changing teacher behaviour, as it is teachers who filter through the curriculum to learners. Educational reform could therefore be viewed as reforming or changing teacher behaviour. This article investigates some of the factors influencing teachers’ behaviour namely knowledge, attitude and views and beliefs. The complexity of research on teaching and teacher education is addressed by focusing on the elements of three factors as well as the relationship between these influencing factors. A research framework on teacher behaviour is presented, in an effort to expand the theoretical understanding of the factors influencing teacher behaviour and to guide future teacher education.

Keywords

teacher attitude
teacher behaviour
teacher beliefs
teacher knowledge

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2007, Volume 3, Issue 4, 343-350

https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75413

Publication date: 23 Dec 2007

Article Views: 1996

Article Downloads: 1223

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Ball, D.L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.
Ball, D.L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241-247.
Ball, D.L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics of Teaching and Learning. (pp. 83- 104). Westport, Conn.: Ablex Publishing.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teaching and learning mathematics: Where research should be going. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(5), 323-346.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1992). A constructivist approach to second grade mathematics. In E. Von Glasersfeld (Ed.) Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cobb, P., & Bauserfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 73-77.
Dada, S., & Alant, E. (2002). A comparative study of the attitudes of teachers at special and educationally inclusive schools towards learners with little or no functional speech using communication devices. South African Journal of Education, 22(3), 213-218.
De Jong, O., & Brinkman, F. (1997). Teacher thinking and conceptual change in science and mathematics education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20(2), 121-124.
Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(1), 13-33.
Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (pp. 147-164). New York: Macmillan.
Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers’ view of pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 429-442.
Geddis, A. N., & Wood, E. (1997). Transforming subject matter and managing dilemmas: A case study in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6), 611-626.
Harland, J., & Kinder, K. (1997). Teachers’ continuing professional development: Framing a model of outcomes. British Journal of In-Service Education, 23(1), 71- 84.
Jegede, O., Taplin, M., & Chan, S. (2000). Trainee teachers’ perception of their knowledge about expert teaching. Educational Research, 42(3), 287-308.
Kanes, C., & Nisbet, S. (1996). Mathematics-teachers’ knowledge bases: Implications for teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 159.
Koehler, M. S., & Grouws, D. A. (1992). Mathematics teaching practices and their effects. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (pp. 115-125). New York: Macmillan.
Kong, S., & Kwok, L. (1999). An intensive teaching and learning environment for graph sketching. Computers and Education, 32, 1-17.
Leung, F. K. S. (1995). The mathematics classroom in Beijing, Hong Kong and London. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 297-325.
Manouchehri, A. (1997). School mathematics reform: Implications for mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), 197.
Manouchehri, A., & Enderson, M. C. (2003). The utility of case study methodology in mathematics teacher preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(1), 113-135.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and behaviours: What really matters? Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 3-15.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ormrod, J. E., & Cole, D. B. (1996). Teaching content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: A model from geography education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 37.
Penso, S. (2002). Pedagogical content knowledge: How do student teachers identify and describe the causes of their pupils learning difficulties. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 25-37.
Quinn, R. J. (1998). Effects of mathematics methods courses on the mathematical attitudes and content knowledge of preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 108.
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What largescale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the “Prospects” study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2001). Mathematics education in the twentieth century. In L. Corno (Ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume. (pp. 239-278). Chicago, Ill.: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories: An educational perspective (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1- 22.
Thompson, A.G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105-127.
Thompson, A.G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (pp. 147-164). New York: Macmillan.
Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert teaching: Knowledge and pedagogy to lead the profession. London: David Fulton.

How to cite this article

APA

van der Sandt, S. (2007). Research Framework on Mathematics Teacher Behaviour: Koehler and Grouws’ Framework Revisited. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 343-350. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75413

Vancouver

van der Sandt S. Research Framework on Mathematics Teacher Behaviour: Koehler and Grouws’ Framework Revisited. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2007;3(4):343-50. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75413

AMA

van der Sandt S. Research Framework on Mathematics Teacher Behaviour: Koehler and Grouws’ Framework Revisited. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2007;3(4), 343-350. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75413

Chicago

van der Sandt, Suriza. "Research Framework on Mathematics Teacher Behaviour: Koehler and Grouws’ Framework Revisited". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2007 3 no. 4 (2007): 343-350. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75413

Harvard

van der Sandt, S. (2007). Research Framework on Mathematics Teacher Behaviour: Koehler and Grouws’ Framework Revisited. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), pp. 343-350. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75413

MLA

van der Sandt, Suriza "Research Framework on Mathematics Teacher Behaviour: Koehler and Grouws’ Framework Revisited". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 3, no. 4, 2007, pp. 343-350. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75413