J Math Teacher Educ DOI 10.

1007/s10857-011-9194-8

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers approaches to teaching the topic of area
Carol Murphy

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract The relationship between primary teachers subject knowledge and their approaches to teaching is an ongoing concern. This study reviews the relationship between prospective teachers subject knowledge in the topic of area and their approaches to teaching that topic. The research presents case studies of four primary prospective teachers on a 1-year postgraduate teaching course. The strengths and limitations of their subject knowledge are examined, in relation to their selection of teaching activities. The results suggest connections between these strengths and limitations, in relation to espoused teaching activities and pedagogical orientations. This questions the assumption that secure subject knowledge is necessarily transformed into effective teaching and concurs with other research that suggests other factors may be involved, such as knowledge of learners. Keywords Elementary mathematics education Teacher knowledge Area measurement

Introduction If we see teaching fundamentally as an exchange of ideas, it would seem evident that a teachers understanding of a topic will impact on how the idea is shaped or tailored when presented in a classroom. As such, teaching necessarily begins with a teachers understanding of what is to be learned and how it is to be taught (Shulman 1987, p. 7). Shulmans model of transformation and pedagogical reasoning emphasized the transformation of a teachers knowledge of a subject into pedagogical content knowledge and consequent pedagogical actions by taking what he or she understands and making it ready for effective instruction (p. 14). More recently, researchers, such as Ball et al. (2001), have
C. Murphy (&) Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK e-mail: C.M.Murphy@ex.ac.uk; carolmm@waikato.ac.nz Present Address: C. Murphy Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Knighton Road, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand

123

C. Murphy

also identied the importance of subject knowledge in the preparation of teaching activities. Mathematical content knowledge is said to be intertwined with knowledge of teaching and learning (Ball and Bass 2003), and that this develops a knowledge that is qualitatively different from the knowledge of mathematics that prospective teachers bring to their training. Recent studies, such as Hill et al. (2005), suggest that it is not knowledge of content, but knowledge of how to teach the content that is inuential in considering teacher effectiveness. It is generally accepted that mathematics should be taught with understanding (Hiebert and Lefevre 1986; Skemp 1976), so that children move beyond knowledge of procedures and develop an understanding that enables them to become active learners, who can monitor their own use of mathematical procedures. In a topic, such as area, children often use procedures in a passive way and rely on the use of formulae with little understanding of the mathematical concepts involved (Dickson et al. 1984). They are unable to see the reasonableness of their answers and so are unable to monitor their own use of procedures. There is evidence that prospective teachers have a similar reliance on formulae and procedures in the topic of area (Baturo and Nason 1996; Tierney et al. 1990). Similarly, research has shown that prospective teachers rely on procedures in other areas of mathematics, such as functions (Chinnapan and Thomas 2003) and division (Rizvi 2004). The accepted importance of subject knowledge would suggest that a teacher, with limited understanding of the mathematical concepts, would not be effective in developing childrens understanding for a topic. Studies, such as Berenson et al. (1997), have found that many prospective teachers represented the topic of area through the demonstration of procedures and the use of formulae, rather than focusing on activities that would support understanding. What we do not know is whether these were the prospective teachers who, themselves, had limited understanding.

Transforming subject knowledge in the teaching of mathematics Shulmans seminal work in the 1980s proposed seven categories of teacher knowledge. Four generic categories were given as general pedagogic knowledge, knowledge of learners, knowledge of context, and knowledge of the purpose of teaching and learning. Three content-specic categories were given as subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curriculum knowledge (Shulman 1986). In studying the relationship between prospective teachers understanding and their approaches to teaching a topic, the main interest of this study is the relationship between subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. However, this does not deny that there are interrelationships with the four generic categories and knowledge of the curriculum. Shulman further divided subject matter knowledge into substantive knowledge and syntactic knowledge. Substantive knowledge refers to knowledge of facts, concepts, and processes of the topics in mathematics and to knowledge of connections between the topics. Syntactic knowledge refers to the knowledge of mathematics as a discipline. That is, knowing how mathematical truths are established and knowing the process of mathematics as inquiry. Shulmans transformation model emphasized how subject matter knowledge is transformed into pedagogical content knowledge. That is, knowledge of how to teach a topic of mathematics and how to make the mathematical ideas of a topic accessible to learners. This would include how to use resources and representations, and how to explain ideas. Studies have shown that there is no direct relationship between teachers qualications in mathematics and their effectiveness in teaching (Askew et al. 1997; Begel 1979), but, within

123

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers

the model of transformation, it would seem obvious that you cannot teach what you do not know. Knowledge of mathematics is obviously fundamental to being able to help someone else learn it. In order to select and construct fruitful tasks and activities for their pupils teachers must understand the mathematical concepts and procedures themselves. (Ball 1988, p. 17) Further studies have shown that it is knowledge-specic to teaching that facilitates effective teaching. Hill et al. (2005) indicated that pupils made greater progress where teachers had stronger knowledge for teaching. So what do we mean by knowledge specic to teaching? Ma (1999) dened the knowledge for teaching in elementary or primary schools as deep knowledge of the mathematics at the level that it is being taught or Profound Understanding in Fundamental Mathematics (PUFM). It has also been suggested that primary prospective teachers, who have good knowledge of the primary mathematics content, are more effective. Rowland et al. (2001) study indicated that there was a correlation between prospective teachers scores on an audit related to primary content knowledge and their mathematics teaching, as assessed on school practices. Studies have also indicated the importance of the interplay between the generic category of knowledge of learners and subject matter knowledge. Work by Aubrey (1997) suggested that those teachers, who had a greater knowledge of how children understand mathematics, were more effective. Similarly, Ball et al. (2005) acknowledged the recognition of children as learners as key in developing specialized content knowledge for teaching. All these suggest that there is a difference between having good subject knowledge, as a mathematician to solve problems for oneself, and having good subject knowledge to teach mathematics. The latter requires profound understanding of the mathematical content and knowledge of how children understand, so that the children can solve problems for themselves. Further to this is the acknowledgment of syntactic knowledge, how teachers perceive mathematics as a discipline, and how these perceptions relate to substantive knowledge and to knowledge of learners, within a specic content knowledge. Ambrose (2004) has suggested that prospective teachers often believe that the teaching of mathematics is straightforward and that it involves explaining the mathematics that they know clearly to their pupils. There is a tendency to stress the importance of knowing mathematics and to relate this knowing to the skillful and accurate use of procedures, albeit with connections to basic concepts (Thompson 1992). Ernest (1989) and Thompson (1992) have proposed an alternative view of mathematics. Based on the sociological perspective of mathematics as a eld of human enquiry, knowledge is seen as dynamic, driven by mental activity and problem solving. Mathematical ideas are explored, and children are engaged in activities that assist them in constructing these ideas. Stipek et al.s (2001) empirical study indicated associations between these two dimensions, knowing and enquiry, and teachers instruction. Their study also suggested that less condent teachers were more likely to be oriented toward mathematics as knowing, due to the lack of condence in dealing with the questions that might be asked through an enquiry-based approach. Berenson et al.s (1997) study examined how primary prospective teachers plan to use representations in their teaching and how these uses reected subject matter knowledge. The study showed that many prospective teachers planned to explain mathematical ideas through the use of procedures and formulae. Later studies by Rowland et al. (2009) have used classroom observations to examine primary prospective teachers use of representations. Using an empirical framework based on four categories of knowledge, or the

123

C. Murphy

Knowledge Quartet, the studies have illustrated prospective teachers subject, or foundation knowledge, by analyzing the teaching examples and representations that the prospective teachers used. While these studies have shown that the effectiveness of prospective teachers representations can be used to infer subject knowledge, how subject knowledge is transformed into teaching has still not been explored to a large extent. This study relates prospective primary teachers approaches to teaching to their own substantive and syntactic subject matter knowledge, in a more direct way. By examining prospective teachers strengths and limitations in their knowledge of the topic of area and their approaches to teaching that topic, this research examines evidence of how subject knowledge might directly inuence the selection of teaching examples.

Developing an understanding of area measurement Area measurement is a commonly known but less well-understood topic in mathematics. As a concept, it is more abstract than other measures, such as linear, and, although pupils may have an intuitive notion of area, they often lack a conceptual basis in dening it. The topic of area also provides opportunities to work in the concrete and in the abstract. In these respects, it would seem a good choice for examining prospective teachers subject matter knowledge and their approaches to teaching. Measuring area is based on the notion of space lling (Nitabach and Lehrer 1996). Unlike childrens other common experiences of measure such as length, the use of a ruler in measuring area does not directly model this notion. In this way, instruction that focuses on procedural competence with measuring tools such as rulers falls short in helping children develop an understanding of space (p. 473), and it is not surprising that many children confuse area and perimeter (Dickson et al. 1984). Instruction that models the counting of squares on grids provides more success. It may represent the notion of space lling, but does not represent the full nature of area. As Dickson et al. (1984) commented, the possible restriction to a discrete, rather than a continuous view of area measure, might not lead to the notion of p and the formula of the area of a circle. Further to this, gures used as representations in the classroom often provide a static, rather than a dynamic view. That is, as a boundary approaches a line, the area approaches zero (Baturo and Nason 1996). This may lead to misconceptions about the conservation of perimeter and area. The recognition of such a misconception goes back, at least, to the 1960s with Lunzers (1968) notion of false conservation. This false notion has more recently been cited by Stavy and Tirosh (1996) as an example of the intuitive rule more A, more B, in that as the perimeter increases, so the area will increase. Alternatively, the intuitive rule can be manifested as same A, same B, in that the same perimeter will mean the same area. Within Freudenthals (1983) view of mathematics as human activity and enquiry, the suggested approach to teaching area reects the notion of sharing out the region. In this way, the childrens learning reects the development of the unit as a human problem in nding an efcient and effective way to measure area. Battista (1982) provided concrete examples by using shapes of cloth or material, which can be compared by overlaying one over the other. Where shapes are irregular, one shape can be cut into smaller pieces to attempt to cover and compare the two regions. This can support the notion that the measurement is never exact and that, the smaller the cut pieces, the more accurate the measurement. This can then lead to the realization that a square region provides a useful standard unit, as it can be represented as a rectangular array and linked to multiplication.

123

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers

Although the teaching of the topic of area in the primary classroom often involves practical activities, the activities rarely involve the development of the unit of area through a human enquiry approach, and it has been found that many children at the beginning of secondary schools take procedural approaches to the solution of area measurement problems (Lehrer and Chazan 1998). These approaches rely on the knowledge of facts and recall of procedures, rather than the concept of area. It would also seem that, once introduced to the use of formulae, children have a tendency to use these regardless of the success of their answers (Dickson 1989). Studies such as Pesek and Kirshner (2000) and Zacharos (2006) suggested that, where instruction involved procedural competence and use of formulae, children would insist on repeating strategies that caused errors. Children often had difculty in interpreting the physical meaning of the numerical representation of area (Zacharos, p. 229). Where instruction was based on measuring, such as dividing rectangles into squares, children demonstrated exible methods of constructing solutions and often achieved more success. The studies suggested that the early teaching of formulae presented interference of prior learning (Pesek and Kirshner) or instructive obstacles (Zacharos). Such interference or obstacles could explain why many children, at the beginning of secondary school, take procedural approaches to the solution of area measurement problems (Lehrer and Chazan 1998). If these issues have been identied at school level, it becomes important to establish whether prospective teachers have a similar reliance on procedures. Studies have examined prospective teachers subject knowledge in the topic of area (Baturo and Nason 1996; Tierney et al. 1990) and found that prospective teachers often demonstrated a lack of understanding of how practical concrete experiences could relate to the use of formulae and of how area measure evolves from linear measure. They were often uncertain about the reasonableness of their answers and were unable to explain how formulae were related. How might this reliance play a role in transforming knowledge into teaching? This study examines how prospective teachers subject knowledge inuences their approach to teaching the topic of area. If they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the topic and a reliance on formulae, does their teaching of the topic focus on the teaching of formulae, hence, limiting the use of inquiry? If prospective teachers demonstrate a secure knowledge of the topic, does their teaching focus on developing activities to support the notion of area as space lling, suggesting a more enquiry-based approach? As an interpretive study, the intention is not to generalize any relationship, but to examine phenomena. Four prospective teachers are presented as case studies, in which the differences and similarities in their understanding are examined in relation to how they plan to teach the topic.

The study The four prospective teachers involved in this study had varied backgrounds in mathematics, but, as they had volunteered to take part in the study, it is assumed that they did not include the least condent. At the time of the study, they had completed the taught university-based element of a 1-year post graduate certicate in education (PGCE) course and they were about to start their nal teaching practice. The prospective teachers had attended workshop seminars on the teaching of primary mathematics. Although key principles of measurement had been met on the course, there had not been a direct focus on the teaching of area. All four prospective teachers had the same course tutor, so they would have followed the same content in their mathematics seminars. The prospective teachers were also reassured that the work for this project would not be used as part of their course assessment.

123

C. Murphy

Clinical interviews were carried out with each of the prospective teachers to reveal underlying processes in their understanding (Swanson et al. 1981). Ginsburg (1997) described the clinical interview as deliberately non-standardized (p. 2) and explained that this non-standardization allows the interviewer to examine understanding. The interviewer makes judgments on the responses and modies the questioning, in order to engage further with the interpretation of the participants understanding. The rst part of the interview examined the prospective teachers lesson plans to determine the activities they would use to introduce the topic of area. The second part of the interview involved the use of mathematical tasks to channel activities and responses, in order to investigate the nature of the prospective teachers understanding in the topic of area. Some standardization was employed in the form of probing questions about the lesson plan and the mathematical tasks. In keeping with the level of interpretation possible through the clinical interview, interrogation was managed exibly in order to be contingent with the prospective teachers responses. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. The use of lesson plans Planning is central to teaching, and the development of lesson plans is a key aspect of teacher training. Lesson plans provide a source of data in assessing prospective teachers professional development. They can also provide useful cues in follow-up interviews when the activities, explanations, and questions used by the prospective teachers help to generate further descriptions (Berenson et al. 1997; John 1991). Although lesson plans are limited to demonstrating prospective teachers espoused theory of action (Argyris and Schon 1974), they can be seen as effective in indicating prospective teachers selection of teaching activities and can be used to examine the connections with subject knowledge. The prospective teachers were asked to plan a lesson to introduce the topic of area to a year 4 class (89 years old). The prospective teachers were advised that they could use any sources they normally would to help plan the lesson, the only restriction being that the ideas should be their own or their own interpretation of teaching ideas from the sources. In the interview, the prospective teachers were questioned about the lesson plan in relation to: 1. How the activities had been developed (for example, was it from their own experiences as pupils, observed teaching from a school practice, use of a teacher resource book, or an original idea). 2. How the activities would facilitate the childrens learning. 3. The instructions or explanations that would be given. 4. The questions that would be asked. 5. Anticipation of any difculties the children might encounter. 6. How the childrens learning would be assessed. Area measurement tasks The second part of the interview involved four tasks, adapted from Baturo and Nasons (1996) and Tierney et al.s (1990) studies, to ascertain the subject knowledge of the prospective teachers. Task 1 (adapted from Baturo and Nason 1996) includes both open and closed shapes to test prospective teachers understanding of the notion of area (see Fig. 1). The prospective teachers were asked to tick the shapes that have an area. Further questions were asked such as Why did you select this shape?, Why didnt you select this shape?, and What part

123

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers

Fig. 1 Task 1 (adapted from Baturo and Nason 1996)

Fig. 2 Task 2 (adapted from Baturo and Nason 1996) shapes not drawn to scale

Fig. 3 Task 3 (adapted from Tierney et al. 1990) shapes not drawn to scale

of this shape (a solid shape) would you measure to nd an area? Shapes E and G were included to test the ability to differentiate between area and volume, Shape J to test the notion of area as the amount of surface that is enclosed within a boundary, and Shapes F and H to test the understanding of area from a dynamic perspective. Task 2 (adapted from Baturo and Nason 1996) was designed to test the ability to compare areas, initially without the use of the formulae (see Fig. 2). The prospective teachers were presented with two pairs of cardboard shapes. Dimensions were not given. Comparison by visual inspection alone would be inconclusive, so the prospective teachers were asked to consider ways to compare area. This was used to determine whether the prospective teachers were able to use measuring processes, which did not involve external measures or use of the formulae. Task 3 (adapted from Tierney et al. 1990) was intended to determine a dynamic view of area and the ability to consider changes in area and perimeter (see Fig. 3). The prospective teachers were given three cardboard shapes and were asked to put them in order of area. Dimensions were not given.

123

C. Murphy

Fig. 4 Task 4 (adapted from Baturo and Nason 1996) shapes not drawn to scale

Shape 1: a rectangle 9 cm by 4 cm. Shape 2: a parallelogram, where the area is the same as the rectangle but the perimeter has changed (base 9 cm and height 4 cm). Shape 3: a parallelogram, where the perimeter is the same as the rectangle but the area has changed. Task 4 (adapted from Baturo and Nason 1996) aimed to test the correct use of the formulae. It also tested for an understanding of the relationship with non-rectangular gures, including the use of the ratio p (see Fig. 4). In this task, the prospective teachers were asked to calculate the area of each shape. They were given the dimensions of the shapes.

Results and analysis The results are presented as four case studies: Simon, Alan, Hannah, and Charlotte. Information on each prospective teachers academic background is provided, followed by a summary of his or her responses to the tasks and a summary of his or her explanations of the lesson plan. Simon Simons highest qualications in mathematics were the preliminary level of the International Baccalaureate and the Advanced Level General Certicate of Education in further mathematics (the standard entry qualication for academic courses in UK universities, normally taken at age 1718). Simon felt condent in his knowledge of the topic in planning the lesson.

123

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers

Simons responses to the area measurement tasks Task 1 Simon correctly identied the shapes that had an area. He dened area as, a space in two dimensions that can be lled, and used the analogy of ll in computer graphics. He used this reasoning to explain that some shapes were not closed so could not be lled, but did not recognize the areas of these shapes as zero. He was aware that you could measure the 2D area of a 3D shape. Task 2 Simon initially attempted this through estimation by looking at the two shapes in each pair, then by placing one over the other. He also folded the shapes in half, to see whether that helped. He suggested that one way would be to count squares on the shapes or to partition into simpler shapes and use the formulae. Simon was able to use the formulae for nding the area of a triangle and area of a circle. He discussed p as an irrational number. Task 3 Simon placed the parallelograms (Shapes 2 and 3) on top of the rectangle (Shape 1) and recognized where the parallelogram (Shape 2) had the same height as the rectangle, hence the same area. He knew how to convert a parallelogram into a rectangle, in order to calculate the area. Task 4 Simon made quick accurate calculations. He was able to explain the area of a triangle, in relation to a rectangle, and explained that p was an abstract value that happens to t. Simons lesson plan 1. How the activities had been developed. Simons lesson plan was based on one he had taught in a previous practice and on planning support material from the Primary National Strategy (DfES 2006). He aimed to nd the area of shapes drawn on a grid by counting squares. He did not intend to introduce the formula to all children, but would introduce this with the higher attaining children. He would start with some practice of multiplication facts. 2. How the activities would facilitate the childrens learning. In the previous lesson, Simon had been disappointed that the children did not see the need to count the squares, so he intended to model counting squares in a rectangle on a transparent grid. 3. The instructions or explanations that would be given. Simon intended to question the children by asking, How many squares make up this shape? in order to emphasize area. 4. The questions that would be asked. Simon would interchange questions between how many squares and what is the area with different examples. 5. Anticipation of any difculties the children might encounter. Simon was concerned how the pupils would relate linear measures to area and explained, When we measure in two directions we call it squared and put the 2 above the unit. 6. How the childrens learning would be assessed. Simon intended to mark the childrens work to see whether children counted the squares to nd the area. He also intended to ask higher attaining children to list the dimensions of the rectangles and whether they could nd a quick way of working it out. Summary of Simons interview Simons qualications in mathematics were higher than that required for entry onto a PGCE course, and he was very condent of his subject knowledge. Simon showed an understanding of area as space lling. He did not recognize the dynamic view of area in Task 1,

123

C. Murphy

but did realize this in Task 3. Simon used estimation and the notion of covering, in the rst instance, to estimate area. He was aware of the relationships between the formulae and was able to use the procedures accurately. He was familiar with the notion of p as a ratio and how it is derived, suggesting an understanding of a continuous view of area measure. It would seem that Simon saw a need to link practical counting activities with conventions such as use of units. His instruction would model the counting of squares on grids to represent the notion of space lling, but in a discrete and static way. His questioning would reinforce the connections between counting and area. Simon seemed aware of the difculties in using two-dimensional measures and of childrens understanding of the unit. It seemed that he intended to encourage higher attaining pupils to generalize in nding a quicker way. Alan Alans highest qualication in mathematics was the Advanced Level General Certicate of Education in mathematics, taken 5 years previously. He felt that his condence level in the topic was moderate to high. Alans responses to the area measurement tasks Task 1 Alan correctly identied shapes that had an area, including the surface area of 3D shapes. He dened a shape to have area if there was a line that joined, if the shape could cover something, or if it would need a certain amount of material. If the shape was open, he dened this as a line, because it was not joined, but he did not establish the line as having an area of zero. Task 2 Initially, Alan felt he could not answer the problem from a visual inspection because, as he said, It is a close one. In order to test this, he asked to measure the dimensions and use the formulae. He did then suggest you could use squared paper and that the triangle could be cut to make a rectangle. He also considered putting the shapes side by side to compare the dimensions. Task 3 Alans immediate response was to measure the dimensions and use the formulae to compare the areas. He then suggested that you could check by putting one on top of each other to compare the lengths and the heights. Task 4 Alan made quick accurate calculations. He gave an explanation of the area of a triangle in relation to a rectangle. If it wasnt divided by 2 it would be a rectangle. He explained that p was 3.14 rounded and that the Babylonians had found an answer that tted. Alans lesson plan 1. How the activities had been developed. Alan had observed the teaching of perimeter to a class of nine to 10-year-old children, where the children had been shown how to calculate the length around a shape. He also based the lesson on the planning support from the Primary National Strategy (DfES 2006). 2. How the activities would facilitate the childrens learning. Alan planned to start the lesson by passing 2D shapes around the class so that the children could feel the shapes and look at them. He would ask the children to nd as many facts as they could. He would then model how to nd the area of shapes to the children.

123

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers

3. The instructions or explanations that would be given. Alan explained he would, Think out loud; rst this side, then this side, and multiply together. He would then show the children how they could check by counting squares. 4. The questions that would be asked. Alan planned to ask, What units will you use?, but saw that he might have to tell the children. He would use unit2 or cm2 and would tell the children, The little 2 means squared. 5. Anticipation of any difculties the children might encounter. Alan was aware that the children might confuse perimeter with area and that they might add lengths together, rather than multiply. In order to address this, he would reinforce the modeling, using a ruler to measure the lengths of the sides, and ask if the children thought cm or cm2 would be a sensible answer. 6. How the childrens learning would be assessed. Alan would ask the children to carry out independent activities with different rectangles. He would then ask, Can you draw a different shape with the same area? He would discuss ordering the areas of rectangles and to look at composite shapes asking, What happens when they are joined? He also suggested use of different units, such as using m2, to nd the area of the classroom. Summary of Alans interview Alans qualication in mathematics was higher than that required for entry onto a PGCE course, and he felt condent about his subject knowledge. Alan showed an understanding of area as covering. He did not recognize the dynamic view of area in Task 1, and it is not clear whether he realized this in Task 3. Although Alan might have estimated by sight, his rst resort was to measure the dimensions and to calculate the area using the formulae. He was aware of the relationships between the formulae and was able to use the procedures accurately. He was familiar with the use of p and indicated some idea of how it had been derived, but this did not suggest a continuous view of area measurement. It would seem that Alan focused on modeling and explaining with an emphasis on how to use facts to calculate and solve problems. His links to the notion of space lling was given as a procedure to check the calculation, rather than to support a concept of area. He did have a concern that the children may have confusions, such as perimeter and area, but he did not consider how connections with the concept of space lling could support this. Alan does consider using further examples, but it is not clear whether Alan intends to use these in a general way or to check whether the children are using the formula correctly. Hannah Hannahs highest qualication in mathematics is the Advanced Level General Certicate of Education in mathematics, taken 5 years previously. Hannah felt that her condence level in the topic was moderate in planning the lesson. Hannahs responses to the area measurement tasks Task 1 Hannah correctly identied the shapes that had area. Hannah talked about these shapes as enclosed, and that a shape, such as Shape J, was not enclosed. Hannah was unable to decide whether an unenclosed shape had an area, but did suggest it might be innite. She identied the surface area of the 3D shapes.

123

C. Murphy

Task 2 Hannahs rst response from visual inspection was that the areas were equal. She then overlapped the shapes within each pair and stated that the rectangles are both half of the square. Similarly, she placed the triangle over the circle, but stated, It is hard to tell. She then compared the left over bits to estimate whether they will ll in the gap. Following this, Hannah measured the dimensions and calculated the areas correctly using the formulae. Task 3 Hannah placed the parallelogram (Shape 2) on top of the rectangle (Shape 1) and decided that the areas were equal. She explained that together the pieces left over are equal. Hannah used direct comparison to determine that the width and side of the parallelogram (Shape 3) were the same as the square. She then measured the width and side of the parallelogram (Shape 2) and stated that this was the largest, because it had a larger perimeter. She became uncertain which areas should be the same and how to use the formulae to check this. Task 4 Hannah was able to carry out the calculations using the formulae correctly. Although she rst looked at nding the length of the hypotenuse in determining the area of the triangle, she later corrected this. She did explain that the area of a triangle is half base times height. She was not aware how this formula could be derived and stated that she had just been given the formula. Hannah was able to use the ratio p and dened it as 3.14, but she did not know what it represented. Hannahs lesson plan 1. How the activities had been developed. Hannah based her lesson on some of the ideas that had been presented in seminars and also in the planning support provided by the Primary National Strategy (DfES 2006). She was concerned that she did not teach the formula but that she should encourage children to count squares to nd the area. 2. How the activities would facilitate the childrens learning. Hannah intended to use a game to practice multiplication facts to start the lesson, as these would be used in a following lesson when children did use the formula. She would then give the children transparent grids to nd areas of rectangles. She would also model how to do this herself. Following that, she intended to use different objects in the classroom with the transparent grids. 3. The instructions or explanations that would be given. To start with, Hannah would count the squares, but realized that the children might not know this as area. She would further explain, It is not what is outside but what is inside. She would explain that each square had a side of 1 cm so each square had an area of 1 cm2, but she was unsure whether to explain why the 2 was there, and if this should be left until after the formula had been introduced. 4. The questions that would be asked. Hannah planned to use open questions such as, Can you draw a rectangle and measure the area? and then to draw shapes with given areas. She also wanted to give children two different rectangles with the same area to reinforce its whats inside that counts. 5. Anticipation of any difculties the children might encounter. Hannah felt that children would have difculties distinguishing between the area and the perimeter. She did not want to model nding the area by counting the squares around the edge of the grid, as she felt this might confuse the children. She thought she would show the perimeter in black, so that the children could see it. 6. How the childrens learning would be assessed. Hannah intended to assess the childrens learning by nding the areas of given rectangles and then by nding the

123

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers

areas of different objects and rectangles that they had drawn themselves. She would ask the children to nd the largest and smallest areas. Summary of Hannahs interview Hannahs qualication in mathematics was higher than that required for entry onto a PGCE course, but she was less condent than Simon or Alan. Hannah correctly identied the shapes that had area in Task 1. She talked about an area as enclosed in a shape. She did not recognize the dynamic view of area in Task 1 and seemed uncertain of the dynamic view of area in Task 3. Otherwise, she was able to calculate areas using the formulae correctly. Hannah was unaware of the relationships between the formulae or the derivation of p. There was no evidence of a continuous view of area measurement. It would seem that Hannahs instruction was concerned with the counting of squares and emphasizing the idea of inside, so, in a sense, she was introducing a notion of space lling in a discrete and static way. She did plan to provide rectangles with different areas and perimeters to emphasize the idea of inside, but there did not seem to be an explicit intention to look at area in a dynamic way, or to generalize. Charlotte Charlottes highest qualication in mathematics was the General Certicate in Secondary Education in mathematics, Grade C (academic qualication in the UK taken at age 1516), taken 9 years previously. Charlotte did not feel condent about the topic in planning the lesson, as she said, It had not been taught in the seminars. Charlottes responses to the area measurement tasks Task 1 Charlotte identied the shapes that had area as having space inside the lines. She also suggested that Shape J had an area, saying, There was still space even though there is a gap. She recognized Shape H as an outline because as she said, You cant see the area. She was uncertain as to whether a 3D shape would have an area, and, if so, how to measure it. Task 2 Charlotte initially thought the areas could be the same or similar through visual inspection. She then placed the shapes on top of each other, in their pairs, to compare overlaps. She did suggest that the rectangles in pair A could be cut to check with the square and to put pair B on squared paper. Charlotte was able to work out the areas using the formulae. Task 3 Charlotte placed the parallelograms on top of the rectangle. She declared that the parallelogram (Shape 2) was the same as the rectangle (Shape 1) by saying, Same size but different shape, and that the areas are equal. She saw that the parallelogram (Shape 3) was smaller and said, Thinner area, going to be smaller. This might suggest she recognized shearing and used a dynamic notion of area, at least in an implicit way. She was able to use the formulae correctly to check. Task 4 Charlotte was able to use the formulae, but her calculations were not always accurate. She was uncertain whether she had used the correct units in nding the area of the semicircle, and whether she should be using cm2 or cm3 with the other shapes. Charlotte was able to explain the relationship between the triangle and rectangle formulae, and she drew a picture to demonstrate. She stated that she had seen this during work experience in

123

C. Murphy

school. She was not aware of the derivation of p. There was no evidence of a continuous view of area measurement. Charlottes lesson plan 1. How the activities had been developed. Charlotte explained that this was a hard topic. She had consulted the Primary National Strategy (DfES 2006) to determine levels of learning, but she had gained ideas for the tasks from researching pedagogical texts. Her idea was that the children should have the shapes to investigate, rather than the teacher constructing diagrams. 2. How the activities would facilitate the childrens learning. Charlotte intended to practice some multiplication facts rst, as she felt this would help children to see some patterns later. She intended to introduce the topic with a large paper rectangle and ask, How many children can t onto this shape? She would use these arbitrary units to determine the area of other shapes. She would then draw rectangles on the board and pretend that each child is a centimeter square. Charlotte felt that the activities would lead naturally to a denition of area as the amount of space within a shape, and she intended to note the strategies that the children used. She also intended to set an activity to investigate the area of rectangles and changes in perimeter. 3. The instructions or explanations that would be given. Charlotte would encourage the children to talk together about the patterns they had found. She would also use sketches on the board to model counting the squares. 4. The questions that would be asked. Charlotte would ask questions such as, What do you notice about the perimeter and area of the two classrooms? She also intended to question the children by asking, Can you draw different shaped rectangles with an area of 12 squares? 5. Anticipation of any difculties the children might encounter. Charlotte considered that the children may have difculties in measuring accurately, and that they may confuse perimeter and area. 6. How the childrens learning would be assessed. Charlotte intended to assess the learning by reviewing the patterns that the children had found in the different shapes. She would note if the children realized that the areas change as the shapes change, even though the perimeter may be the same. Summary of Charlottes interview Charlotte had the minimum qualication in mathematics required for entry onto a PGCE course, and she appeared to be the least condent in her knowledge about the topic. Charlottes notion of area from Task 1 seemed inconsistent. She had a concept of area as the space inside but also attempted to relate this to open shapes. She made errors in using the formulae for calculating areas in Task 4. She also confessed that she never knew when to use cm2 or cm3. Charlotte was, however, secure in the relationships between the formulae for the area of a rectangle and the area of a triangle. She had some awareness of the dynamic view of area from Task 3. There was no evidence of a continuous view of area measurement. In her plan, Charlotte intended to use arbitrary units to arrive at the standard unit, using a variety of rectangles in different contexts. Her aim appeared to be that children would arrive naturally at a view of area as space lling, rather than to use procedures. She would also introduce the dynamic view of area through her investigation of different

123

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers

rectangles. In this, she would introduce conservation of area and perimeter and promote generalization. Key ndings from the four case studies The results suggest that Simon had a good understanding of the topic of area and used procedures condently. Alan also used procedures condently, but his conceptual understanding of area was not so secure in aspects related to a dynamic view. Hannah and Charlotte had a more limited understanding and were less condent in their use of procedures. Simon and Hannahs plans suggested a focus on the concept of area as space lling or inside, and they would model the counting of squares on a grid. Simon demonstrated a good understanding of area and the relationships between the formulae. His plans suggested that he would link the counting of squares to multiplication to help children discover the formula. Hannah was less certain of relationships between the formulae, and there was some uncertainty in her use of dimensions. Her plans suggested a concern that the children distinguish between perimeter and area. Even though Alan demonstrated an awareness of area as a concept, he used the formulae as a rst resort in comparing areas, and, as his plans suggested, he would introduce the use of the formula with little connection to concepts. On the other hand, Charlotte, who is seen as having the most limited understanding of the topic, aimed to help children realize the concept of area as the amount of space. She did not intend to model or explain counting squares directly, but to introduce a problem based on arbitrary units and then to investigate patterns with different shapes. Although she demonstrated some gaps in her subject knowledge, she was aware of the relationships between the formulae and she had some notion of the dynamic view of area. Table 1 summarizes key strengths and limitations from the subject knowledge tasks and the teaching approaches. From these summaries, tentative connections are made between the prospective teachers subject knowledge and their intentions to teach the topic. These connections suggest some direct transformations between the strengths or limitations of subject knowledge and the different aspects in approaches to teaching, and they are discussed in the next section.

Discussion Within Shulmans model of transformation, Ball and Bass (2003) presented a notion of intertwining subject knowledge and content knowledge for teaching. The results presented above have provided an opportunity to unravel some of the intertwining and to consider how strengths or limitations might have inuenced the prospective teachers selection of activities in their intended delivery of the lesson. In relation to substantive knowledge, none of the prospective teachers had fully appreciated a dynamic view of area, in that they did not see a line as having an area of zero (Baturo and Nason 1996). However, Simon and Charlotte seemed aware of the dynamic view through Task 3. Even so, only Charlotte intended to use problem-solving tasks that might suggest a dynamic view. Simon seemed to appreciate a continuous view of area that Dickson et al. (1984) had seen as necessary for an understanding of the use of p, but this continuous view did not appear in his lesson plan. Alan dened area as the amount of material to cover. This was one analogy suggested by Battista (1982) to support an enquiry-based approach to teaching the topic, but such an approach was not evident in

123

C. Murphy Table 1 Comparing subject knowledge tasks and teaching approaches Subject knowledge task Simon Understanding of procedures Understanding of concept (space that can be lled) Aware of relationships and derivation of formulae First reliance on concept rather than procedures in comparing areas Teaching approaches Focus on explaining and modelling concept through discrete space lling Aware of difculties related to perimeter and area Support through making connections Different examples to generalize and discover the formula Focus on explaining and modelling how to use formula correctly Aware of difculties related to perimeter and area Support through reiteration of explanations Different examples to practice the formula Focus on explaining and modelling concept through discrete space lling Concerned with confusion related to perimeter and area Support through reinforcement of its whats inside Different examples to reinforce area as whats inside Focus on children solving problems to arrive at concept Aware of difculties related to perimeter and area Support through dynamic view of area and non-conservation Different examples to generalize nonconservation and discover formula

Alan

Understanding of procedures Understanding of concept (amount of material to cover) Aware of relationships and derivation of formulae First reliance on procedures rather than concept in comparing areas

Hannah

Some understanding of procedures (limitations in some use of dimensions) Understanding of concept (within an enclosed shape) Not aware of relationships and derivation of formulae Mostly reliance on concept rather than procedures in comparing areas (some comparison of dimensions)

Charlotte

Some understanding of procedures (limitations in use of units) Some understanding of concept (space inside) but uncertain of conditions Aware of relationships between formulae First reliance on concept rather than procedures in comparing areas

Alans lesson plan. Charlotte was the least condent prospective teacher, and her subject knowledge suggested limitations in her use of units and her denition of area. However, Charlotte intended that children would nd a way of measuring area using different units to support their own discovery of the concept. Charlottes approach does not suggest that children discover the efcient use of a square unit as Freudenthal (1983) had suggested, but there is a sense that the children engage in an enquiry. It would seem that aspects of the prospective teachers intended teaching are related to strengths or limitations in their substantive knowledge of the topic. Simon appeared to focus on the importance of children knowing the mathematics and, in particular, to connect procedures with the concept of area. Simon, himself, had a connected knowledge of procedures and concepts. Similarly, Hannah would appear to focus on children knowing the mathematics, but her attention was drawn to the potential confusion between perimeter and area. Her own subject knowledge was less secure in relation to these connections, as she appeared to confuse the non-conservation of area and perimeter in Task 3. In this way, her approach to supporting the children was to provide a static visual image, based on an analogy of inside and outside. Alan focused his approach to teaching on knowing, but in a

123

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers

sense of knowing as a collection of useful facts (Ernest 1989). He did not emphasize procedures in relation to the concept of area, even though he did have an understanding of the concept of area in a static way. Alan, on the other hand, appeared to have a propensity for the use of the formulae in his substantive knowledge. In his lesson plan, the main emphasis was on helping the children to use the formula correctly, in relation to useful facts to be learned and practiced. Charlotte presents a different case. Charlottes plan did not emphasize clear explanations. She intended that the children would arrive at an understanding through the activities. She intended to employ activities that would lead naturally to the childrens understanding, and she suggested that the children would use their own strategies, rather than a stated procedure. Berenson et al.s (1997) study had suggested that prospective teachers, who focus on teaching procedures, are those who have a limited understanding and overreliance on procedures. Alan did not appear to have limited understanding, but his accurate use of the formulae did appear as strength. In contrast, Charlotte was less accurate in using the formulae and had uncertainties in denitions, but she did suggest some awareness of area from a dynamic perspective. This could indicate that her strengths were with these concepts. Charlotte did not focus on the use of procedures, but focused on the concepts in which she was condent. In this way, her approach did not focus on knowing in the same way as the other prospective teachers. Although she may not have fully realized the use of human activity or problem-solving approaches, as suggested by Freudenthal (1983) and Battista (1982), her approach did suggest an enquiry orientation. Stipek et al. (2001) had suggested that less condent teachers were more likely to be oriented toward mathematics as knowing, due to lack of condence in dealing with the questions that might be asked through an enquiry-based approach. We do not know how Charlotte would have dealt with childrens questions, but it would seem that, even though she did not have the condence in her subject knowledge, she did have the condence to plan for a lesson in this way. Charlotte had talked about the topic being hard. Maybe, through her own lack of condence, she was empathizing with the children and how they might learn the topic. She was the only prospective teacher who had researched the teaching of the topic through pedagogical texts. Hence, she would have had further exposure to teaching approaches that were likely to suggest an enquiry-based approach. In contrast, Alan felt condent about his subject knowledge in planning to teach the topic. In this regard, he may not have had the same empathy with the children as learners. He did not feel the need to research how to teach the topic, so would not have been exposed to other teaching approaches in the same way. It is also possible that he might not have appreciated the pedagogical concerns raised by such texts. We can only speculate the possibilities of these phenomena and need to be careful about inferences, but the results from these four prospective teachers do question assumptions related to substantive subject knowledge in relation to syntactic knowledge and content knowledge for teaching. If Charlotte was less condent in her knowledge, she may have had more empathy in children as learners and had felt the need to research pedagogy further. If Alan was condent in his knowledge and use of the formulae, then, it is possible that he saw this as the more important emphasis in his teaching. Hence, this may suggest an approach that did not consider knowledge of learners but the usefulness of mathematics. Alans lesson plan would introduce the use of the formulae prematurely and could be said to present interference or instructive obstacles in childrens understanding of area (Pesek and Kirshner 2000; Zacharos 2006). Both Hannahs and Simons approaches may be seen to relate knowing to the identication of basic concepts, in connection with the

123

C. Murphy

skillful and accurate use of procedures. Although this approach does relate knowing to understanding, Thompson (1992) has suggested that this might result in pedagogy that emphasizes the manipulation of symbols, rather than the associated meanings. Charlotte would suggest a more enquiry-based approach and, hence, a more effective way to support active learning. This is not to suggest that Charlotte would be more effective in teaching the topic. This study has not investigated how the prospective teachers would respond to the childrens learning in the classroom, and Charlottes more limited knowledge is likely to inhibit her ability to develop the childrens learning at some point.

Conclusion By examining the prospective teachers strengths and limitations in their understanding of the topic, it would seem that connections can be made between their subject knowledge and the emphases of their espoused teaching. Two of the prospective teachers, Simon and Hannah, appeared to take care in ensuring that the children would have the opportunity to carry out the measurements and count the squares on the grid. In order to do this, the prospective teachers attempted to provide clear explanations, based on their own knowledge of the topic, to help children know the mathematics. Hannah was less certain of her knowledge regarding a dynamic view of area and non-conservation between area and perimeter. She was concerned that the children did not confuse area and perimeter. Alan suggested an emphasis on childrens correct use of the formula. His knowledge indicated that use of formulae was strength and his rst resort in comparing areas. On the other hand, Charlotte demonstrated more limited subject knowledge, but appeared to take an approach based on problem solving and enquiry. Ambrose (2004) had indicated that prospective teachers saw teaching mathematics as explaining what they know. The three prospective teachers, who were condent in their mathematics, may have felt that it was sufcient for them to give clear explanations in relation to what they knew. The prospective teacher, who lacked condence in her mathematics, may not have seen it as important to explain her knowledge. She had also researched further into pedagogical approaches, and this may have given her further exposure to knowledge of learners. Previous research would suggest that if the prospective teachers own knowledge of a topic is poor, then they are more likely to teach in a knowing-oriented approach and that a prospective teacher who has in-depth knowledge of a mathematical topic would be more likely to teach in an enquiry-based approach. Although one cannot make generalizations from this small-scale study, the examination of the phenomena exhibited by these four prospective teachers questions this assumption. Hill et al. (2005) have suggested that it is not knowledge of content, but knowledge of how to teach the content that is inuential in considering teacher effectiveness. As has been suggested elsewhere, the relationship between subject knowledge and knowledge of how to teach is not straightforward. Although it has been possible to examine the intertwining and identify some connections between strengths and limitations in subject knowledge and espoused teaching, the study questions whether other factors are at play here, such as the exposure to pedagogical approaches that would support further knowledge of children as learners. This study has been limited to prospective teachers. As students they are involved in learning to teach and constructing their identities as teachers (Britzman 2003), so in a sense, this study has captured the associations between subject matter knowledge and

123

The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers

pedagogic content knowledge at a nascent stage. The study has not looked at the relationship between subject knowledge and practice in the classroom, and it is acknowledged that the immediacy of classroom practice and feedback from the children would impact on the prospective teachers knowledge of learners. As such, studies that provide a longitudinal examination of the relationship between subject knowledge and teaching, with newly qualied and early career teachers, would enlighten this further.

References
Ambrose, R. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary school teachers orientations to mathematics teaching by building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 91119. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D., & Wiliam, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy. London: Kings College. Aubrey, C. (1997). Mathematics teaching in the early years: An investigation of teachers subject knowledge. London: Falmer Press. Ball, D. L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8, 4048. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In E. Simmt & B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian mathematics education study group (pp. 314). Edmonton, Alberta: CMESG/GCEDM. Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29, 1446. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers mathematics knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 433456). New York: Macmillan. Battista, M. (1982). Understanding area and area formulas. The Mathematics Teacher, 75, 362368. Baturo, A., & Nason, R. (1996). Student teachers subject matter knowledge within the domain of area measurement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 235268. Begel, E. G. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education: Findings from a survey of the empirical literature. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Berenson, S., van der Valk, T., Oldham, E., Runesson, U., Queiroz Moreira, C., & Broekman, H. (1997). An international study to investigate prospective teachers content knowledge of the area concept. European Journal of Teacher Education, 20, 137150. Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. New York: State University of New York Press. Chinnapan, M., & Thomas, M. (2003). Teachers function schemas and their role in modelling. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15, 151170. DfES. (2006). Primary national strategy: Primary framework for literacy and mathematics. London: Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Dickson, L. (1989). Area of a rectangle. In D. Johnson (Ed.), Childrens mathematical frameworks 813: A study of classroom teaching (pp. 89125). Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-Nelson. Dickson, L., Brown, M., & Gibson, O. (1984). Children learning mathematics: A teachers guide to recent research. London: Cassell. Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 1333. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Ginsburg, H. (1997). Entering the childs mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371406. John, P. (1991). A qualitative study of lesson plans. Journal of Education for Teaching, 17, 301320.

123

C. Murphy Lehrer, R., & Chazan, D. (Eds.). (1998). Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Lunzer, E. (1968). Formal reasoning. In E. Lunzer & J. Morris (Eds.), Development in human learning. New York: Elsevier. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nitabach, E., & Lehrer, R. (1996). Developing spatial sense through area measurement. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2, 473476. Pesek, D., & Kirshner, D. (2000). Interference of instrumental instruction in subsequent relational learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 524540. Rizvi, N. F. (2004). Prospective teachers knowledge about the concept of division. Bedford Park, South Australia: Flinders University of South Australia. Rowland, T., Martyn, S., Barber, P., & Heal, C. (2001). Investigating the mathematics subject matter knowledge of pre-service elementary school teachers. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 121128). Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute. Rowland, T., Turner, F., Thwaites, A., & Huckstep, P. (2009). Developing primary mathematics teaching. London: Sage. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 414. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 122. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 17. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of more of Amore of B. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 653667. Stipek, D., Givvin, K., Salmon, J., & MacGyvers, V. (2001). Teachers beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213226. Swanson, D., Schwartz, R., Ginsburg, H., & Kossan, N. (1981). The clinical interview: Validity, reliability and diagnosis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2, 3138. Thompson, A. (Ed.). (1992). Teachers beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. New York: Macmillan. Tierney, C., Boyd, C., & Davis, G. (1990). Prospective primary teachers conceptions of area. In G. Booker, P. Cobb, & T. D. Mendecuti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th conference of the international group of the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 307315). Mexico: IGPME. Zacharos, K. (2006). Prevailing educational practices for area measurement and students failure in measuring areas. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 25, 224239.

123