Search

An investigation on the identity work of a prospective teacher is conducted to better understand how the participant argued for recognition of her projective mathematics teacher identity. Characteristics of the claims, evidence, and anticipatory statements used are explored. Using an argumentation framework, the participant's discourse demonstrated differing strengths for the claims she was making. These were referred to as levels of ownership depending on the number of criteria met (I-statements, hedging, and intensifiers). This helped find the ideas central to how she wanted to be perceived as a mathematics teacher. Evidence for the participant's claims came in two different ways, anecdotal and belief oriented. The anticipatory statements were used in three ways, (a) to provide details; (b) to recognise constraints or limitations; or (c) to enact defensive/protective practices.

Metaphors have been widely used to investigate the perspectives of teachers and students in mathematics. In this report, an instrument was developed, the metaphor continuums, to provide a space for four prospective teachers to discuss their projective identities as teachers and mathematics teacher. Using an argumentation perspective on identity, the responses to the instrument were investigated to determine a tentative manifestation of the participants' projective identity. The participants' provided some evidence of their projective identities as teacher and mathematics teachers being aligned. One participant did not provide evidence of distinguishing between her identity as a mathematics teacher and a teacher. The vehicles, or subject of the metaphors, given to the participants provided varying ways for them to explore their ideas of teaching and learning mathematics. The metaphor continuums showed potential for mathematics teacher educators to receive initial information to help in determining targeted interventions for their students.

Cooney, Shealy, and Arvold (1998) wrote a widely cited article describing the belief structures of prospective teachers and argued that the structures can aid in describing how beliefs change and the influence of authority on the individual. We investigate the impact of this manuscript on the field. To do this, we conducted a literature review (n = 59) of journal articles and proceedings published since 1998 covering the same population and goals of Cooney, Shealy, and Arvold (changing prospective teachers' beliefs) and then conducted an analysis of 101 journal articles citing Cooney, Shealy, and Arvold (1998) to see why the authors cited the piece. We conclude that the impact of Cooney, Shealy, and Arvold's article differs from that of their results and suggest that belief structures should be more carefully investigated by the field.