Search

Cooney, Shealy, and Arvold (1998) wrote a widely-cited paper that described four belief structures of prospective teachers and argued the structures can aid in describing the ways beliefs change and the influence of authority on the individual. In this paper, we investigate the impact of this manuscript on the field. We first conducted a literature review (n = 48) of journal articles and proceedings published since 1998 covering the same population and goals of Cooney et al. (changing prospective teachers' beliefs). We then conducted an analysis of 106 journal articles citing Cooney et al. to see why the author(s) cited the piece. We conclude the impact of Cooney, et al.'s article differs from that of their results and suggest belief structures should be more carefully investigated by the field. [For complete proceedings, see ED581294.]

Understanding the formation of the professional identities of prospective teachers is important to better understand the decision-making processes of future teachers. Through an exploration of four prospective teachers' visions of practice and designated identities, we found that their images of future students' affective responses while learning mathematics were a strong influence in the prospective teachers' evolving professional identities. [For the complete proceedings, see ED597799.]

Argumentation, justification, and proof are conceptualized in many ways in extant mathematics education literature. At times, the descriptions of these objects and processes are compatible or complementary; at other times, they are inconsistent and even contradictory. Regardless of the descriptions of these processes, however, given the importance of argumentation, justification, and proof to the discipline of mathematics, as well as their valued roles as learning practices, it is critical to query the relationship between engaging students in such processes and the promotion of equitable learning spaces and outcomes. This year, working group leaders aim to facilitate discussions and collaborations among researchers to advance our collective understanding of argumentation, justification and proof through an equity and inclusion lens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Argumentation, justification, and proof are conceptualized in many ways in extant mathematics education literature. At times, the descriptions of these objects and processes are compatible or complementary; at other times, they are inconsistent and even contradictory. The inconsistencies in definitions and usages of the terms argumentation, justification, and proof highlight the need for scholarly conversations addressing these (and other related) constructs. Collaboration is needed to move toward, not one-size-fits-all definitions, but rather a framework that highlights connections among them and exploits ways in which they may be used in tandem to address overarching research questions. Working group leaders aim to facilitate discussions and collaborations among researchers to advance our collective understanding and conveyed use of argumentation, justification and proof, particularly the relationships among these important mathematical constructs. The 2018 working group sessions will extend previous conversations into issues of teacher preparation with respect to argumentation, justification, and proof. The group will also discuss how issues of equity, social justice, and marginalized populations intersect with the teaching and learning of argumentation, justification, and proof. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We argue for the expansion of Krummheuer's conceptualization of argumentation in the mathematics classroom. We use Toulmin's deconstruction of arguments along with studies on social interactions (e.g. Goffman, 1959) to position argumentation as a larger social phenomenon. We provide examples from two lessons conducted by a first year secondary teacher to highlight three different types of arguments: (1) social arguments; (2) sociomathematical arguments; and (3) mathematical arguments. Compartmentalizing classroom arguments in this way provides researchers a way to examine the perpetuation of deficit narratives, construction of sociomathematical norms, and establishment of productive learning environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine connections between teacher education coursework and teaching actions. In particular, we looked at one unit of instruction addressing collective argumentation in a pedagogy course and how two student teachers supported collective argumentation in their placements during the following semester. The student teachers' support for collective argumentation aligned with their interpretations of the unit on argumentation, reflecting their slightly different emphases of the role of the teacher in facilitating student participation and focusing on the goal of the argument. Our results suggest prospective teachers' interpretations of coursework can be reflected in their practice, even in student teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cooney, Shealy, and Arvold (1998) wrote a widely-cited paper that described four belief structures of prospective teachers and argued the structures can aid in describing the ways beliefs change and the influence of authority on the individual. In this paper, we investigate the impact of this manuscript on the field. We first conducted a literature review (n = 48) of journal articles and proceedings published since 1998 covering the same population and goals of Cooney et al. (changing prospective teachers' beliefs). We then conducted an analysis of 106 journal articles citing Cooney et al. to see why the author(s) cited the piece. We conclude the impact of Cooney, et al.'s article differs from that of their results and suggest belief structures should be more carefully investigated by the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract on the article that use argumentation in identifying preservice teacher qualities in mathematics education is presented.