Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Author(s): Penelope L. Peterson, Elizabeth Fennema, Thomas P. Carpenter and Megan Loef
Source: Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1989), pp. 1-40
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233461
Accessed: 06-09-2017 01:39 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233461?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Cognition and Instruction
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION, 1989, 6(1), 1-40
Copyright ? 1989, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Penelope L. Peterson
Michigan State University
Over the past decade or so, research on teaching has increasingly suggested
that, to gain a more complete understanding of how classroom instruction
affects students, researchers need to view the teacher not only as one who
engages in certain classroom behaviors, but also as an active processor of
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
Recently, Shulman (1986) pointed out that a major limitation of this new
cognitive research on training is the absence of a focus on the subject matter
to be taught. He referred to this blind spot with respect to content as the
"missing paradigm" among the various research paradigms for the study of
teaching (Shulman, 1986, pp. 6-7). Similarly, in a recent review of research
on mathematics teaching, Romberg and Carpenter (1986) noted that
research on teaching and research on learning mathematics have been
conducted as two separate disciplines of scientific inquiry. They suggested
that a pressing need exists for researchers from these two research traditions
to interact and collaborate in their research on teaching mathematics and,
in particular, for researchers on teaching to incorporate an analysis of the
mathematics content into their studies of teaching.
In showing how the subject-matter content might be integrated into the
study of teachers' thought processes, Shulman provided the example of
teachers' "pedagogical content knowledge" as an important category of
teacher cognitions that are related to teachers' thoughts and behavior in the
classroom, as well as to their students' learning and achievement. He
defined teachers' pedagogical content knowledge as including the following:
The ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it compre-
hensible to others ... alternate forms of representation, some of which derive
from research where others originate in the wisdom of practice ... an
understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easier or difficult:
The conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and
backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught
topics and lessons. (Shulman, 1986, p. 9)
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 3
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
METHOD
Participants
The participants in the study were 39 first-grade teachers and their stude
in 27 schools located in Madison, Wisconsin, and four small rural comm
nities near Madison. The schools included 3 Catholic schools and 24 pu
schools. Six teachers taught first and second graders; the others taught on
first graders. All teachers in the sample volunteered to participate
month-long in-service program in mathematics the following summer
to be included in a study of classroom instruction the following year.
mean number of years teaching elementary school was 10.90 in our sample
and the mean number of years teaching first grade was 5.62. Two of
teachers were in their first year of teaching. Thirty-four of the teachers
participated in in-service courses in the last 3 years, and 9 of them
participated in courses dealing with mathematics. Twenty-two of th
teachers indicated that they were familiar with activity-based programs s
as Comprehensive School Mathematics Project, Developing Mathematic
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
Instrumentation
Most young children can figure out a way to solve simple word
problems.
It is important for a child to discover how to solve simple word
problems for him/herself.
It is important for a child to know how to follow directions to be a
good problem solver.
Children learn math best by attending to the teacher's explanations.
The second subscale measured a construct that was concerned with the
relationship between mathematical skills and understanding and problem
solving. A high score on this construct indicated a belief that skills should
be taught in relationship to understanding and problem solving, whereas a
lower score indicated an agreement with the belief that skills should be
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 7
The third subscale assessed teachers' beliefs about what should provide
the basis for sequencing topics in addition and subtraction instruction. A
high score on this construct indicated a belief that children's natural
development of mathematical ideas should provide the basis for sequencing
topics for instruction, whereas a low score on this construct indicated a
belief that formal mathematics should provide the basis for sequencing
topics for instruction. Examples of Subscale 3 items include:
Teachers should allow children to figure out their own ways to solve
simple word problems.
Teachers should teach exact procedures for solving word problems.
Teachers should tell children who are having difficulty solving a word
problem how to solve the problem.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 9
answer each question, please feel free to depart from the original
question if you have additional comments on how or why you teach
addition as you do. As you can see, we are audiotaping your
responses.
Following the interview, a score for each teacher on each of the fou
belief constructs was obtained by having the interviewer rate the teacher on
a 5-point scale for each construct. The interviewer was directed to thin
back over the teacher's responses and judge where the teacher fell on th
continuum for each of the four belief constructs. If the interviewer was
unable to make a judgment for one or more beliefs, she was told to ask
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
10 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 11
Procedure
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
12 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers' Scores on Constructs as Measu
and by Interviewers' and Coders' Ratings of Belief In
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
14 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
the teachers in the extent to which they were rated as having beliefs that
corresponded to a cognitively based perspective. As was the case for the
belief questionnaire, the highest ratings by both interviewers and coders
were given on Belief Construct 2, which suggests that, in comparison to the
other three constructs, teachers' views about Construct 2 more closely
corresponded to a cognitively based perspective than did their views on the
other constructs.
We turn now to an examination of the differences between teachers
whose beliefs corresponded more closely to a cognitively based perspectiv
and those whose beliefs corresponded less closely to that perspective.
TABLE 2
Correlations Between Teachers' Construct Scores on the
Mathematics Belief Questionnaire
Belief Construct 1 2 3 4
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 15
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Scale 1: Children Construct/Receive Math Knowledge Scale 2: Sk
from
C)
57-60 57-60
53-56 (Q 0 53-56
30
3@@
49-52 49-52
57-60 ( 57-60 ()
53-56 (g)? ? 53-56 @()
49-52 Q?000 49-52 @00
45-48 0000 median median
45-48 ?
41-44 0@000000000000 41-44 }QQ
37-40 @??)@? 37-40 ?( )
33-36 ( 33-36 ()@(
29-32 29-32
25-28 25-28
21-24 21-24
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 17
Teacher 16: Because I think the kids can solve the problems if they
relate it to something in their life, rather than if I put an algorithm up
they would say, "I have no idea what that means," but they sure do
know what that means if I put it in a story context.
The following two CB teachers also provided similar rationales for their use
of story problems:
Teacher 2: I guess the same, again, the relation to their lives. I really
think that little children, whatever we do in school, have a very
difficult time relating . . . so, I really think you have to make it
[mathematics] relevant to their little lives, and you have to point it
out.
Teacher 56: I guess it's just part of me that life is reality, that math is
life. . . .
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
18 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
Interestingly, the primary reason that LCB teachers did not introduce
addition/subtraction word problems during the first few months seemed to
be because the teachers followed the mathematics textbook, and the
textbook did not do so. Five of the 6 LCB teachers who reported not using
word problems early in the year indicated that they did not do so because
they followed the textbook. The LCB teachers' rationales for not using
word problems early in the year to teach addition seemed to reflect a belief
that the sequence of mathematics instruction should be based on the
underlying structure of mathematics as reflected in the mathematics text-
book rather than on the sequence of children's development of mathemat-
ical ideas. This construct was one of the four belief constructs measured on
the belief questionnaire, and as noted previously, all the LCB teachers
obtained scores below the median on this construct.
Although reliance on the textbook seemed to be the LCB teachers'
primary reason for not introducing addition word problems in the first few
months, two other reasons were mentioned. Three of the 6 teachers
indicated that first-grade students needed to have some reading skills prior
to working on addition/subtraction word problems (Teachers 6, 8, and 17).
In addition, 2 of the 6 teachers mentioned that knowledge of some number
facts was a prerequisite for students' understanding mathematics word
problems (Teacher 6 and 66). This perspective is reflected in the following
teacher's response:
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 19
Teacher 66: As far as the children reading it [the word problem] alone,
they are not capable.
Teacher 66: Yes, but I find that sometimes they are not real good at
a structured word problem early. But if you present that type of a
word problem too early, they just don't want to do it; they find it
hard. And after they've learned some of their number facts, they seem
a little bit more willing.
These responses seem to reflect the underlying belief that number facts
should be taught as discrete components rather than in relationship to
understanding and problem solving. Consistent with this perspective of
teaching word problems separately from teaching math facts, 2 of the 6
LCB teachers who did not use word problems early indicated that when they
did teach problems, they taught them using a discrete-skill approach in
which they taught step-by-step algorithmic procedures to solving the word
problems by focusing on key words in the problem. An example of this
approach to solving word problems is the following:
Teacher 11: I start out reading them [word problems] to the class and
see where they are on the page. And I teach the key words, "What does
'in all' mean?" "In all" means that we need to add it, and, there again,
direct teaching and how you do it: You put it - the things - over here
on the side, and you add it up, and, of course, you know the answer
to this, and then you put it over on to the blank.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
20 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
During the interview, teachers were asked, "In teaching addition in first
grade, what do you believe should be the relative emphasis on fact
knowledge versus understanding versus solving a word problem?" A
cognitively based perspective would put greater emphasis on teaching
understanding and problem solving with less emphasis on memorizing and
teaching number facts. In keeping with this perspective, we found that, in
their interview responses, CB teachers definitively rated the learning of
number facts as least important when compared with understanding and
problem solving. Five of the 7 CB teachers clearly stated that number fact
learning would be the lowest priority by indicating "facts are last," "fact
knowledge is the least of my concerns," "fact is low on my list," "the very
last would be memorization," and "memorizing facts thirdly." The re-
maining 2 CB teachers clearly implied that fact knowledge was lowest on the
list of priorities by stressing that their highest priorities and emphases in
instruction were on understanding and using word problems. Thus, by
stressing their emphases on understanding and problem solving, they clearly
indicated that fact knowledge was of much less concern to them. CB
teachers' perspective on the relative emphasis that should be given to
understanding, fact knowledge, and word-problem solving is illustrated by
the following teachers' response:
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 21
Interviewer: Why?
Teacher 16: Because I find that they learn the facts by doing the other,
but it doesn't work in reverse.
In contrast to the CB teachers, the LCB teachers were more varied in their
rankings of the relative emphases that they placed on number facts,
mathematical understanding, and word problems. Although 2 of the LCB
teachers (Teachers 11 and 66) indicated that they placed the least emphasis
on knowledge of number facts, the remaining 5 teachers either placed
number facts as first or second in order of priority. Two teachers (Teachers
6 and 8) indicated that they put the highest priority on both number facts
and understanding; the remaining 3 teachers (Teachers 17, 54, and 64)
indicated that they emphasized understanding first, number facts second,
and word problems last. Thus, given that all 14 teachers placed mathemat-
ical understanding first in order of importance, the important difference
between LCB and CB teachers seemed to be in their relative emphases on
number facts versus word problems. CB teachers emphasized word prob-
lems as the basis for teaching mathematics and assumed that fact knowledge
would follow, whereas LCB teachers emphasized fact knowledge and
assumed that they would teach word problems after students had learned
their number facts.
The LCB teachers' conception of the relationships among fact knowl-
edge, understanding, and word problems might best be typified by the
following response:
Similarly, an LCB teacher who responded that she would put the most
emphasis on facts and understanding provided the following rationale:
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
22 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
Teacher 6: Because if they don't know the facts, then they can't do the
word problem, plain and simple. I mean, if they can't add the facts
together, then they can't even, you know, when they have a word
problem, they need to know the facts to do a word problem.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 23
You've taught all the numerals, the concept of the numerals, and what
a numeral is based on, so you start teaching the concepts of adding
very simple numbers, you know, 1 + 1. I use the blackboard to a great
extent. I use manipulatives. I have situations on the blackboard where
I have 1 + 1 = a whole. You talk about the signs, the add-on sign and
the equal sign. You talk about the two parts equaling a whole. Lots of
drills. I work on lots of drill, where they've got pictures or 1 star + 1
star = how many stars? Then they have the picture situation, and then
I do a mathematical sentence with numerals .... Then I work with the
families. The 1 + 1 = 2, turn it around, 1 + 1 = 2, 2 - 1 = 1, so
that they can put those into situations. On those first lessons, when
I'm teaching the math, I work with situations up to 5, sums up to 5.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
24 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 25
... like the teacher also has to be the learner. She has to pay attention
to where the kids are, learn from them where they are, and dictate
what her next step is because there are a lot of different learners and
learners' styles. I guess learners must be actively involved in doing
work and think about what they are doing and verbalizing what they
are doing.
It's a big role. I have taught first graders that when they first came in,
they didn't have any concept of what adding was. ... The teacher has
to do it step-by-step, and you have to explain it daily; you have to go
over it until they start getting the concept. Subtraction was even
harder for them to understand. It took a long time. But they just
didn't understand that "take away" was sending a couple of kids out
of the room or in a take away you would take two blocks away or give
them to someone else. You would have to verbalize it and talk through
it almost every day, so they would start getting that concept.
In sum, the LCB and CB teachers' views of the roles of teacher and
learner expressed very different perspectives. For example, the CB teacher
seemed to view the teacher and the learner as actively engaged with one
another in construction of mathematical knowledge and understanding. In
contrast, the LCB teachers seemed to view the teacher's role as one of
organizing and presenting mathematical knowledge and the child's role as
receiving the mathematical knowledge presented by the teacher. Together,
teachers' descriptions of the roles of teacher and learner and of the specific
teaching strategies and mathematics content seemed to reflect strongly the
belief constructs that we measured on the belief scale. The protocol of CB
Teacher 16, for example, showed clearly that in her introductory addition
lesson she was taking a view of children as constructing mathematical
knowledge and a view that instruction should be sequenced to build on
children's development of mathematics ideas and organized to facilitate
children's construction of mathematical knowledge. In contrast, the de-
scriptions of the lessons taught by the two LCB teachers (6 and 64) reflected
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
26 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 27
TABLE 3
Correlations Between Teachers' Scores on
Belief Constructs and Students' Achievement in Addition/Subtraction
Measure 2 3 4 5 6
Note. N = 37 teachers.
*p < .05, one-tailed.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
28 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 29
pedagogical strategies, which, in turn, may have affected the nature and
quality of students' learning and achievement in addition and subtraction.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
30 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
edge of students' strategies for solving word problems. Let us consider these
results in detail.
Teacher 6: [The problem] doesn't ask "How many left?", which clues
the kids into subtraction.
Teacher 64: "Have left" is easy for children to do. ... "Have left" is
easier to understand [than "How many more"].
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 31
Kim had 5 pencils. How many more pencils does she need to buy to
have 13 pencils altogether?
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
32 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
Teacher 63: You need to begin with the unknown. Children don't see
this as an addition problem.
Teacher 12: These are "off beat" problems. The children are used to a
format in which the unknown is as follows: 5 + 8 = ?. To figure out
these two problems, they would have to understand that the unknown
in the problem is in a different place: 5 + ? = 13 for the first problem
and ? - 5 = 8 for the second problem.
These descriptions suggest that CB teachers, but not LCB teachers, in our
study had a principled framework for thinking about and distinguishing
between addition and subtraction word problem types.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 33
Teacher 54: Yes, the simple word problems, you know if you want to
go buy something in the store, if you want to like buy a piece of candy
or pencil or something, you can add the two together and then you
know if you have enough money. Just simple things like that.
Teacher 6: I guess just finding the answer. You know, they're given
two numbers, and they have to figure it out if it's "in all" or if it's "less
than."
Teacher 11: I guess the one that I'm talking about: That John had 3
cards and Joe had 4, and how many cards did they have altogether? I
teach them the most common addition story problem.
Teacher 16: I try to do a big variety, yes, so it isn't always "how much
is it altogether?" When it's like, "We should have four in our group
and three are here. How many more do we need to make our complete
group?" That kind . . . trying to get away from just "How many
altogether?"
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
34 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 35
example, actually used advanced counting strategies 14 times more than this
LCB teacher estimated they would.
After predicting the strategies that the 6 individual target students in their
class would use, teachers were asked to identify additional strategies for the
class as a whole that students might use to solve word problems. We
compared CB with LCB teachers on the total number of advanced counti
strategies that were identified either for the 6 target students in their class o
for additional class members. Again, the 7 CB teachers correctly identifi
significantly more advanced counting strategies (M = 3.14) than did al
LCB teachers (M = 1.86), t(12) = 2.25, p < .05. In contrast, CB and LCB
teachers did not differ in their reported knowledge of students' use of direc
modeling strategies to solve addition and subtraction word problems.
Together, the findings for direct modeling and advanced counting
strategies seemed to indicate that, although both LCB and CB teachers
knew of students' use of direct modeling strategies, CB teachers were more
aware of children's extensive use of counting strategies. Thus, both grou
of teachers understood the need to provide an opportunity for students
directly model addition word problems using counters in the introducto
lessons. In contrast to CB teachers, however, LCB teachers moved more
quickly in their teaching from an emphasis on direct modeling of the word
problem to an emphasis on students' use of number facts, because the
lacked knowledge of children's persistent use of counting strategies eve
while they are developing number-fact skills.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
36 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
CONCLUSIONS
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 37
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
38 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS
The research reported in this article was funded in part by National Sci
Foundation Grant MDR-8550236). The opinions expressed herein do
necessarily reflect the position, policy, or endorsement of the Na
Science Foundation.
This article was presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Washington, DC, April 1987.
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TEACHERS' BELIEFS IN MATHEMATICS 39
REFERENCES
Bussis, A. M., Chittenden, F., & Amarel, M. (1976). Beyond surface curriculum.
CO: Westview.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. (1988). Teachers' pedagogical
content knowledge in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19,
385-401.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1983). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concep
In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), The acquisition of mathematical concepts and process
(pp. 7-14). New York: Academic.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concep
in grades one through three. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179-20
Carpenter, T. P., & Peterson, P. L. (Eds.). (1988). Learning mathematics through instructio
[Special issue]. Educational Psychologist, 23(2).
Case, R. (1983). Intellectual development: A systematic reinterpretation. New York: A
demic.
Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1982). From behaviorism to cognitive behaviorism: Steps in the
evolution of instructional design. Paper presented at the Conference for Educational
Psychologists, Caracus, Venezuela.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and theories of instruction in
mathematics education. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 87-104.
Collier, C. P. (1972). Three studies of teacher planning (Research Series No. 55). East Lansing:
Michigan State University.
Confrey, J. (1986). A critique of teacher effectiveness research in mathematics education.
Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 347-360.
Conners, R. D. (1978). An analysis of teacher thought processes, beliefs, and principles during
instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Janesick, V. (1977). An ethnographic study of a teacher's classroom perspective. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Marland, P. W. (1977). A study of teachers' interactive thoughts. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Munby, H. (1983, April). A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs and principles. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Meyerson, L. N. (1977). Conceptions of knowledge in mathematics: Interactions with and
applications to a teaching methods course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State
University of New York at Buffalo.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. (1975). Statistical
package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teachers' and students' cognitional knowledge for classroom teaching
and learning. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 5-14.
Resnick, L. B. (1981). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 659-704.
Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for instruction.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Riley, M. S., & Greeno, J. G. (1988). Developmental analysis of understanding language about
quantities and of solving problems. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 49-101.
Romberg, T. A., & Carpenter, T. P. (1986). Research on teaching and learning mathematics:
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
40 PETERSON, FENNEMA, CARPENTER, LOEF
This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:39:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms