Preservice teachers negotiating roles and responsibilities in a proof-based teaching approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/nomad.v31i3.156668Keywords:
preservice teachers, proof-based teaching, reflection, teacher preparationAbstract
This study explores preservice teachers’ learning processes as they engage in proof-based teaching with peers and collectively reflect pre- and post-teaching on their planned and enacted lessons. As a part of a didactics course on algebra and number theory, groups of preservice teachers embrace the role of ’teachers-of-the-week’ and lead their peers in activities focused on explaining and justifying the reasons behind important mathematical results. Through a reflexive thematic analysis of data, three main themes in the preservice teachers’ discourse on proof-based teaching were identified. The results suggest that engaging in proof-based teaching with peers and collective reflection on teaching provides preservice teachers opportunities to actively explore, negotiate and re-negotiate roles and responsibilities in such an approach.
References
Ball, D. L. & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 27–44). NCTM.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Sage publications.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. (6. ed.) Oxford University Press.
Charalambous, C. Y., & Delaney, S. (2020). Mathematics teaching practices and practice-based pedagogies: A critical review of the literature since 2000. In D. Potari & O. Chapman (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education (pp. 355–390). Brill.
Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers’ interpretations of students’ mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(2), 155–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009999016764
Fauskanger, J., & Bjuland, R. (2019). Learning ambitious teaching of multiplicative properties through a cycle of enactment and investigation. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 21(1), 125–144.
Fauskanger, J., & Bjuland, R. (2021). Opportunities to learn ambitious mathematics teaching from co-planning instruction. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 26(3–4), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.7146/nomad.v26i3-4.149170
Gjerløw, H & Rørvik, O. T. (2023). Kjerneelementet Resonnering og argumentasjon i lærerveiledninger [The core element Reasoning and Argumentation in teacher guides]. [Master’s thesis]. University of Agder.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M., (2009). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01809605
Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012737223465
Hanna, G. & de Villers, M (2012). Aspects of proof in mathematics education. I. G. Hanna & M. de Villers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education, 1–10. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6_1
Hovtun, G., Mosvold, R., Bjuland, R., Fauskanger, J., Gjære, Å. L., Jakobsen, A., & Kristensen, M. S. (2021). Exploring opportunities to learn mathematics in practice-based teacher education: A Norwegian case study. In G. A. Nortvedt, N. F. Buchholtz, J. Fauskanger, F. Hreinsdóttir, M. Hähkiöniemi, B. E. Jessen, et al. (Eds.), Bringing Nordic mathematics education into the future: Preceedings of Norma 20 (pp. 137–144). SMDF.
Ministry of Education and Research. (2026). Curriculum for Mathematics year 1–10 (MAT01‑06). Established as a regulation. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. https://www.udir.no/lk20/mat01-06?lang=eng
Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(3), 277–289. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00312078
Mosvold, R., Fauskanger, J., & Wæge, K. (2018). Fra undervisningskunnskap i matematikk til kjernepraksiser [From mathematical knowledge for teaching to core practices]. Uniped, 41(4), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2018-04-03
Mosvold, R., Wæge, K., & Fauskanger, J. (2023). Teacher time out as a site for studying mathematical knowledge for teaching. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 70, 101037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2023.101037
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NTCM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NTCM
Pettersen, R. (2022) Opportunities for reasoning and argumentation: Norwegian mathematics textbooks for grades 5-7. [Master’s thesis]. University of Agder.
Reid, D. A. (2011). Understanding proof and transforming teaching. In L. Wiest, L., & T. Lamberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (pp. 15–30). University of Nevada.
Reid, D., & Vallejo Vargas, E. A. (2017). Proof-based teaching as a basis for understanding why. In T. Dooley, & G. Gueudet, (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth congress of the european society for research in mathematics education (pp. 235–242). DCU Institute of Education and ERME.
Reid, D., & Vallejo Vargas, E. (2018). When is a generic argument a proof? In A. J. Stylianides, & G. Harel, (Eds.) Advances in mathematics education research on proof and proving (pp. 239–251). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70996-3_17
Reid, D. A., & Vallejo Vargas, E. A. (2019). Evidence and argument in a proof based teaching theory. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51, 807–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01027-x.
Reid, D. A., & Knipping, C. (2010). Proof in mathematics education: Research, learning and teaching. Brill.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.
Rø, K., Valenta, A., Langfeldt, M. B., Ødegaard, R. P. (2019). Felles faglig planlegging. Tangenten – tidsskrift for matematikkundervisning, 30(4). 40–52.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action. Routledge.
Semadeni, Z. (1984). A principle of concretization permanence for the formation of arithmetical concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00311113
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical thinking and learning, 10(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
Stylianou, D. A., Blanton M. L. & Knuth E. J. (Eds.). (2010) Teaching and learning proof across the grades: a K-16 perspective. Routledge.
Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3) 289–321.
Stylianides, A. J. (2016). Proving in the elementary mathematics classroom. Oxford University Press.
Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2017). Research-based interventions in the area of proof: the past, the present, and the future. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(2), 119–127. Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9782-3
Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J. & Shilling-Traina L. N. (2013) Prospective teachers’ challenges in teaching-and-proving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 1463–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9409-9
Säljö, R. (2001). Learning in practice. A sociocultural perspective [Læring i praksis. Et sosiokulturelt perspektiv]. Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Valenta, A. & Enge, O. (2020). Bevisrelaterte kompetanser i læreplanen LK20 for matematikk i grunnskolen [Proof related competencies in the curriculum LK20 for mathematics in elementary school]. Acta Didactica Norden, 14(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.8195
Wæge, K., & Fauskanger, J. (2021). Teacher time outs in rehearsals: In-service teachers learning ambitious mathematics teaching practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(6), 563–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-020-09474-0
Wæge, K., & Fauskanger, J. (2023). Supporting in-service teachers’ collective learning of ambitious teaching practices through teacher time outs. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(4), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2042730
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Karoline Kongshavn
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
