Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Mathematics for teaching: A form of applied mathematicsq

Gabriel J. Stylianides a, *, Andreas J. Stylianides b
a
University of Pittsburgh, Posvar Hall Room 5517, 230 S. Bouquet Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
b
University of Cambridge, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this article we elaborate a conceptualisation of mathematics for teaching as a form of applied math-
Received 7 August 2008 ematics (using Bass’s idea of characterising mathematics education as a form of applied mathematics)
Received in revised form and we examine implications of this conceptualisation for the mathematical preparation of teachers.
1 February 2009
Specifically, we focus on issues of design and implementation of a special kind of mathematics tasks
Accepted 24 March 2009
whose use in mathematics teacher education can support the development of knowledge of mathe-
matics for teaching. Also, we discuss broader implications of the article for mathematics teacher
Keywords:
education, including implications for mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge for promoting math-
Mathematical definitions
Mathematics education ematics for teaching.
Proof Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Prospective teachers
Task design and implementation
Teacher knowledge

1. Introduction mathematical issues that come up in their practice. The knowl-

Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work on the nature of teachers’
knowledge drew research attention to the importance of teachers’
content knowledge for teaching. In recent years, Ball and Bass
(2000, 2003) and other researchers (e.g., Adler & Davis, 2006; Ball,
Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Davis & Simmt, 2006; Hill, Sleep, Lewis, &
Ball, 2007) have elaborated and extended Shulman’s work in the
particular domain of mathematics, proposing that, in addition to
topic-specific knowledge of students and pedagogy, teachers of
mathematics need to have mathematical knowledge that is attuned
to the specific mathematical demands of teaching.
This research discourse has given rise to the notion of Math-
ematics for Teaching (MfT) (Ball & Bass, 2000, 2003), which
describes the mathematical content that is important for teachers
to know and be able to use in order to manage successfully the
q The two authors contributed equally to the preparation of this article, which
was supported by funds from the Spencer Foundation (Grant Numbers: 200700100
and 200800104). The opinions expressed in the article are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the position, policy, or endorsement of the Spencer
Foundation. Part of an earlier version of the article was presented at, and will be
published in the proceedings of, the 6th Congress of the European Society for
Research in Mathematics Education (Lyon, France, 2009).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gstylian@pitt.edu (G.J. Stylianides).
edge of MfT is referred to as Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching
(MKfT). According to Ball and Bass (2000), this specialised kind of
mathematical knowledge is important for solving the barrage of
‘‘mathematical problems of teaching’’ that teachers face as they
teach mathematics: offering mathematically accurate explana-
tions that are understandable to students of different ages, eval-
uating the mathematical correctness of student methods,
identifying the mathematical correspondences between different
student solutions for a problem, etc. The profound implications
that the quality of teachers’ mathematical knowledge has for the
quality of learning opportunities teachers can offer to their
students (see, e.g., Goulding, Rowland, & Barber, 2002; Ma, 1999;
Stylianides & Ball, 2008; Stylianides & Silver, 2009) justifies, at
least in part, the growing research focus on MKfT.
To date, research has elaborated theoretical aspects of the
nature of MKfT (e.g., Ball & Bass, 2000; Ball et al., 2008; Davis &
Simmt, 2006), explored some of its elements in specific mathe-
matical areas such as proof (Stylianides & Ball, 2008), investigated
how it can be measured in different cultural settings such as the
American and the Irish (Delaney, Ball, Hill, Schilling, & Zopf, 2008),
showed its effect on student achievement scores (e.g., Hill, Rowan,
& Ball, 2005; Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004), and examined whether
and how it is promoted currently in mathematics teacher education
programmes in specific cultural settings such as the South African
(Adler & Davis, 2006). With this article, we aim to contribute to

0742-051X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.022
162 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
existing theory and practice related to MKfT by examining how it
might be promoted in mathematics teacher education. Specifically,
we focus on the following research question:
What kind of learning opportunities might mathematics teacher
education programmes offer in order to support the develop-
ment of prospective teachers’ MKfT?
Our research focus does not imply a lack of appreciation of the
importance of teachers’ pedagogical or other kinds of knowledge
(such as curricular) for effective teaching.
To address our research question, we elaborate a con-
ceptualisation of MfT as a form of applied mathematics and probe
the implications of this conceptualisation for the mathematical
preparation of teachers, with particular attention to the nature of
mathematics tasks that might be important for use to promote
MKfT in mathematics teacher education. The data for the article are
derived from a mathematics content course for prospective
teachers in the United States. The course provided the context for
a four-year design experiment (see, e.g., Brown, 1992; Cobb, Confrey,
diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003) we conducted in order to
generate practical and theoretical knowledge about ways to
promote elements of MKfT in mathematics teacher education.
2. Exemplifying mathematical knowledge for teaching
Before we present our proposed conceptualisation of MfT as
a form of applied mathematics, we describe a classroom scenario
that we use in this section to exemplify an element of MKfT in the
particular domain of proof. In Sections 3 and 4 we use the same
classroom scenario to illustrate aspects of our conceptualisation of
MfT as a form of applied mathematics.
Classroom scenario
A seventh-grade mathematics class was reviewing methods for
finding a fraction between any two given fractions that are not
equivalent and can be located on the positive part of the number
line. At one point during the lesson, a student in the class, Mark,
announced proudly his discovery of the following general
method for finding a fraction between any two given fractions:
‘‘To find the numerator of a fraction that lies between two given
fractions on the number line, you simply add the numerators of
the two given fractions. To find the denominator, you simply add
the denominators of the two given fractions.’’
Mark illustrated his method with an example as in Fig. 1. He also
clarified that his method gives one out of many possible frac-
tions between any two given positive fractions that are not
equivalent.
The other students in the class were amazed with the method,
tested it with a wealth of examples, and saw that it worked in
every example they checked. Then many students in the class
became convinced that Mark’s method works for any pair of
fractions. One of them, Jane, asked the teacher:
‘‘Can we use this method every time we need to find a fraction
between two given positive fractions?’’
The teacher found herself in a difficult situation: this was the
first time she saw the method and she was not sure how to
respond to Jane’s question.
The classroom scenario raises several questions. Given our
purposes in this article we focus on the following: What major
mathematical issue arose for the teacher in the classroom scenario?
And by implication: What mathematical knowledge would be
useful for the teacher to have in managing this issue?
1 3
I begin with two positive fractions, say and .
2 4
To find a fraction between these two fractions I do the following:
1+ 3 4
= .
2+ 4 6
I use the number line to show that my method worked:
4 1 3
is between and .
6 2 4
Fig. 1. A student’s illustration of a method for finding a fraction between two given
positive fractions.
The major mathematical issue that arose for the teacher in the
classroom scenario was whether it would be mathematically
appropriate for the students in the class to use Mark’s method to
find a fraction between any two given positive fractions that are not
equivalent. This mathematical issue reduces essentially to the
question of whether Mark’s method is correct. As we mentioned in
the scenario, the teacher saw the method for the first time. Thus the
teacher faced the particular kind of ‘‘mathematical problem of
teaching’’ (see Ball & Bass, 2000) that concerns the mathematical
evaluation of a (novel) student method, which happens to be
correct. The mathematical knowledge that the teacher would bring
to bear in managing the situation could influence the course of
action she would follow, which could influence in turn her
students’ opportunities to learn mathematics. Consider for example
the two possibilities outlined below, which illustrate possible
implications of two different elements of mathematical knowledge
that the teacher might possess and use in the situation. Possibility
1 presents potential implications of the teacher having a ‘‘miscon-
ception’’ (i.e., a piece of knowledge that deviates from conventional
mathematical knowledge), whereas possibility 2 presents potential
implications of the teacher having a ‘‘sound conception’’ (i.e.,
a piece of knowledge that is consistent with conventional mathe-
matical knowledge).
Possibility 1:
An element of mathematical knowledge possessed by the teacher
(misconception): If a general method is shown to work for lots of
different examples, then the method is correct.
/ Course of action: The teacher considers Mark’s method to be
correct and says to Jane and the rest of the class that they can
use the method every time they need to find a fraction between
two given positive fractions.
/ Students’ opportunities to learn mathematics: The students add
a new method in their ‘‘toolkit’’ (which happens to be
correct), but they are led to believe the mathematically flawed
idea that the confirming evidence offered by few examples is
enough to establish the correctness of a general method.
Possibility 2:
An element of mathematical knowledge possessed by the teacher
(sound conception): Unless a general method is shown to be true
for all possible cases, the method cannot be accepted as correct.
 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
/ Course of action: The teacher says to Jane and the rest of the
class that, even though Mark’s method worked in all the cases
they checked, there are infinitely many pairs of fractions and so
there is no guarantee that the method works for all of them.
Also, the teacher invites the students to join her in thinking
more about the method and see whether they can prove that
the method works for all possible cases.
/ Students’ opportunities to learn mathematics: The students
are exposed to the mathematically sound idea that the
confirming evidence offered by few examples is not enough
to establish the correctness of a general method. Also, the
students engage with their teacher in an exploration that
can potentially result in a proof that the method is indeed
correct. The development of a proof would allow the
students to add the method to their ‘‘toolkit’’; otherwise, the
class would treat the method as a conjecture.
Several research studies on teachers’ mathematical knowledge
about proof (e.g., Goulding et al., 2002; Knuth, 2002; Martin &
Harel, 1989; Simon & Blume, 1996) showed that many teachers hold
the misconception described in possibility 1 above, namely, that
a few examples can prove a general method. In addition, other
research studies showed that the same misconception is widely
shared among students of all levels of education (e.g., Chazan, 1993;
Coe & Ruthven, 1994; Healy & Hoyles, 2000). Possibility 1 exem-
plified how teachers’ misconceptions can generate or reinforce
students’ misconceptions in the domain of proof. In contrast,
possibility 2 exemplified how knowledge of a key mathematical
idea about proof (i.e., unless a general method is shown to be true
for all possible cases the method cannot be accepted as correct) can
allow teachers to offer students opportunities to develop sound
conceptions about proof. Therefore, possibility 2 exemplified an
important element of MKfT in the domain of proof (for elaboration
on this and other elements of MKfT in the domain of proof, see
Stylianides & Ball, 2008).
3. Conceptualising mathematics for teaching as a form of
applied mathematics
In thinking about the problem of teachers’ mathematical prep-
aration, we found useful Bass’s (2005) suggestion of viewing
mathematics education as a form of applied mathematics:
‘‘[Mathematics education] is a domain of professional work that
makes fundamental use of highly specialized kinds of mathematical
knowledge, and in that sense it can [.] be usefully viewed as a kind
of applied mathematics’’ (p. 418). Given that mathematics educa-
tion makes use of specialised kinds of knowledge from several
other fields in addition to mathematics (psychology, sociology,
linguistics, etc.), we propose that the characterisation ‘‘form of
applied mathematics’’ be used to refer specifically to the mathe-
matical component of mathematics education, notably MfT. Tradi-
tionally, the term ‘‘applied mathematics’’ has been associated with
the use of mathematical knowledge in particular domains of
professional work, notably those that relate to economics, engi-
neering, physics, and statistics. Our proposed use of this term
extends (rather than changes) its traditional meaning to include
also the use of mathematical knowledge in the domain of profes-
sional work that relates to teaching.
The conceptualisation of MfT as a form of applied mathematics
calls attention to the domain of application of MfT (i.e., the work
of mathematics teaching) and the specialised nature of the
mathematical problems in this domain (i.e., the ‘‘mathematical
problems of teaching’’; see Ball & Bass, 2000) that teacher
education programmes need to consider in designing ways
to promote prospective teachers’ MKfT. In particular, the
163
conceptualisation has two important and interrelated implica-
tions for the mathematical preparation of teachers that are
aligned with existing research and theoretical accounts in the
area of MKfT.
First, the conceptualisation implies that the mathematical
preparation of teachers should take seriously into account the idea
that ‘‘there is a specificity to the mathematics that teachers need to
know and know how to use’’ (Adler & Davis, 2006, p. 271). This idea
relates to broader epistemological issues about the situativity of
knowledge (e.g., Perressini, Borko, Romagnano, Knuth, & Willis,
2004) and to research findings that different workplaces require
specialised mathematical knowledge by their practitioners (e.g.,
Hoyles, Noss, & Pozzi, 2001). The situativity of MKfT in the work of
teaching was illustrated in Section 2 where we discussed the
importance of an element of mathematical knowledge in terms of
what a teacher might need to know in order to function effectively
in a classroom situation.
Second, the conceptualisation implies that the mathematical
preparation of teachers should aim to ‘‘create opportunities for
learning subject matter that would enable teachers not only to
know, but to learn to use what they know in the varied contexts
of practice’’ (Ball & Bass, 2000, p. 99). In other words, the con-
ceptualisation underscores the importance of the development
of a ‘‘pedagogically functional mathematical knowledge’’ (Ball &
Bass, 2000, p. 95), which can support teachers to solve
successfully mathematical problems that arise in their work
such as mathematical evaluation of novel student methods as
illustrated in Section 2. The characterisation of MKfT as ‘‘peda-
gogically functional’’ helps clarify further the meaning we assign
to the term ‘‘applied mathematics’’ in the proposed con-
ceptualisation of MfT. Specifically, our use of this term refers to
mathematical content that is (or can be) useful for and usable in
mathematics teaching (the domain of application), and, thus,
important for teachers to know and be able to use when they
teach mathematics (i.e., when they function in the domain of
application).
Acceptance of the conceptualisation of MfT as a form of applied
mathematics necessitates that mathematics teacher education
programmes design opportunities for prospective teachers to learn
and be able to use mathematical content from the perspective of an
adult who is preparing to become a teacher of mathematics. How
might these opportunities for learning mathematical content be
offered in mathematics teacher education?
Given the central role that mathematics tasks can play in the
mathematical activity that takes place in classroom settings at
both school and university levels (see, e.g., Doyle, 1988; Styl-
ianides & Stylianides, 2008; Watson & Mason, 2007), we consid-
ered fruitful to begin to address the aforementioned question
(which is a reformulation of our research question) by con-
ceptualising a special kind of mathematics tasks that we call
Pedagogy-Related mathematics tasks (P-R mathematics tasks). These
tasks are intended to embody essential elements of MfT as a form
of applied mathematics and provoke activity that can support
development of MKfT. With this remark there is no implication
that P-R mathematics tasks are the only, or the best, kinds of
tasks for promoting MKfT, only that they are hypothesised to
support productive learning opportunities for prospective
teachers to develop this knowledge. Also, we acknowledge that,
like it happens with the classroom implementation of all kinds of
mathematics tasks, the implementation of P-R mathematics tasks
in mathematics teacher education does not guarantee generation
of their intended activity (for discussion of issues related to the
fidelity of implementation of mathematics tasks at the school
level, see, e.g., Doyle, 1988; Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996;
Stylianides & Stylianides, 2008).
164 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
4. Pedagogy-Related mathematics tasks: a vehicle to
promoting mathematical knowledge for teaching
In this section we discuss the notion of P-R mathematics tasks as
a vehicle to promoting MKfT in accordance with the con-
ceptualisation of MfT as a form of applied mathematics. As an
example of a P-R mathematics task consider the following question
in relation to the classroom scenario described in Section 2: What
would be a mathematically appropriate way in which the teacher
could respond to Jane’s question about whether the class could use
Mark’s method every time they had to find a fraction between two
given positive fractions? We will henceforth refer to this task as the
Fractions Task.
P-R mathematics tasks have three main features as we explain
next; their defining characteristic is feature 3.
4.1. Feature 1: A primary mathematical object
Like all other kinds of mathematics tasks, P-R mathematics tasks
have a primary mathematical object. This is intended to be the
main focus of prospective teachers’ attention and to engage them in
activity that is predominantly mathematical (as opposed to peda-
gogical). The mathematical object of a P-R mathematics task can
take different forms such as generation/validation of a conjecture
or description of the mathematical relationship between two
different methods for obtaining the same mathematical outcome
(equivalence, incongruence, etc.).
In the Fractions Task the mathematical object is the evaluation
of the mathematical correctness of Mark’s method for finding
a fraction between two given positive fractions. This method can
be expressed algebraically as follows: Given two fractions a/b and
c/ d (where a, b, c, d > 0 and a/b < c/d), then a/b < (a þ c)/(b þ d) < c/d.
4.2. Feature 2: A focus on important elements of mathematical
knowledge for teaching
Like most other kinds of mathematics tasks used in mathe-
matics teacher education (see, e.g., Biza, Nardi, & Zachariades,
2007), the primary mathematical object of a P-R mathematics task
relates to one or more mathematical ideas1 that have been sug-
gested by theory or research on MKfT as being important for
teachers to know.
In our work with prospective teachers we pay special attention
to such ideas that fulfil also the following two criteria:
(a) The ideas are fundamental (an adaptation from Ma, 1999): they
are primary (i.e., they contain the rudiments of advanced
mathematical topics) and foundational (i.e., they are essential
for students’ future learning of mathematics); and
(b) The ideas are hard-to-learn: research and practice suggests that
students tend to have serious misconceptions about different
aspects of these ideas, thereby necessitating that teachers have
solid understanding of the ideas in order to be able to teach
these ideas in ways that would elicit and address student
misconceptions.
Examples of mathematical ideas that we consider fulfil these
two criteria are: generalisation and proof (e.g., Goulding et al.,
2002; Stylianides & Ball, 2008) including issues of mathematical
language and definitions; fraction meanings and operations
1
We use the term ‘‘mathematical ideas’’ broadly to include both mathematical
topics (e.g., the distributive law, the algorithm for dividing two fractions) and
practices (e.g., problem solving, reasoning-and-proving).
(e.g., Ball, 1988; Ma, 1999); and functions (e.g., Leinhardt, Zaslavsky,
& Stein, 1990).
The Fractions Task could be used to engage prospective teachers
in activity related to an important element of MKfT in the domain of
proof, namely, the mathematical idea that the confirming evidence
offered by few examples is not enough to establish the correctness
of a general method. This idea fulfils the two criteria mentioned
earlier as it is both central to the school mathematics curriculum
(e.g., Martin & Harel, 1989; Stylianides, 2007b, 2007c) and partic-
ularly difficult for students to understand (e.g., Chazan, 1993; Healy
& Hoyles, 2000).
4.3. Feature 3: A secondary but substantial pedagogical object and
a corresponding pedagogical space
The defining feature of P-R mathematics tasks is that they have
a secondary pedagogical object in addition to the primary mathe-
matical object. The pedagogical object is substantial (i.e., it is an
integral part of the task and important for its solution) and situates
the mathematical object of the task in a particular pedagogical
space, which relates to school mathematics and may derive from
actual or fictional classroom records. The pedagogical object and
the corresponding pedagogical space of a P-R mathematics task
help engage prospective teachers in mathematical activity from the
perspective of an adult who is preparing to become a teacher of
mathematics.
In the Fractions Task the pedagogical object is the teacher’s need
to formulate a mathematically appropriate response to Jane’s
question about using Mark’s novel method. The corresponding
pedagogical space of the Fractions Task is the contextual informa-
tion offered in the classroom scenario. For example, according to
the scenario the event happened in a seventh-grade class; this
information allows the solvers of the task to make certain
assumptions about what the students in the class might know or be
able to understand. Thus the answer to the question posed in the
task cannot be sought in a purely mathematical space, but rather in
a space that intertwines content and pedagogy. For that reason, the
task can be used to engage prospective teachers in mathematical
activity that is attuned to particular mathematical demands of
mathematics teaching.
Next we discuss six points related to feature 3 of P-R mathe-
matics tasks. First, the pedagogical object/space of a P-R mathe-
matics task, and especially its connection to actual or fictional
classroom records, can embody the ideas of ‘‘situativity of knowl-
edge’’ (e.g., Perressini et al., 2004; see also Adler & Davis, 2006) and
‘‘pedagogical functionality’’ (Ball & Bass, 2000) we discussed in
Section 3. Specifically, the pedagogical object can offer prospective
teachers the opportunity to develop mathematical knowledge that
can be applied in a particular context (pedagogical space) within
the broader work of mathematics teaching.
Second, prospective teachers’ engagement with P-R mathe-
matics tasks can be thought of as a process of mathematising
teaching. Our use of Freudenthal’s (1973, 1991) notion of ‘‘mathe-
matising’’ follows that of ‘‘horizontal mathematisation’’ as formu-
lated by Treffers (1987). In broad terms, Treffers used horizontal
mathematisation to describe the mathematical activity in which
students use mathematical tools to organise and solve a problem
embedded in a ‘‘real-life’’ situation. Similarly, prospective teachers
who engage with a P-R mathematics task are expected to use
mathematical tools to organise and solve a problem that is
embedded in a realistic teaching situation (pedagogical space).
Third, the pedagogical space in which a P-R mathematics task is
situated determines to great extent what counts as an acceptable/
appropriate solution to the task, because it provides (or suggests)
a set of conditions with which a possible solution to the task needs
 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
to comply. This characteristic of P-R mathematics tasks is impor-
tant, because a purely mathematical approach to a ‘‘mathematical
problem of teaching’’ (Ball & Bass, 2000) is often inadequate to
appropriately consider the peculiarities of the pedagogical space in
which the problem is embedded. In the Fractions Task, for example,
an algebraic proof for Mark’s method like the one in Fig. 2 might not
be within the conceptual reach of students in a seventh-grade class.
However, a proof of the inequality a/b < (a þ c)/(b þ d) < c/d that
‘‘invokes an argument from physics’’ (see, e.g., Hanna & Jahnke,
2002, p. 39) would likely have stronger explanatory power and be
more accessible to students than the algebraic proof. Consider for
example the distance–time graph in Fig. 3, with the fractions a/b,
c/d, and (a þ c)/(b þ d) representing respectively the following
speeds: the constant speed for covering distance a in time b, the
constant speed for covering an additional distance c in time d, and
the average speed for covering the entire distance (a þ c) in time
(b þ d). The smaller the fraction the smaller the speed, and so the
fact that a/b < c/d implies that the constant speed for covering
distance a is smaller than the constant speed for covering distance
c; this is illustrated by the smaller slope of OP as compared to the
slope of PQ in the figure. The average speed for covering the entire
distance (a þ c) in time (b þ d) should be: (1) bigger than a/b
because, otherwise, smaller distance than (a þ c) would be covered
in time (b þ d); and (2) smaller than c/d because, otherwise,
distance (a þ c) would be covered in less time than (b þ d). Thus it
follows that a/b < (a þ c)/(b þ d) < c/d.2
Fourth and closely related to the previous point, the pedagogical
space in which a P-R mathematics task is situated is frequently hard
to define precisely: given the complexities of any pedagogical
situation, it is often impractical (even impossible) to describe all the
parameters of the situation that can be relevant to the mathe-
matical object of a task. This lack of specificity of the pedagogical
space is potentially useful for mathematics teacher educators3 who
implement P-R mathematics tasks with their prospective teachers.
Specifically, mathematics teacher educators can use the endemic
(and at times intentional) ambiguity surrounding the conditions of
a pedagogical space to vary some of its conditions in ways that can
create opportunities for prospective teachers to engage in a set of
related mathematical activities. Consider for example the peda-
gogical space of the Fractions Task that does specify whether the
class in the scenario would be able to produce an algebraic proof
like the one in Fig. 2. A mathematics teacher educator could thus
engage prospective teachers in the development of different proofs
as discussed earlier based on different assumptions about the
seventh-graders’ knowledge level. These mathematical activities
can provide prospective teachers with experience in grappling with
a range of related mathematical issues that may arise in a teacher’s
practice (such issues arise often unexpectedly; see, e.g., Goulding
et al., 2002; Lampert & Ball, 1999).
Fifth, the pedagogical object and corresponding pedagogical
space of a P-R mathematics task have the potential to motivate
prospective teachers’ engagement in the task by helping them see
2
Another proof for the inequality a/b < (a þ c)/(b þ d) < c/d that would likely be
understandable by seventh graders might consider the fractions a/b and c/d as
representing ratios, say the ratios of the number of a student’s correct answers in
tests 1 and 2 over the number of questions in each test (a/b and c/d, respectively). The
fact that a/b < c/d implies that the ratio of the number of correct answers over the
number of questions in test 2 was bigger than the corresponding ratio in test 1. After
applying reasoning similar to the one in the ‘‘distance-time’’ proof, one can conclude
that the ratio of the total number of the student’s correct answers in the two tests
over the total number of questions in the two tests, i.e., (a þ c)/(b þ d) has to be bigger
than the ratio in test 1, i.e., a/b, and smaller than the ratio in test 2, i.e., c/d.
3 4
We use the term ‘‘mathematics teacher educators’’ broadly to mean university
faculty who are involved in the preparation of teachers, notably mathematics
educators and mathematicians.
165
and appreciate why the mathematical ideas in the task are or might
be important for their future work as teachers of mathematics.
According to Harel (1998), ‘‘[s]tudents are most likely to learn when
they see a need for what we intend to teach them, where by ‘need’
is meant intellectual need, as opposed to social or economic need’’
(p. 501; the excerpt in the original was in italics). In the case of
prospective teachers, a ‘‘need’’ for learning mathematics may be
defined in terms of developing mathematical knowledge that is
useful for and usable in the work of teaching. By helping prospec-
tive teachers see a need for the ideas mathematics teacher educa-
tors teach them, mathematics teacher educators increase the
likelihood that prospective teachers will get interested in and learn
these ideas.4 This statement is consistent with research findings on
motivational aspects of cognition, which suggest that a prerequisite
for successful problem solving is that problem solving be situated in
personally meaningful contexts (see, e.g., Mayer, 1998; Renninger,
Hidi, & Krapp, 1992; Weiner, 1986). According to this body of
research, students learn better – that is, they think harder and
process the material more deeply and with more likelihood of
transfer – when they have an interest in the material.
Sixth, the design and implementation of P-R mathematics tasks
require some pedagogical knowledge by mathematics teacher
educators. For example, the design of the Fractions Task used
knowledge about a common student misconception in the domain
of proof and considered a possible link between this student
misconception and a teacher’s evaluation of a novel student
method. The pedagogical demands imposed by the design and
implementation of P-R mathematics tasks on mathematics teacher
educators’ own knowledge can create challenges in certain
contexts such as the North American. In this context mathematics
content courses for prospective teachers are typically taught by
(research) mathematicians (see Davis & Simmt, 2006) who tend to
have little (if any) background in pedagogy. We return to this issue
in the last section of the article.
5. Exemplifying the use of P-R mathematics tasks in
a mathematics content course for prospective elementary
(grades K-6) teachers
This section is organised in two parts. In the first part we
provide as background a brief description of major features of
a mathematics content course for prospective elementary teachers
in the United States (these teachers will be certified to teach from
kindergarten through grade 6). We developed this course with the
intention to promote MfT as a form of applied mathematics. Given
the importance of P-R mathematics tasks in the conceptualisation
of MfT as a form of applied mathematics, P-R mathematics had
a prominent place in the course. Yet P-R mathematics tasks did not
constitute the only kind of tasks we used in the course. Another
kind of tasks we used is what we call typical mathematics tasks,
which embody only features 1 and 2 of P-R mathematics tasks (see
Section 4). An advantage of typical mathematics tasks is that they
allow for a faster pace than P-R mathematics tasks and thus give
mathematics teacher educators the opportunity to cover more
topics in their courses.
In the second part we illustrate the use of P-R mathematics tasks
in the course by discussing the implementation of two task
sequences, which included both typical and P-R mathematics tasks.
To develop these and other task sequences in the course we followed
a series of five design-research cycles (see, e.g., Cobb, et al., 2003) of
This is particularly important in the teaching of ideas that prospective teachers
tend to consider difficult or ‘‘advanced’’ for the level of the students they are
teaching such as the notion of proof in mathematics.
166 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172

a c a c
Given two fractions and (where a , b , c , d > 0 and < ), we want to
b d b d
prove that:
a a+c c
< < .
b b+d d

a c
Beginning from the known relationship < , we can derive the following:
b d
a a+c
ad < bc ⇒ ab + ad < ab + bc ⇒ a(b + d ) < b(a + c) ⇒ < . (*)
b b+d

a c
Beginning again from the known relationship < , we can derive the
b d
following:
a+c c
ad < bc ⇒ ad + cd < bc + cd ⇒ d (a + c) < c(b + d ) ⇒ < . (**)
b+d d

The inequality we wanted to prove follows from (*) and (**).

Fig. 2. An algebraic proof for a general method for finding a fraction between two given positive fractions.

implementation, analysis, and refinement over a four-year period.5 interrelated mathematical processes: (a) reasoning-and-proving
In this article we use data from the last research cycle that involved (Stylianides, 2008), a hyphenated term that we use to encompass
enactment of the course in two sections, which were attended by a family of activities involved in the investigation of whether and
a total of 39 prospective teachers and were taught by the first author. why ‘‘things work’’ in mathematics such as making mathematical
Specifically, the data for the article came from one of the two sections generalisations and formulating arguments and proofs for or
and included the lesson plans we designed for the relevant teacher against these generalisations; (b) problem solving; and (c) using
education sessions, video records of selected episodes from those different forms of representation (e.g., algebraic, linguistic, picto-
sessions, and field notes that were taken by a research assistant (the rial) and identifying correspondences between them. The course
field notes focused on prospective teachers’ work in small groups). treated these three processes as strands that underpinned
prospective teachers’ mathematical work on different mathemat-
ical topics. The treatment of the processes as strands reflects their
5.1. General description of the course
prevalent place in mathematical inquiry in the discipline and is
compatible with the central place that is recommended for them in
This was a three-credit undergraduate-level mathematics
school mathematics instruction by curriculum frameworks in
content course that was prerequisite for admission to the masters-
different countries including the United States (NCTM, 2000), the
level elementary teaching certification programme at a large state
particular cultural context of the focal course.
university in the United States. Contrary to what usually happens
The approach that the course took to develop prospective
with mathematics content courses for prospective elementary
teachers’ MKfT was reflected not only in the selection of content
teachers in the United States and Canada (see Davis & Simmt,
(see feature 2 of P-R mathematics tasks in Section 4.2), but also in
2006), the course was offered through the School of Education
rather than the Department of Mathematics. The students in the
course pursued undergraduate majors in different fields of study
and tended to have weak mathematical backgrounds (for many
students this was the first mathematics course they had since high
school). Also, given that the students were not yet in the teaching
certification programme, they had limited or no background in
pedagogy.
The course was the only mathematics content course specified
in the admission requirements for the teaching certification pro-
gramme.6 The course was designed to cover a wide range of
mathematical topics (e.g., the properties of arithmetic, factors and
multiples) in different mathematical domains (arithmetic, algebra,
number theory, geometry, and measurement). In addition to
mathematical topics, the course emphasised three important and

5
In Stylianides and Stylianides (2009) we describe the process of task develop-
ment that we followed in the design experiment that we conducted in the course.
6
The students who are admitted to the teaching certification programme take
also a mathematics pedagogy course, but the focus of this course is on teaching Fig. 3. A distance–time graph that can be elaborated in a proof for a general method
methods. for finding a fraction between two given positive fractions.
 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
the method that the course followed to promote prospective
teachers’ understanding of this content. Some major aspects of the
method of the course concerned the role of the mathematics
teacher educator as the representative of the mathematical
community in the classroom (see, e.g., Stylianides, 2007b; Yackel &
Cobb, 1996), the incorporation of potential contradictions in some
tasks to provoke ‘‘cognitive conflict’’ for prospective teachers and
support developmental progressions in their knowledge (see, e.g.,
Stylianides & Stylianides, 2009; Zazkis & Chernoff, 2008), and the
emphasis on social interactions as critical features for learning and
constructing shared meaning (see, e.g., Simon & Blume, 1996;
Yackel & Cobb, 1996). We elaborate on these and other aspects of
the course’s method in Stylianides and Stylianides (2009).
The aspect of the course’s method most relevant to our purposes
in this article is the use of both typical and P-R mathematics tasks in
carefully designed task sequences to enhance prospective teachers’
MKfT. A common sequence of tasks in the course began with
a typical mathematics task that set the stage for a P-R mathematics
task. The typical mathematics task allowed prospective teachers to
work on a mathematical topic from an adult’s standpoint. The P-R
mathematics task that followed introduced some pedagogical
factors that prospective teachers had to consider also in their
mathematical work. In order to satisfy feature 3 of P-R mathematics
tasks about situating prospective teachers’ mathematical work in
a pedagogical space, we used a wide range of actual classroom
records such as video records or written descriptions of classroom
episodes in elementary classrooms, samples of elementary
students’ mathematical work (e.g., examples of common student
misconceptions), excerpts from elementary mathematics text-
books, etc. Less frequently and when actual classroom records were
not available, we used (similarly to Biza et al., 2007) fictional but
plausible descriptions of classroom practice.
The five research cycles of our design experiment helped us
understand the ways in which the prospective teachers in the
course engaged with our task sequences and allowed us to adapt
these sequences in order to better enhance prospective teachers’
MKfT. Next we discuss the implementation of two task sequences in
one of the two sections of the course from the last research cycle.
5.2. Two examples of task sequences and their implementation in
the course
5.2.1. Example 1: Analysing textbook definitions of even numbers
The first example of task sequence was implemented in the
third out of 13 weeks of classes and came from a unit that aimed to
help prospective teachers develop an understanding of character-
istics of good definitions for use in elementary school classrooms
(for a discussion of this element of MKfT in the domain of proof, see
Stylianides & Ball, 2008). As part of our instructional design, the
mathematics teacher educator engaged the prospective teachers in
a series of tasks that highlighted the importance of definitions in
both school mathematics and the discipline of mathematics. Then
he raised the issue of how teachers may judge the appropriateness
of definitions of mathematical concepts found in elementary
mathematics textbooks. The focal task sequence was comprised of
a typical mathematics task followed by a P-R mathematics task and
aimed to engage the prospective teachers in thinking about this
issue in the particular domain of even numbers.
The typical mathematics task asked prospective teachers to define
even numbers and to say whether specific numbers were even:
Define even numbers. Are 15, 6, 0, 1/2, 9.5, 22 even numbers?
Note that this task is situated in a purely mathematical space: no
pedagogical constraints interfere with its solution. There was not
167
a whole class discussion of prospective teachers’ responses to the
task. Rather, the teacher educator asked prospective teachers to
work in pairs to compare and discuss their responses to the task.
This activity helped prospective teachers notice the diversity in
their proposed definitions and the different answers they gave on
whether the given numbers were even. Thus the prospective
teachers started to wonder what would be a mathematically
accurate definition of even numbers. This set the stage for the P-R
mathematics task that followed.
In preparing the prospective teachers for the P-R mathematics
task, the teacher educator acknowledged the challenge entailed in
the development of a mathematically accurate definition for even
numbers. Also, he explained to them that the development of
a mathematically accurate definition is particularly challenging for
elementary teachers who want the definition to be also pedagog-
ically appropriate for use with young children. In elaborating on
this challenge, the teacher educator noted that, although in the
discipline of mathematics the set of even numbers is {., 6, 4,
2, 0, 2, 4, 6, .}, in the elementary school it is often the case that
students do not know about negative integers and so even numbers
are typically treated only on the set of whole numbers, i.e., {0, 1, 2, 3,
4, .}. How can elementary teachers reconcile these competing
mathematical and pedagogical factors?
The teacher educator presented then to the prospective teachers
the P-R mathematics task, which asked the prospective teachers to
use the following two considerations to evaluate the appropriate-
ness of seven definitions of even numbers for elementary school
students. These considerations constituted the introductory part of
the P-R mathematics task.
1. Mathematical consideration:
Is the definition mathematically accurate? (e.g., Does it use
language in a precise way?)
2. Student consideration:
i. Does the definition use terms that are known to the students?
(We may assume that elementary students do not know yet
about negative integers.)
ii. Is the definition consistent with what students will learn in
the future? (Students will some day learn about negative
integers.)
The two considerations have their theoretical basis on the
two principles for conceptualising mathematical notions in
school mathematics (e.g., proof, even numbers) that were dis-
cussed in Stylianides (2007c). In brief, the two principles are the
following: (a) the intellectual-honesty principle, which states that
mathematical notions in school mathematics should be con-
ceptualised so that they are, at once, honest to mathematics as
a discipline and honouring of students as mathematical learners;
and (b) the continuum principle, which states that there should
be continuity in how the mathematical notions are con-
ceptualised in different school years so that students’ school
experiences with these notions have coherence. Once the
mathematics teacher educator described the two considerations
to the prospective teachers, he presented to them the main part
of the P-R mathematics task:
Use the two considerations to discuss the appropriateness of the
following textbook definitions for elementary school students.
1. An even number is a number of the form 2k, where k is an
integer.
2. An even number is a whole number that it is a whole number
times 2.
3. An even number is a natural number that is divisible by 2.
168 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
4. An even number is a number that has 0, 2, 4, 6, or 8 in the
ones place.
5. An even number ends in 0, 2, 4, 6, or 8.
6. An even number is a number that is not odd.
7. A whole number is even if it is another whole number times 2.
Most of the definitions were adapted from Ball, Bass, Sleep, and
Stylianides (2004) and were derived from actual elementary school
textbooks.
The mathematical object of the P-R mathematics task was to
evaluate the mathematical accuracy of the given definitions (see
mathematical consideration). The pedagogical object of the task was
a teacher’s expectation that the definitions would be appropriate
for use with elementary school students (see student consider-
ation). The corresponding pedagogical space was the description
(scenario) that appeared in the elaboration of the student consid-
eration: elementary students were assumed to not know yet about
negative integers, but in the future they would learn that even
numbers are not restricted to the set of whole numbers. The
pedagogical space provided some conditions that determined what
could constitute an appropriate definition of even numbers for the
elementary students in the scenario. For example, a definition that
included the notion of ‘‘integer’’ could not be appropriate, because
this notion was assumed to be outside of students’ current
knowledge base. Yet the pedagogical space in the task was not well
defined: besides the fact that elementary students did not know yet
about negative integers, nothing else was mentioned about
students’ current knowledge base. This lack of specificity in the
pedagogical space was intended to give to prospective teachers an
opportunity to experience the contextualised nature of mathe-
matical problems of teaching.
The prospective teachers analysed the definitions first individ-
ually, then in groups of four of five, and finally in the whole class.
Next we describe some issues that came up in the whole class
discussion, thereby exemplifying the potential of the P-R mathe-
matics task to generate mathematical activity that is tailored to the
needs of prospective teachers.
Definition 1 was considered to be mathematically accurate, but
it was noted that the definition did not address adequately the
student consideration because the notion of integers also includes
negative numbers and, according to the pedagogical space of the
task, elementary students did not know yet about negative
numbers.
Definition 3 was judged to be mathematically imprecise because
it excluded non-positive integers from the set of even numbers. The
lack of specificity in the pedagogical space of the task made some
prospective teachers wonder whether elementary students would
understand the term ‘‘divisible’’ in the definition. These prospective
teachers raised an important issue that a good teacher of mathe-
matics would probably raise at this point: ‘‘Do the students for
whom the definition is intended know the meaning of terms used
in the definition?’’ The answer to this question is contextualised in
a teacher’s practice at a given time. Because many prospective
teachers did not themselves have an understanding of the term
divisible, they assumed that elementary students would likely not
have an understanding of it and, therefore, concluded that the
definition would probably violate the student consideration.
Definitions 4, 5, and 6 were said to use terms that most probably
would be known to the students, but the definitions were judged to
be mathematically inaccurate, thus violating the mathematical
consideration. The prospective teachers found decimal numbers
such as 20.4, which were counterexamples to all three definitions.
Each of the three definitions raised some other issues in the whole
class discussion. For example, definition 6 raised the issue of how
useful it is mathematically to define even numbers by describing
what an even number is not. Also, would the students know what
an odd number is?
Definitions 2 and 7 looked similar on the surface, but were
judged to be different in terms of the two considerations. On the
one hand, definition 2 was judged to be mathematically inaccurate,
because it said that only whole numbers can be even. On the other
hand, definition 7 was judged to be mathematically accurate: even
though it defined only even whole numbers (i.e., it defined even
numbers on the set of whole numbers), the class considered this
restriction in the domain of the definition acceptable because the
students were assumed to not know yet about negative integers.
Furthermore, the class recognised that, the fact that the definition
said nothing about whether negative integers could be even,
allowed the future expansion of the definition to the entire set
of integers when the students would learn about negative integers.
Thus the definition was said to satisfy also the student
consideration.
Below is an excerpt from the whole class discussion of definition 7.7
Tiffany: [Definition 7] doesn’t include the negatives. It’s not that
[good] because it doesn’t include the negatives.
Stylianides: What do other people think?
Natasha: I was gonna say the same thing.
Stylianides: Melissa?
Melissa: It’s defining an even whole number, though, not an even
like . all numbers. So it would probably be appropriate for an
elementary ‘‘schooler,’’ like, who doesn’t talk about negative
numbers. [.]
Evans: Um, I think it doesn’t give the whole definition but
they [students] are able to expand on that definition without,
you know, contradiction anything that they’ve learned in
the past.
The excerpt illustrates that the P-R mathematics task engaged
prospective teachers in a discussion of an important mathematical
issue from a teacher’s perspective. Specifically, the prospective
teachers were discussing the issue of defining a mathematical
concept on a proper subset of its conventional domain in an
attempt to address the constraints described in the pedagogical
space of the task. Presumably, it would be hard for a teacher
educator to engage prospective elementary teachers in a discussion
of such a subtle but important mathematical issue in the absence of
a ‘‘motivating’’ pedagogical space.8
Finally, we note that the analysis of the textbook definitions in
the P-R mathematics task in terms of the two considerations
offered prospective teachers opportunities to not only develop
their knowledge about definitions, mathematical language, and
even numbers, but also to see and appreciate how this knowledge
may be applicable in relevant teaching contexts. Later in the course,
the prospective teachers had the opportunity to use the two
considerations to analyse definitions of other mathematical
concepts, such as factors and multiples in number theory and
rectangles in geometry. In the process of analysing definitions, the
teacher educator explained to the prospective teachers that the
desirable level of mathematical precision of a definition used in an
elementary mathematics classroom is a function of the instruc-
tional goals of the teacher and the level/knowledge of the students.
There are situations where an ambiguous or a less developed
7
All prospective teacher names are pseudonyms.
8
Another subtle mathematical issue related to definition 7 concerns the use of
the term ‘‘another.’’ If one considers this term to mean ‘‘different,’’ then the defi-
nition excludes the number zero from being even, assuming that the term another
refers to the number we want to check whether it is even. This issue came up in the
whole class discussion only after the teacher educator invited the prospective
teachers to think about the use of the term another in the definition.
 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
definition may be more appropriate or desirable than a mathe-
matically precise definition (for a discussion of this issue, see
Stylianides, 2007a, pp. 380–382). The teacher educator clarified
further that giving to students a mathematically precise definition
of a concept does not imply that the students will develop an
accurate mathematical understanding of the concept.
5.2.2. Example 2: Exploring a possible relation between the area
and perimeter of rectangles
The second example of task sequence was implemented in the
ninth week of classes and aimed to promote prospective teachers’
knowledge about a possible relation between the notions of area
and perimeter of rectangles. Central to this exploration were also
ideas of mathematical generalisation and proof by counterexample.
The task sequence included a typical mathematics task (question 1)
followed by a P-R mathematics task (question 2):
Imagine that one of your students comes to class very excited.
She tells you that she has figured out a theory that you never
told the class. She explains that she has discovered that as the
perimeter of a rectangle increases, the area also increases. She
shows you this picture to prove what she is doing:
4 cm 8 cm
4 cm 4 cm
Perimeter = 16 cm Perimeter = 24 cm
Area= 16 cm2 Area= 32 cm2
1. Evaluate mathematically the student statement? (underlined)
2. How would you respond to this student?
The task sequence was an adaptation of tasks used by Ma (1999)
and developed originally by Ball (1988).
Although question 1 refers to a student statement, it is essen-
tially a typical mathematics task because the prompt asks
prospective teachers to evaluate mathematically the statement,
without asking or expecting them to take into account the fact that
the statement was produced by a student. Question 2, on the other
hand, is a P-R mathematics task because it introduces a student
consideration that prospective teachers have to take into account in
their solution of the task. The mathematical object of this P-R
mathematics task is to evaluate mathematically the underlined
statement, which is essentially what the prospective teachers were
asked to do in question 1 (a teacher would need to think about the
possible correctness of the statement before deciding how to
respond to the student who produced it). The pedagogical object of
the task is the teacher’s responsibility to respond to the student
who produced the statement. The corresponding pedagogical space
is the scenario in the task, which includes the following informa-
tion: (a) the student is excited about her ‘‘discovery’’ because it is
a statement the teacher never mentioned to the class but the
student considers important; and (b) the student substantiates her
‘‘discovery’’ with a single example in the domain of the statement.
Even though the statement is plausible, it is flawed.
An appropriate response to question 1 could say that the
statement is false and provide a counterexample to it. However, an
appropriate response to question 2 would need to include more
than that. From a pedagogical standpoint, it would be useful and
important for the student’s learning if the teacher in the scenario
169
not only refuted her statement by providing a counterexample to it,
but also helped her understand why the statement is false and also
the conditions under which the statement is true.
The prospective teachers worked on the two questions first
individually and then in groups of four or five. Later on there was
a whole class discussion, which began with the teacher educator
asking representatives from different small groups to report their
work on the task, beginning with question 1.
Andria: We [she refers to the members of her small group] said
that it [the student statement] was mathematically sound
because as you increase the size of the figure, the area is going to
increase as well.
Tiffany: We [she refers to the members of her small group]
agreed. We thought the same, because as the sides are getting
bigger. [inaudible]
Stylianides: Does anybody disagree? [no group expressed
a disagreement]
Evans: I agree. [Evans was in a different small group than Andria
and Tiffany]
Stylianides: And how would you respond to the student?
Melissa: I think it’s true but they haven’t proved it for all
numbers so it’s not really a proof.
Andria: I think that you don’t have to try every number [she
means every possible case in the domain of the statement] to be
able to prove it because if the student can explain why it works
like we just did, like if you increase the length then the area
increases. [pause]
Stylianides: Yeah, so it’s impossible to check all possible cases [of
different rectangles].
Meredith: I’d say that it’s an interesting idea, and I’d see if they
can explain why it works.
As the above excerpt shows, all small groups believed that the
student statement was true, but at the same time they realised that
the evidence the student provided for her claim was not a proof
(see, e.g., Melissa’s comment). As a result, the prospective teachers
started to think about how to prove the statement and how to
respond to the student. For example, Andria pointed out that it
would be impossible to check every possible case. Also, both
Andria and Meredith pointed out that the student needed to
explain why (i.e., prove that) the area of a rectangle increases as its
perimeter increases. However, the teacher educator knew that the
statement was false. So the teacher educator, consistent with his
role as the representative of the mathematical community in the
classroom (see Section 5.1), probed the prospective teachers to
check more cases and see whether they could come up with an
example where the student statement failed. All small groups
found quickly at least one counterexample to the statement and
they concluded that the student statement was false. Earlier in the
course the prospective teachers had opportunities to discuss the
idea that one counterexample suffices to show that a general
statement is false. This might explain why the phenomenon of
treating counterexamples as exceptions that was observed with
other prospective elementary teachers who worked on the same
statement (see Simon & Blume, 1996) was not observed with this
group of prospective teachers.
The prospective teachers’ counterexamples to the student
statement made them experience a ‘‘cognitive conflict’’ (see, e.g.,
Stylianides & Stylianides, 2009; Zazkis & Chernoff, 2008) because,
at the initial stages of their engagement with the task sequence,
they never expected that such an intuitively ‘‘obvious’’ statement
about the ‘‘relationship’’ between area and perimeter of rectangles
would be false. This unexpected, for the prospective teachers,
finding motivated their further work on question 2. The teacher
educator decided to give to the prospective teachers more time to
170 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
think in their small groups about question 2. The excerpt below is
from the whole class discussion on this question that followed the
small group work.
Natasha: We said that the way that they [the students] are doing
it, where they’re just increasing the length of one side, it’s
always going to work for them but if they try examples where
they change the length on both sides that’s the only way it’s
going to prove that it doesn’t work all the time. So you should try
examples by changing both sides.
Stylianides: [referring to the class:] What do you think about
Natasha’s response? Does it make sense? [the class nodded in
agreement] So what else? What else do you think about this?
Evans: You can kind of ask them to restructure the proof so that
it would work.
Stylianides: What do you mean by ‘‘restructure the proof’’?
Evans: Like once they figure out that it doesn’t work for all cases
they could say it’s still like. if they saw it and if they revise it
like the wording or just add a statement in there that if they can
come up with a mathematically correct statement.
Stylianides: Anything else? [no response from the class]
I think both ideas [mentioned earlier] are really important. So
when you have something [a statement] that doesn’t work then
it’s clear that this student would be interested to know more. For
example, why it doesn’t work, or under what conditions does it
work, because, obviously, some of the examples that the student
checked worked. [.]
Natasha and Evans proposed two related issues that the
teacher in the scenario of the P-R mathematics task could address
when responding to the student: (a) why the statement is false,
and (b) the conditions under which the statement is true. Based on
our planning for the implementation of the task, the teacher
educator would raise these issues anyway, because, as we
explained earlier, we considered mathematically sufficient but
pedagogically inconsiderate a teacher’s response that would
consist only of a counterexample to the student’s statement. In
other words, we considered such a response inadequate given the
pedagogical space of the P-R mathematics task. The fact that the
two issues were raised by the prospective teachers and not the
teacher educator is noteworthy, because Natasha and Evans had
no teaching experience and also the issues they raised required
further mathematical work of themselves and the rest of the
teacher education class. Consider for example Evans’s contribu-
tion, which raised essentially the following new mathematical
question for the class: How could the student statement be revised
so that it would become true? In other words, under what
conditions would the student statement be true? It is hard to
explain what provoked the contributions of Natasha and Evans,
but we hypothesise that the pedagogical object/space of the P-R
mathematics played an important role in this. Specifically, we
hypothesise that the teacher’s responsibility to respond to a false
but plausible student statement made the prospective teachers
think harder about important mathematical issues related to the
statement in the task.
Following the summary of the two issues (see the final part of
the previous excerpt), the teacher educator engaged the prospec-
tive teachers in an examination of the conditions under which the
student statement is true. Specifically, he asked the prospective
teachers to investigate what happens to the area of a rectangle in
each of the following three cases where the perimeter of the
rectangle increases:
1. One of the two dimensions (length or width) is increased and
the other dimension is kept constant;
2. Both dimensions are increased; and
3. One of the two dimensions is increased and the other dimen-
sion is decreased, so that the absolute value of the change in the
increased dimension is larger than the absolute value of the
change in the decreased dimension.
The prospective teachers produced algebraic and pictorial
proofs to show that in the first two cases the area increases always,
and examples to show that in the third case the area can increase,
decrease, or stay the same. A more detailed discussion of the
prospective teachers’ work on the three cases where the perimeter
of the rectangle increases is beyond the scope of this article.
To conclude, our discussion of the implementation of the task
sequence in the teacher education class exemplified the idea that
the application of mathematical knowledge in contextualised
teaching situations can be different than its application in similar
but purely mathematical contexts. Although the mathematical
objects of the typical and P-R mathematics tasks in the sequence
were the same, the pedagogical space in which the P-R mathe-
matics task was embedded changed what could count as an
appropriate solution to the task, thereby generating mathematical
activity in a combined mathematical and pedagogical domain.
6. Concluding remarks
In this article we capitalised on the research idea, that teachers
need a specialised kind of mathematical knowledge for their work,
in order to elaborate a conceptualisation of MfT as a form of applied
mathematics. The conceptualisation offers, we argued, a useful
platform to explore the kind of learning opportunities that math-
ematics teacher education programmes can design to support the
development of prospective teachers’ MKfT. We focused on math-
ematical tasks, which constitute a critical element of mathematical
activity in both school and university settings, and we elaborated
a special kind of mathematics tasks that we called P-R mathematics
tasks. We considered issues of design and implementation of this
kind of tasks in the mathematical preparation of prospective
teachers, but we see no reason why the ideas we discussed herein
would not be applicable also to the professional development of
practising teachers.
Although the primary object of P-R mathematics tasks is
mathematical, their design, implementation, and solution require
some pedagogical knowledge. This requirement derives primarily
from the pedagogical objects/spaces of P-R mathematics tasks,
which determine to great extent what counts as acceptable/
appropriate solutions to the tasks and influence the mathematical
activity that can be generated by them. For example, the design of
the P-R mathematics task that we discussed in Section 5.2.2 used
knowledge about a common student misconception regarding the
relation between the area and perimeter of rectangles. Further-
more, successful implementation and solution of this task required
appreciation of the pedagogical idea that a teacher’s response to
a flawed but plausible student statement might not be limited to
the presentation of a counterexample to the statement. Rather, it
might include also exploration of why the student statement is
false and the conditions under which it is true.
The pedagogical demands implicated by the design, imple-
mentation, and solution of P-R mathematics tasks suggest that
instructors of teacher education courses who want to use this kind
of tasks need to have not only good knowledge of mathematics but
also some pedagogical knowledge. In contexts such as the North
American where, as we mentioned earlier, mathematics content
courses for prospective teachers are typically offered by mathe-
matics departments and taught by (research) mathematicians, it
may be hard to require or expect that the instructors of these
courses have knowledge of pedagogy. However, if such knowledge
 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
is recognised to be essential for teaching MfT to prospective
teachers, then the field of mathematics teacher education will need
to find ways to support the teaching practices of mathematicians
and other instructors of mathematics content courses for
prospective teachers. The conceptualisation of MfT as a form of
applied mathematics that we presented in this article speaks, in
a way, the ‘‘language of mathematicians.’’ Thus it can prove useful
in helping mathematicians to recognise the importance of them
trying to find ways to situate their prospective teachers’ mathe-
matical work in the domain of teaching, and by implication, the
importance of them as instructors to learn something about
pedagogy.
One specific way in which the field of mathematics teacher
education might support the teaching practices of instructors of
mathematics content courses for prospective teachers is by
designing and making available to them the teacher education
equivalent of ‘‘educative curriculum materials’’ at the school level
(for a discussion of educative curriculum materials at the school
level, see, e.g., Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Educative curriculum mate-
rials at the school level are not only concerned with student
learning but also with teacher learning. A major focus of this kind of
curriculum materials is to support teachers’ knowledge of topics
they teach, familiarise them with common student (mis)concep-
tions related to these topics, help them understand the rationale for
the selection and design of particular tasks, etc. Thus, the corre-
sponding curriculum materials at the teacher education level
would not simply include P-R mathematics tasks but also the
rationale for their design and associated target learning goals for
prospective teachers, suggestions for the implementation of the
tasks, comments about issues that may arise during the imple-
mentation of the tasks such as common prospective teacher solu-
tion strategies or (mis)conceptions, and suggestions for how
instructors can manage these issues.
The pedagogical aspects of P-R mathematics tasks raise also the
following question: Would it make sense to promote MKfT in
mathematics content courses designed specifically for prospective
teachers, or would it make more sense to promote it in combined
mathematics pedagogy-content courses which, by definition, pay
attention to both pedagogical and mathematical issues? The idea of
promoting MKfT in combined mathematics pedagogy-content
courses may be attractive to some given the potential of P-R
mathematics tasks to intertwine mathematical content and peda-
gogy. Yet a possible decision to eliminate mathematics content
courses designed specifically for prospective teachers in favour of
combined mathematics pedagogy-content courses might create
different kinds of problems. In their examination of the types of
tasks included in formal assessments used across different math-
ematics teacher education courses in South Africa, Adler and Davis
(2006) reported the following concern about combined mathe-
matics pedagogy-content courses:
The concern here is that, although all these courses [combined
mathematics pedagogy-content courses] are designed specifi-
cally for teacher upgrading and with an interest in integrating
mathematics and pedagogy, there are instances where mathe-
matical and teaching [pedagogical] objects lose their clarity.
There is also evidence that evaluation in these courses appears
to condense meaning toward teaching. (p. 291)
The latter remark in the quotation about the tendency in
combined mathematics pedagogy-content courses to condense
meaning toward teaching might relate in part to the background of
the instructors of these courses who are usually mathematics
educators. One may hypothesise that the tendency would be
reversed (i.e., more emphasis on mathematics than on pedagogy)
had the courses been taught by mathematicians.
171
The conceptualisation of MfT as a form of applied mathematics
that we elaborated in this article highlights the idea that, irre-
spectively of whether MfT is promoted in specialised mathematics
content courses or combined pedagogy-content courses, prospec-
tive teachers’ learning of MfT should not happen in isolation from
pedagogy. P-R mathematics tasks can facilitate the integration of
mathematical content and pedagogy in prospective teachers’
learning: although these tasks make mathematics the focus of
prospective teachers’ activity, they situate this activity in
a substantial pedagogical space that shapes and influences the
activity. Future research can explore ways in which to facilitate the
integration of mathematical content and pedagogy from the
opposite direction, i.e., by making pedagogy the focus of prospec-
tive teachers’ activity and having mathematics play a secondary but
substantial role in this activity.
In order to achieve the latter kind of integration, it might be
useful for researchers to reverse the relative importance of math-
ematical and pedagogical objects in P-R mathematics tasks
(primary and secondary, respectively) thus coining the twin notion
of Mathematics-Related pedagogy tasks (M-R pedagogy tasks). These
tasks can be defined to have a primary pedagogical object (with
a corresponding pedagogical space) and a secondary but substan-
tial mathematical object. M-R pedagogy tasks can be used in
mathematics teacher education to generate activity that is
predominantly pedagogical, thereby supporting learning of
pedagogy from a mathematical standpoint. Consider for example
the P-R mathematics task that we discussed in Section 5.2.1 and
concerned analysis of textbook definitions of even numbers. The
corresponding M-R pedagogy task could ask prospective teachers
to consider definition 7 (mathematical object) and design a lesson
(pedagogical object) to teach this definition (or an appropriately
modified version of it) to a group of elementary students. The
solution to the task would have to comply, like in the corresponding
P-R mathematics task, with the conditions described in the peda-
gogical space of the task and would have to consider the mathe-
matical issues surrounding definition 7 that we discussed in
Section 5.2.1.
Finally, another question that future research can explore is the
following: Which ideas related to P-R mathematics tasks are
specific to mathematics teacher education and which can be
applicable also to other teacher education areas (science, social
studies, etc.)? It would make sense to start exploring this question
in a teacher education area that focuses on a discipline with close
relationship to mathematics, notably science. Similar to our
discussion in Section 4 of this article, one may introduce and
elaborate the notion of Pedagogy-Related science tasks as a vehicle to
promoting science knowledge for teaching. We hypothesise that
the design and implementation of this kind of tasks in science
teacher education will prove useful in promoting pedagogically
functional science knowledge, which can support teachers to
address successfully science problems that arise in their work.
References
Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box: research mathematics for
teaching in mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 37, 270–296.
Ball, D. L. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: examining
what prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lancing.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and
learning to teach: knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple
perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 83–104). Westport, CT:
Ablex Publishing.
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). Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
172 G.J. Stylianides, A.J. Stylianides / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 161–172
Ball, D. L., Bass, H., Sleep, L., & Stylianides, A. J. (2004). Giving definition to the
learning and teaching of mathematics. Presentantion at the 55th Annual
Conference of the Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Detroit, MI.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching. What
makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.
Bass, H. (2005). Mathematics, mathematicians, and mathematics education. Bulletin
of the American Mathematical Society, 42, 417–430.
Biza, I., Nardi, E., & Zachariades, T. (2007). Using tasks to explore teacher knowledge in
situation-specific contexts. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 301–309.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges
in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of
empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
24, 359–387.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments
in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Coe, R., & Ruthven, K. (1994). Proof practices and constructs of advanced mathe-
matics students. British Educational Research Journal, 20, 41–53.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to
promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: an ongoing investigation
of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 61, 293–319.
Delaney, S., Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Zopf, D. (2008). ‘‘Mathematical
knowledge for teaching’’: adapting U.S. measures for use in Ireland. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 171–197.
Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: the context of students’ thinking
during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Goulding, M., Rowland, T., & Barber, P. (2002). Does it matter? Primary teacher
trainees’ subject knowledge in mathematics. British Educational Research Jour-
nal, 28(5), 689–704.
Hanna, G., & Jahnke, H. N. (2002). Arguments from physics in mathematical proofs:
an educational perspective. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(3), 38–45.
Harel, G. (1998). Two dual assertions: the first on learning and the second on
teaching (or vice versa). American Mathematical Monthly, 105, 497–507.
Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 396–428.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical
knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 42, 371–406.
Hill, H. C., Schilling, S., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’
mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.
Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing teachers’ mathe-
matical knowledge: what knowledge matters and what evidence counts? In
F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 111–155) Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional reasoning in nursing practice.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 4–27.
Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 379–405.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Aligning teacher education with contemporary K-
12 reform visions. In G. Sykes, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the
learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 33–53). San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing:
tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 41–51.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem
solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and stan-
dards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Perressini, D., Borko, H., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., & Willis, C. (2004). A conceptual
framework for learning to teach secondary mathematics: a situative perspec-
tive. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 67–96.
Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp., A. (Eds.). (1992). The role of interest in learning
and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom:
a study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15,
3–31.
Stein, M. K., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for
mathematical thinking and reasoning: an analysis of mathematical tasks used
in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.
Stylianides, A. J. (2007a). Introducing young children to the role of assumptions in
proving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9, 361–385.
Stylianides, A. J. (2007b). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 289–321.
Stylianides, A. J. (2007c). The notion of proof in the context of elementary school
mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 1–20.
Stylianides, A. J., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Understanding and describing mathematical
knowledge for teaching: knowledge about proof for engaging students in the
activity of proving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 307–332.
Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2008). Studying the classroom implementation
of tasks: high-level mathematical tasks embedded in ‘‘real-life’’ contexts.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 859–875.
Stylianides, G. J. (2008). An analytic framework of reasoning-and-proving. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 9–16.
Stylianides, G. J., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Reasoning-and-proving in school mathe-
matics: the case of pattern identification. In D. A. Stylianou, M. L. Blanton, &
E. J. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proofs across the grades: a K-16
perspective (pp. 235–249). New York, NY: Routledge.
Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2009). Facilitating the transition from empirical
arguments to proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 314–352.
Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in
mathematics education: The Wiskobas project. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2007). Taken-as-shared: a review of common assumptions
about mathematical tasks in teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Educa-
tion, 10, 205–215.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and
autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27,
458–477.
Zazkis, R., & Chernoff, E. J. (2008). What makes a counterexample exemplary?
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 195–208.