Mathematics teachers’ ability to identify situations appropriate for proportional reasoning

References

• Akar, G. (2010). Different levels of reasoning in within state ratio conception and the conceptualization of rate: A possible example. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International group for the Psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4) (pp. 711–719). Columbus, OH: The University of Ohio.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckmann, S., & Izsák, A. (2015). Two perspectives on proportional relationships: Extending complementary origins of multiplication in terms of quantities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 17–38. doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.46.1.0017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begle, E. G. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of American and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Begle, E. G., & Geeslin, W. (1972). Teacher effectiveness in mathematics instruction. National Longitudinal study of mathematical abilities Reports No. 28. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.
   Google Scholar
• Cramer, K., Post, T., & Currier, S. (1993). Learning and teaching ratio and proportion: Research implications. In D. T. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: Middle grades mathematics (pp. 159–178). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), doi:10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. D. (2016, April). Middle school mathematics teachers’ proportional reasoning mathematical knowledge for teaching: Strengths, weaknesses, and influencing factors. Presented in J. M. Choppin (chair), Middle school mathematics teachers’ Common Core State Standards for Mathematics interpretations and enactments: Complementary findings from multiple instruments. Symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• de Bock, D., Van Dooren, W., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Improper use of linear reasoning: An in-depth study of the nature and the irresistibility of secondary school students’ errors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50(3), 311–334.
   Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A. ((1988)). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman, & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A. ((2006)). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–282). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change?. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A., Sherin, B. L., & Levin, M. ((2016)). Knowledge analysis: An introduction. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & N. J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 30–71). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, Physics Education Research Supplement, 68(S1), S52–S59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harel, G., & Behr, M. (1995). Teachers’ solutions for multiplicative problems. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 3, 31–51.
   Google Scholar
• Harel, G., Behr, M., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1992). The blocks task: Comparative Analyses of the task With other proportion Tasks and qualitative reasoning Skills of seventh-grade children in solving the task. Cognition and Instruction, 9(1), 45–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C. (2008). Technical report on 2007 proportional reasoning pilot mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT) measures. Learning Mathematics for Teaching: University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C., Schilling, S., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C., Schilling, S., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Unpacking pedogogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Izsák, A., & Jacobson, E. (2017). Preservice teachers’ reasoning about relationships that are and are not proportional: A knowledge-in-pieces account. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(3), 300–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Izsák, A., Orrill, C. H., Cohen, A. S., & Brown, R. E. (2010). Measuring middle grades teachers’ understanding of rational numbers with the mixture rasch model. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 279–300.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson, E., Lobato, J., & Orrill, C. H. (2018). Middle school teachers’ use of mathematics to make sense of student solutions to proportional reasoning problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(8), 1541–1559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamon, S. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629–667). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Learning Mathematics for Teaching. (2007). Survey of teachers of mathematics: Form LMT PR-2007. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, M., & Brar, R. (2010). Coordination and contextuality: Revealing the nature of emergent mathematical understanding by means of a clinical interview. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) - volume 2, Short Papers, Symposia, and selected Abstracts (pp. 478–479). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, K. H. (2009). Burning the candle at just one end: Using nonproportional examples helps students determine when proportional strategies apply. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(8), 492–500.
   Google Scholar
• Lobato, J., & Ellis, A. (2010). Developing essential understanding of ratios, proportions & proportional reasoning: Grades 6-8. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Modestou, M., & Gagatsis, A. (2007). Students’ improper proportional reasoning: A result of the epistemological obstacle of “linearity”. Educational Psychology, 27(1), 75–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagar, G. G., Weiland, T., Brown, R. E., Orrill, C. H., & Burke, J. (2016). Appropriateness of proportional reasoning: Teachers’ knowledge used to identify proportional situations. In M. B. Turner, E. E. Civil, & J. A. Eli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38^th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International group for the Psychology of mathematics education (pp. 474–481). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA Center], & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Orrill, C. H. (2010). CAREER: Coherence as a basis for understanding teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. (Funded grant proposal).
   Google Scholar
• Orrill, C. H., Izsák, A., Cohen, A., Templin, J., & Lobato, J. (2010). Preliminary observations of teachers’ multiplicative reasoning: Insights from does it work and Diagnosing teachers’ multiplicative reasoning projects. Technical report #6. Dartmouth, MA: Kaput Center for Research and Innovation in STEM Education, University of Massachusetts.
   Google Scholar
• Post, T., Harel, G., Behr, M., & Lesh, R. (1988). Intermediate teachers’ knowledge of rational number concepts. In Fennema et al. (Eds.), Papers from first Wisconsin Symposium for research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 194–219). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
   Google Scholar
• Riley, K. R. (2010). Teachers’ understanding of proportional reasoning. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International group for the Psychology of mathematics education (pp. 1055–1061). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Russ, R., Sherin, B., & Sherin, M. G. (2011). Images of expertise in mathematics teaching. In Y. Li & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Expertise in mathematics instruction: An international perspective (pp. 41–60). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis)-understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steen, L. (2001). Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative literacy. United States: The National Council on Education and the Disciplines.
   Google Scholar
• Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: Effects of age and problem type on propensities for overgeneralization. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 57–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2008). The linear imperative: An inventory and conceptual analysis of students’ overuse of linearity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 311–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, D. (2003). Converting Kendall’s Tau for correlational or meta-analytic analyses. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 2(2), 525–530.
   Google Scholar