Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-02
Early childhood teachers’ specialised knowledge to promote algebraic thinking as from a task of additive decomposition ( El conocimiento especializado del profesor de educación infantil para fomentar el pensamiento algebraico a partir de una tarea de descomposición aditiva )
In this article we aim to deepen our understanding of the content and nature of the early childhood teacher’s knowledge, focusing on those aspects which might promote students’ algebraic thinking. Approaching arithmetic from the viewpoint of algebra as an advanced perspective and considering the analytical model Mathematics Teachers’ Specialised Knowledge, we analyse the specialised knowledge in a classroom of five-year-olds handled by an experienced teacher in a lesson on the decomposition of the number 6. Moreover, alternative management of the session is proposed in order to promote early algebraic thinking. In the domain of mathematical knowledge, this analysis has revealed the specificity of the knowledge that this professional must have of the natural number. In the domain of pedagogical content knowledge, it has highlighted the many elements of the knowledge of mathematics teaching that should be possessed to promote algebraic thinking at this educational stage. These elements appear to be more closely related to a profound knowledge of the mathematics taught than to pedagogical knowledge of a more general nature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanC. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
2.
AtkinsonR.CamplingR.WingT. (2015). Numicon Infantil 5 años, Bases firmes. Cuaderno de Ejercicios [Numicon 5 years, firm bases. Workbook]. Oxford University Press.
3.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
4.
BasseyM. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Open University press.
5.
CañadasM. C.BrizuelaB. M.BlantonM. (2016). Second graders articulating ideas about linear functional relationships. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41(5), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.10.004
6.
CarpenterT. P.FrankeM. L.LeviL. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Heinemann.
7.
CarraherD.SchliemannA.BrizuelaB. (2000). Early-algebra, early-arithmetic: Treating operations as functions. Plenary Presentation at PME-NA XXII, PME.
CarrilloJ.ClimentN.MontesM.ContrerasL. C.Flores-MedranoE.Escudero-ÁvilaD.VascoD.RojasN.FloresP.Aguilar-GonzálezA.RibeiroM.Muñoz-CatalánM. C. (2018). The mathematics teacher’s specialised knowledge (MTSK) model. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2018.1479981
ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. Routledge.
13.
ClementsD. H. (2004). Part 1: Major themes and recommendations. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in Mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 7–76). Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010) . Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
15.
DenzinN. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
16.
FusonK. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In GrouwsD. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). Macmillan & Co.
KaputJ. J. (1998). Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by “algebrafying” the K-12 curriculum. In National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Mathematical Sciences Education Board, & National Research Council (Ed.), The nature and role of algebra in the K-14 curriculum: Proceedings of a national symposium (pp. 25–26). National Research Council, National Academy Press.
19.
KieranC. (2004). Algebraic thinking in the early grades: What is it?The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 139–151.
20.
KvaleS. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
21.
LiñánM. M. (2017). Conocimiento especializado en Geometría en un aula de 5° de Primaria [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Universidad de Huelva.
22.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the US. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
MosvoldR.BjulandR.FauskangerJ.JakobsenA. (2011). Similar but different – Investigating the use of MKT in a Norwegian kindergarten setting. In PytlakM.RowlandT.SwobodaE. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1802–1811). PME.
26.
Muñoz-CatalánM. C.Liñán-GarcíaM. M.RibeiroM. (2017). El conocimiento especializado para enseñar la operación de resta en Educación Infantil. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 24, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.18764/2178-2229.v24n.especialp4-19
27.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
28.
ParksA. N.WagerA. A. (2015). What knowledge is shaping teacher preparation in early childhood mathematics?Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 36(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2015.1030520
29.
RamírezM.RodríguezP. (2011). Interpretaciones del signo igual. Un estudio de libros de texto. Unión, revista Iberoamericana de Educación Matemática, 26, 41–55. https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/25467/
30.
Rittle-JohnsonB.FyfeE. R.LoehrA. M.MillerM. R. (2015). Beyond numeracy in preschool: Adding patterns to the equation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.005
31.
Rittle-JohnsonB.MatthewsP. G.TaylorR. S.McEldoonK. L. (2011). Assessing knowledge of mathematical equivalence: A construct-modeling approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021334
32.
ScheinerT.MontesM. A.GodinoJ. D.CarrilloJ.Pino-FanL. R. (2019). What makes mathematics teacher knowledge specialized? Offering alternative views. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9859-6
33.
SchoenfeldA. (2000). Models of the teaching process. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00031-0
34.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
35.
SilvermanJ.ThompsonP. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9089-5
36.
SocasM. (2011). La enseñanza del Álgebra en la Educación Obligatoria. Aportaciones de las investigaciones. Números, 77, 5–34.
37.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Sage.
