Abstract
We examine the relationship between how teachers talk about teaching and their actual teaching practices. Analyses of their talk were based on extensive transcripts and writings and focused on metaphors and images invoked when discussing knowledge, learning, and teaching. Three distinct and coherent webs of association were identified, which we describe as “traditional,” “reform,” and “middling.” For both traditional and reform teachers, preferred webs of association proved to be highly consistent with classroom practices. For teachers who tended to draw on the “middling” web, practices tended to vary dramatically, and habits of speaking appeared to be linked to frustrations with teaching. Implications for professional learning are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We follow a convention in the cognitive science literature in the use of small caps (small caps) to signify metaphors.
References
Alger, C. L. (2008). Secondary teachers’ conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education,25, 743–751.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington: National Academies Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps of an ecology of mind. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Bullough, R. V. (2015). Methods for studying beliefs: Teacher writing, scenarios, and metaphor analysis. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 150–169). New York: Routledge.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.-P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal,26(4), 499–531.
Cooney, T. J. (1985). A beginning teacher’s view of problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,16(5), 324–336.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher,32(1), 5–8.
Felbrich, A., Kaiser, G., & Schmotz, C. (2012). The cultural dimension of beliefs: An investigation of future primary teachers’ epistemological beliefs concerning the nature of mathematics in 15 countries. ZDM Mathematics Education,44(3), 355–366.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they: Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fives, H., & Gill, M. G. (Eds.). (2015). International handbook on teachers’ beliefs. New York: Routledge.
Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal,15(1), 59–69.
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist,39(4), 203–212.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kaplan, R. G. (1991). Teacher beliefs and practices: A square peg in a square hole. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of PME-NA-13 (pp. 119–125). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.
Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. New York: Penguin.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Leder, G., Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (Eds.). (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Noyes, A. (2006). Using metaphor in mathematics teacher preparation. Teaching and Teacher Education,22, 898–909.
Pathchen, T., & Crawford, T. (2011). From gardeners to tour guides: The epistemological struggle revealed in teacher-generated metaphors. Journal of Teacher Education,62(3), 286–298.
Pesek, D. D., & Kirshner, D. (2000). Interference of instrumental instruction in subsequent relational learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,31(5), 524–540.
Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Raymond, A. M. (1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary school teacher’s mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,28(5), 550–576.
Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., et al. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics,102(6), 245–253.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher,27(2), 4–13.
Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher,26, 29–35.
Skott, J. (2015). The promises, problems, and prospects of research on teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 13–30). New York: Routledge.
Steier, F., & Jorgenson, J. (Eds.). (2005). Gregory Bateson: Essays for an ecology of ideas. Special issue ofCybernetics and Human Knowing (pp. 1–182). Exeter: Imprint Academic Press.
Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education,17, 213–226.
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2013). Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PLoS ONE,8(1), e0052961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052961.
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2015). Measuring effects of metaphor in a dynamic opinion landscape. PLoS ONE,10(7), e0133939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133939.
Thompson, A. G. (1985). Teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and the teaching of problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 281–294). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: Macmillan.
Tran-Davies, N. (n.d.). Knowledge is power: Stop the breakdown of our children’s education. Retrieved January 23, 2018, from https://www.change.org/p/honourable-education-minister-gordon-dirks-knowledge-is-power-stop-the-breakdown-of-our-children-s-education.
Voss, T., Kleickmann, T., Kunter, M., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers—Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 249–272). New York: Springer.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research,72(2), 131–175.
Funding
Funding was provided by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davis, B., Towers, J., Chapman, O. et al. Exploring the relationship between mathematics teachers’ implicit associations and their enacted practices. J Math Teacher Educ 23, 407–428 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09430-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09430-7