ZDM Mathematics Education (2008) 40:861–872
DOI 10.1007/s11858-008-0142-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Combining theories in research in mathematics teacher education
Pessia Tsamir Æ Dina Tirosh
Accepted: 10 September 2008 / Published online: 30 September 2008

FIZ Karlsruhe 2008
Abstract In this paper, we describe how the combination
of two theories, each embedded in a different realm, may
contribute to evaluating teachers’ knowledge. One is
Shulman’s theory, embedded in general, teacher education,
and the other is Fischbein’s theory, addressing learners’
mathematical conceptions and misconceptions. We first
briefly describe each of the two theories and our sugges-
tions for combining them, formulating the Shulman–
Fischbein framework. Then, we present two research seg-
ments that illustrate the potential of the implementation of
the Shulman–Fischbein framework to the study of mathe-
matics teachers’ ways of thinking. We conclude with
general comments on possible contributions of combining
theories that were developed in mathematics education and
in other domains to mathematics teacher education.
Keywords Shulman’s theory
Subject matter
knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge

Fischbein’s theory
Formal knowledge

Algorithmic knowledge
Fractions
Infinity
1 Introduction
A recent issue of International Journal on Mathematics
Education is dedicated to comparing, combining, and
coordinating- networking strategies for connecting theo-
retical approaches (ZDM, 2008). Our paper can, in a sense,
P. Tsamir
D. Tirosh (&)
School of Education,
Tel-Aviv University,
Tel-Aviv, Israel
e-mail: dina@post.tau.ac.il
be viewed as a continuation of this issue. Here, we examine
how the combination of two theories, Shulman’s theory
(e.g., Shulman 1986, 1987) and Fischbein’s theory (e.g.,
1987, 1993a, b), namely, the Shulman–Fischbein frame-
work, may contribute to the evaluation of mathematics
teachers’ (prospective and inservice) knowledge. More
specifically, we pose the question: Could the Shulman–
Fischbein framework serve to develop research tools for
examining mathematics teachers’ knowledge?
We begin with a concise description of each of the two
theories, and the combined, Shulman–Fischbein frame-
work. Then, we move to presenting two research segments
that illustrate possible implications of this framework in
mathematics teacher education research. More specifically,
we report on some, possible contributions of the Shulman–
Fischbein framework to the study of mathematics teachers’
knowledge. We conclude with some general comments.
2 From two theories to the Shulman–Fischbein
framework
This section provides a concise description of some aspects
of Shulman’s theory on the Dimensions of Content
Knowledge for Teaching and of Fischbein’s theory on the
Components of Mathematical Knowledge. The first is a
general, teacher education theory that is frequently used in
teacher education while the second was developed within
the domain of mathematics education. Shulman’s theory
discusses dimensions of teachers’ knowledge, i.e., knowl-
edge needed for teaching. Fischbein’s theory puts forward
components of mathematical knowledge and a broad
offering of sources for learners’ common errors in mathe-
matical reasoning. Then, we describe how we combine
these theories to form the Shulman–Fischbein framework.
123
862
2.1 Shulman dimensions of knowledge for teaching
In his seminal work, Shulman (1986) introduced an anal-
ysis of knowledge components that are needed for
teaching, two of which are subject matter knowledge
(SMK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).
Regarding the first dimension, SMK, Shulman argued
that ‘‘to think properly about content knowledge requires
going beyond knowledge of the facts or concepts of a
domain. It requires understanding the structures of the
subject matter… [which] include both the substantive and
the syntactic structures’’ (p. 9). Shulman further argued that
‘‘The substantive structures are the variety of ways in
which the basic concepts and principles of the discipline
are organized to incorporate its facts. The syntactic struc-
tures of a discipline is the set of ways in which truth or
falsehood, validity or invalidity, are established’’ (p. 9).
Shulman further explained that teachers’ SMK ‘‘refers
to the amount and organization of knowledge per se in the
mind of the teacher’’, because ‘‘the teacher need not only
understand that something is so; the teacher must further
understand why it is so, on what grounds its warrant can be
asserted, and under what circumstances our belief in its
justification can be weakened and even denied’’ (p. 9).
Shulman, who suggested the notion PCK, argued that
this notion involved a dramatic shift in teacher under-
standing from being able to comprehend subject matter for
themselves, to becoming able to clarify the subject matter
in new ways so that it can be grasped by students. PCK is,
according to Shulman, ‘‘a second kind of content knowl-
edge… which goes beyond knowledge of subject matter
per se to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for
teaching (p. 9). Moreover, PCK includes ‘‘an understand-
ing of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or
difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students
of different ages and background bring with them to the
learning’’ (p. 9), and familiarity with research studies ‘‘of
students’ misconceptions and their influence on subsequent
learning’’ (p. 10).
We would like to conclude this section by stating that,
the terms SMK and PCK have contributed greatly to the
discussion of what teachers need to know to become pro-
fessional. Shulman’s perspective has gained considerable
attention in mathematics education and an increasing
number of studies refine and extend various aspects of this
theory (e.g., An et al. 2004; Ball & Bass, 2003; Even &
Tirosh, 1995, 2008; Fennema & Franke, 1992; Grossman,
1990; Hill et al., 2007; Marks, 1990; Noddings, 1992;
Silver, & Herbst, 2007; Sowder, 2007; Wilson & Wine-
burg, 1988). However, none of these studies combines the
Shulman’s theory with the three components of mathe-
matical knowledge suggested by Fischbein. This is a
special contribution of the Shulman–Fischbein framework.
123
P. Tsamir, D. Tirosh
2.2 Fischbein components of mathematical knowledge
Fischbein devoted his entire academic career to the study
of learners’ mathematical conceptions and misconceptions,
and made a major contribution to mathematics education.
He examined the evolution of students’ ways of thinking in
specific topics, studied the broader aspects of students’
mathematical reasoning and explored the possible sources
of learners’ mathematical common errors (e.g., Fischbein
1987, 1993a, b, 1999, 2001).
Fischbein viewed mathematical knowledge as including
three basic components: algorithmic, formal and intuitive
(e.g., Fischbein, 1993b). The algorithmic component is
procedural in nature, including the rules and possible
processes of mathematical solutions. According to Fisch-
bein, algorithmic knowledge involves understanding why
the algorithms work and knowledge of when a given pro-
cedure is appropriate to use.
The formal component includes axioms, definitions,
theorems, proofs and knowledge about how the mathe-
matical realm works (e.g., understanding what rigor means
in a hypothetic-deductive construction, the feeling of
coherence and consistency, and the capacity to think pro-
positionally, independently of practical constraints).
Fischbein stressed that both the formal and the algorithmic
dimensions of knowledge can become rote for the students,
and that neither formal knowledge nor algorithmic
knowledge are spontaneous acquisitions of the adolescent.
The greatest contribution of Fischbein to the field of
mathematics education is his significant work on intuition
in mathematics learning. Fischbein (1987) formulated a
theory in which he defined the notion of intuition and the
essential role it plays in students’ mathematical thinking
processes. He characterized the intuitive component of
mathematical knowledge as the type of knowledge that we
tend to accept on the spot, directly and confidently as being
obvious. This type of knowledge gives one a feeling that
there is no need for further proof, and it has an imperative
power; that is, it tends to eliminate alternative representa-
tions, interpretations or solutions. Fischbein differentiated
between primary intuitions, which ‘‘develop in individuals
independent of any systematic instruction as an effect of
their personal experience’’ (1987, p. 202) and secondary
intuitions, that are formulated when formal knowledge
becomes intuitive. Fischbein paid significant attention to
learners’ primary intuitions. He explained that correct
conceptions do not simply replace primitive, incorrect
intuitions, because primary intuitions are usually extremely
resistant and thus may rather coexist alongside new, sci-
entifically acceptable ones. This is what often generates
inconsistencies in the students’ responses. Fischbein stated
that ‘‘every instructional activity always has to cope with
intuitive tendencies…’’ and he thus recommended teachers
Combining theories in research in mathematics teacher education
‘‘to create ‘alarm devices’ which would alert the student
each time he reaches a potential pitfall in his reasoning’’
(Fischbein, 1987, p. 38).
In many studies, Fischbein and his colleagues detailed
research findings reporting on the significant role of intu-
ition in students’ mathematical performances and ways of
thinking in various mathematical domains. Some promi-
nent examples are the series of studies on children’s and
adult’s conceptions of multiplication and division (Bell
et al. 1984; Fischbein, Deri, Nello, & Marino, 1985),
potential and actual infinity (Fischbein, Tirosh, & Hess,
1979; Fischbein, Tirosh, & Melamed, 1981), probability
(Fischbein & Gazit, 1984; Fischbein et al. 1991), and
geometrical concepts (Fischbein, 1993a).
Each of the three components of mathematical knowl-
edge plays, by itself, a vital role in students’ mathematical
performances, but their interrelations are not less signifi-
cant. Ideally, these components should cooperate in the
processes of concept acquisition, understanding and prob-
lem solving. However, this is not always the case. Often
there are serious inconsistencies among students’ algo-
rithmic, intuitive and formal knowledge. Such
inconsistencies could be the source of common difficulties
that learners encounter in their mathematical activities.
Fischbein explained that ‘‘sometimes, the intuitive back-
ground manipulates and hinders the formal interpretation
or the use of algorithmic procedures’’ (1993, p. 14).
2.3 The Shulman–Fischbein framework
Shulman’s notions of SMK and PCK are often used to
study knowledge for teaching. However, Shulman’s theory
is not specifically related to mathematics education and
thus, obviously, it does not reflect the distinct characteris-
tics of mathematical ways of thinking. We asked ourselves:
What specifities of mathematical knowledge could be
implemented to refine the research tools aimed at evalu-
ating teachers’ mathematical SMK and teachers’
mathematical PCK? A way towards this end is to consider
the possible potential of bringing theories dealing with
mathematical ways of thinking to the Shulman’s endeavor.
Our work suggests that the three components of math-
ematical knowledge suggested by Fischbein are valuable
both for analyzing the SMK and the PCK dimensions of
Dimensions of Teachers' Knowledge
(Shulman's theory)
SMK PCK
Components Of Algorithmic Cell 1 Cell 4
Mathematical
Knowledge Formal Cell 2 Cell 5
(Fischbein's
theory)
Intuitive Cell 3 Cell 6
Fig. 1 A schematic description of Shulman–Fischbein framework
863
teachers’ mathematical knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates our
way of combining these theories.
This structure was developed by first listing Shulman’s
SMK and PCK dimensions of teachers’ knowledge and
then integrating Fischbein’s three components of mathe-
matical knowledge to each of these dimensions. This
process resulted in the six cells that are numbered in Fig. 1.
We first briefly describe and illustrate the refinement of
Shulman’s SMK dimension, using Fischbein’s components
of mathematical knowledge:
Cell 1: The Mathematical algorithmic-SMK addresses
teachers’ knowledge of solving procedures and supporting
them by explicit justifications, for instance, knowing an
algorithm for adding two fractions as well as being able to
explain each of the steps in this algorithm.
Cell 2: The Mathematical formal-SMK addresses teach-
ers’ knowledge of the core principles of the discipline of
mathematics. For instance, knowing that one counter-
example is sufficient to refute a universal, mathematical
statement but insufficient to refute an existential
statement.
Cell 3: The Mathematical intuitive-SMK is tightly con-
nected to the notion of secondary intuitions. For instance,
accepting, self evidently and confidently, that multiplica-
tion does not necessarily ‘‘make bigger’’.
When coming to describe and illustrate the refinement of
Shulman’s PCK dimension, using Fischbein’s theory, the
decision we took in this paper is to limit ourselves to one
dominant aspect of PCK, namely, teachers’ knowledge of
students’ misconceptions.
Cell 4: The Mathematical algorithmic-PCK addresses
teachers’ knowledge of the most common incorrect algo-
rithms that students apply when solving mathematical tasks
and their possible sources. For example, when solving the
inequality -5x [ 5, students often ‘‘divide both sides’’ by
the negative number -5 without changing the direction of
the inequality. A possible source for this error is over-
generalizing from the solution of the related equation.
Cell 5: The Mathematical formal-PCK addresses teach-
ers’ knowledge of students’ common formal-related errors.
For instance, arguing that the example 2 ? 4 = 6 proves
that ‘‘the sum of any two even numbers is an even num-
ber’’. This and similar responses, are often attributed to
daily experience, in which in order to show that an argu-
ment is valid it is sufficient to provide an example or a
couple of examples supporting it.
Cell 6: The Mathematical intuitive-PCK focuses on
teachers’ awareness of students’ intuitive tendency to view
division as an operation that always ‘‘makes smaller’’. This
123
864
commonly reported overgeneralization is often viewed as
resulting from massive experiences with natural numbers.
We now describe two studies, each of which reflects one
aspect of the Shulman–Fischbein framework. The first
study reflects the mathematical algorithmic-PCK, while the
second addresses the mathematical formal-SMK.
3 Two research segments: evaluating teachers’
knowledge
This section describes two ways in which we implemented
the Shulman–Fischbein framework: the first uses this
framework for evaluating prospective and inservice ele-
mentary teachers’ mathematical algorithmic-PCK of
fractions. The second employs this framework for evalu-
ating prospective secondary school teachers’ mathematical
formal-SMK of infinity. The choice exemplifies that the
framework can be used for different, relevant populations
(preservice, inservice; elementary, secondary).
3.1 Evaluating teacher’s knowledge for teaching
fractions
In this segment, we report on a research program aimed at
providing a systematic, comprehensive description of ele-
mentary school teachers’ knowledge of fractions. We chose
to focus on this topic because it is one of the central math-
ematical topics that students encounter during their pre-
secondary schools. Furthermore, the extension from natural
numbers to fractions requires substantial restructuring of the
meaning of numbers and operations with numbers. This
extension appears to be difficult for the students to grasp for
several reasons, including (1) children do not have the same
everyday experience in using fractions as they do with
natural numbers (e.g., Greer, 1992; Lamon, 2007); (2) many
children find it difficult to accept a given fraction as a
number and tend to view a fraction as two whole numbers
(e.g., Kerslake, 1986), and (3) children often incorrectly
attribute observed properties of operations with natural
numbers to operations with fractions (e.g., Fischbein, et al.,
1985; Freudenthal, 1983; Lamon, 2007). Another source of
children’s confusion is the need to recognize and operate
with various interpretations of and notations for fractions
(e.g., part-to-whole comparisons, decimals, ratios, opera-
tors, indicated divisions, and measures of continuous and
discrete quantities) (e.g., Behr et al. 1983; Kieran, 1976).
Studies have consistently shown that fractions have long
been a stumbling block for many students (e.g., Thompson
and Saldanha, 2003; Lamon, 2007). Psychologists, educa-
tors and mathematicians have raised serious concerns
regarding the way this topic is traditionally taught in
123
P. Tsamir, D. Tirosh
school, arguing that the notation, symbolism and formal
operations with fractions are often introduced without
developing strong conceptual underpinnings of fractions
and the processes underlying the operations. Another,
prominent concern is that many instructional programs do
not reflect the accumulated knowledge on children’s
understanding and misunderstanding of fractions (e.g.,
Graeber & Baker, 1991; Moss & Case, 1999; Lamon,
2007). Consequently, there are consistent calls for modi-
fications in the instruction of fractions.
Given the central role of fractions in school mathemat-
ics, the widely acknowledged difficulties that students face
in learning the topic and the indispensable role of
instruction and of the teacher in the learning process, it is
somewhat surprising that relatively few researchers have
studied the knowledge base that teachers bring to the
instruction of fractions. These studies investigated various
aspects of teachers’ knowledge of fractions. For instance,
regarding multiplication and division of fractions, the
studies related to teachers’ algorithmic knowledge (e.g., An
et al. 2004; Ball, 1990; Ma, 1999; Simon & Blume, 1994a;
b), to teachers’ solutions to word problems (e.g., Graeber &
Tirosh, 1988; Greer, 1992); and to teachers’ beliefs about
these operations (e.g., Tirosh & Graeber, 1990; Tirosh &
Graeber, 1991b). In general, the teachers’ difficulties with
multiplication and division of fractionrs were similar to the
difficulties children are known to have (Lamon, 2007).
Previous studies addressed specific aspects of the
teachers’ knowledge of fractions. We felt that an attempt to
provide a comprehensive picture of elementary school
teachers’ knowledge of fractions necessitates a general,
conceptual framework for analyzing teachers’ knowledge.
For this purpose we used Shulman–Fischbein framework
that was described in the previous section.
In this segment we describe the first stage in our attempts
to use the Shulman–Fischbein framework as a conceptual
and empirical tool for analyzing elementary school teach-
ers’ knowledge of fractions. This study addresses Cell 4 in
Fig. 1, that is, Teachers’ mathematical algorithmic-PCK.
The study mainly focuses on two aspects of the algorithmic
component of mathematical knowledge: knowing that and
knowing why. Knowing that, in the context of algorithmic-
PCK, refers to research-based and experience-based
knowledge about students’ common conceptions and ways
of thinking. Knowing why, in this context, refers to under-
standing the sources of specific students’ reactions in a
specific case (for a more detailed description of these two
types of knowledge, see also Even & Tirosh, 1995).
3.2 The study
Sample. One hundred teachers (55 prospective teachers and
45 inservice teachers) participated in this study. Thirty-
Combining theories in research in mathematics teacher education
seven and 18 prospective teachers were in their first and
third years, respectively, in a 4-year teacher education
program in an Israeli State Teachers’ College. The 45
inservice teachers had at least 5 years of experience. They
participated in a special, 2-year program for specialized,
elementary school mathematics teachers. Twenty nine were
in their first year and 16 were in their second year of this
program. The decision to include preservice as well as
inservice teachers allows for the examination of the poten-
tial of the Shulman–Fischbein framework for evaluating the
mathematical, algorithmic-PCK of both these populations.
In Israel, the topic of multiplication and division of
fractions is mainly taught in grades 5 and 6. Most inservice
teachers were practicing teachers in these grade levels (20
of the 29 teachers in the first year of the program, and 11 of
the 16 in the second year). The rest were teachers who
taught in other grades, mostly in grades 1, 2, and 3.
However, it should be noted that elementary school
teachers in Israel, commonly teach different class levels in
different years. Many times they accompany their students
while going up from one class level to another, for more
than once.
Instruments and procedure. We were interested in two
main issues related to teachers’ mathematical algorithmic-
PCK of multiplication and division of fractions: teachers’
awareness of children’s related difficulties and their
awareness of possible related sources. More specifically,
we posed the questions: are teachers aware of common
difficulties that children experience when calculating
multiplication and division expressions involving fractions
(knowing that)? and to what do they attribute these diffi-
culties (knowing why)?
A diagnostic questionnaire including two multiplication
expressions and six division expressions was administered
to the teachers during a mathematics method course two
months after the beginning of the academic year. The
questionnaire included three items, the first asked the
teachers to calculate, the second and the third demanded
considering children’s common errors and their possible
sources (see Fig. 2).
A closer look at the mathematical task at hand, through
the lenses of the Shulman–Fischbein framework reveals
that the first item could be used to evaluate teachers’
mathematical algorithmic-SMK, while the second and the
third items offer opportunities to evaluate teachers’ math-
ematical algorithmic-PCK. Those items illustrate how the
Shulman–Fischbein framework could be used to design
items aiming to examine specific elements of teachers’
mathematical SMK and PCK. Clearly, the Shulman–Fis-
chbein framework is more mathematically oriented than
the Shulman’s framework, on its own.
The choice of the eight mathematical expressions was
made in light of the body of knowledge on common
865
Following are two multiplication expressions and six division expressions.
You are requested to:
(Item a) Calculate each of these expressions
(Item b) List common mistakes students in seventh grade may make, after
finishing their studies of fractions
(Item c) Describe possible sources of each of these mistakes.
3 3 1 1
(1) 9 × ; (2) × ; (3); ÷4;
10 4 2 4
(4)
1 3
÷ ;
1 1
(5) 5 ÷ 15 ; (6) 4 ÷ ; (7) 320 ÷ ; (8) 15 ÷ 5
4 5 4 3
Fig. 2 The multiplication and division expressions item
students’ conceptions and understanding of fractions.
Related studies report on common students’ difficulties
with seven of these expressions (all expressions but
expression 8). Some commonly reported difficulties are
algorithmic, detailing various misuses of traditional algo-
rithms (e.g., inverting the dominators and the numerators of
both fractions when dividing two fractions, see, for
instance, Ashlock 1990; Barash & Klein, 1996; Tirosh,
2000), other studies present formally based mistakes (e.g.,
performing 15:5 instead of 5:15, arguing that division is
commutative, see, for instance, Hart, 1981) and still others
indicate intuitively based mistakes (e.g., arguing that it is
impossible to perform 5:15 because 5 is smaller than 15,
for instance, Graeber & Tirosh, 1990). The specific, com-
mon mistakes for seven expressions are detailed in Table 1.
The eighth expression, 15  5; is different from the other
expressions, in that children usually give correct responses
to this expression. Thus, obviously, no common mistakes
for this expression appear in the mathematics education
literature. This expression was included to explore teach-
ers’ ability to recognize expressions that students usually
answer correctly, as opposed to those usually incorrectly
answered.
Although our main concern was to explore two aspects
of the teachers’ algorithmic-PCK, their own algorithmic-
SMK of this topic was assessed as well (see Item a in
Fig. 2). The decision to assess the teachers’ own mathe-
matical knowledge was made because teachers’ PCK of the
tasks under discussion should be examined in light of their
own SMK. For instance, a teacher who incorrectly calcu-
lated the division expression 14  4 might assume the
correct answer to be incorrect, and provide it as a response
to Item b. Therefore, we include in the analysis of the
responses to Items b and c, for each expression, only the
responses of those who correctly solved it.
Items b and c were mainly designed to assess the
knowing that and the knowing why aspects, respectively, of
the teachers’ mathematical algorithmic-PCK of multipli-
cation and division with fractions.
After the collection of the data, one researcher reviewed
the responses of all the participants to Item a, coding the
123
866
Table 1 Distribution (in %) of prospective and inservice teachers’ responses to the knowing-that items
Expression Mistakes mentioned in research
3 9
3 1 ?
(1) 9  10 9
10 ; 9
10 ; 9
10
(2) 34  12 3 2
4  1 ; common denominator
(3) 14  4 1
4
4; 1 1
4  4; 4
4; 4
4 ; impossible
(4) 14  35 1 3 4 3
4
5 ; 1
5 ; impossible
(5) 5  15 15  5; impossible
(6) 4  14 1; 14
14
1 1
(7) 320  3 320  3;320
13 ; 320  13
responses as correct or incorrect. For Item b, each teacher
who mentioned at least one common mistake to an item
received a score of 1 on this item. Responses such as ‘‘I
don’t know’’ or no response to an item received the score
zero. Responses to Item c were coded as algorithmically
based mistakes (describing various ‘‘bugs’’ in computing
the expressions, such as multiplying both the numerator
and the denominator by the whole number, inverting the
dividend instead of the divisor, or inverting both the divisor
and the dividend before multiplying numerators and
denominators), intuitively based mistakes (e.g., ‘‘students
will think that it is impossible to divide a small number by
a larger one’’). or formally based sources of mistakes
(mainly to the expression 5 7 15). A second researcher,
independently of the first one, coded the data for Item c.
The two researchers coded 98% of the responses in the
same way. The 2% that were not agreed upon initially were
discussed and coded again by both researchers.
4 Results
As stated earlier, evaluating teachers’ mathematical algo-
rithmic-SMK was not an aim of this study. Still, as
mentioned earlier, teachers’ algorithmic-PCK should be
examined in the light of their own SMK of the tasks under
discussion. We therefore asked the teachers to first calcu-
late each expression, themselves. The analysis of these
responses revealed that all prospective and inservice
teachers correctly computed the two multiplication
expressions and most prospective and inservice teachers
correctly computed all the division expressions (the per-
centages of correct answers to each of the six division
items did not fall below 87%). Still, several prospective
and inservice teachers responded incorrectly to some of
these items. The most prevalent mistake was given to the
item 14  4. Thirteen participants (13%) wrote 14  4 ¼
1 1
4  4 ¼ 1 and got a quotient of 1 instead of 16 on this
division example. Teachers, who incorrectly calculated the
expression in this way, wrote the correct answer as
123
P. Tsamir, D. Tirosh
Prospective teachers Inservice teachers
First year Third year First year Second year
40 57 47 75
31 27 23 62
40 13 49 56
49 33 67 62
22 27 40 75
16 43 36 62
5 23 40 56
incorrect in response to Item b. When reporting on the
responses of the teachers to each of the calculation exam-
ples, we report only on the responses of the teachers who
correctly computed the expressions.
Knowing that. The responses of the prospective teachers
and the inservice teachers to the knowing that item are
provided in Table 1. The second column of this table
describes the common mistakes to seven of the eight
expressions included in this item, as reported in research
that deals with children’s ways of thinking about fractions.
As noted previously, the eighth expression, 15 7 5, usu-
ally yields correct answers. The teachers, indeed,
mentioned no common mistakes to this expression and
therefore this item is not included in this table.
As can be seen from Table 1, less than a half of the
prospective teachers wrote common mistakes to almost all
the expressions (if fact, more than half incorrect responses
were provided only to the first item, and only by the pro-
spective teachers in their third year). In general, as
expected, studying in the teacher education program or in
the professional development program, promoted the par-
ticipants’ acquaintance with common, incorrect responses
to the given items. Still, in two items (Items 3 and 4) such
tendency was not observed, the majority of the prospective
teachers stated, in response to most expressions, that they
do not know the common mistakes. It is expected that
prospective teachers in the first year are less knowledge-
able about learners’ common errors. However, at the third
year, it could be expected that prospective teachers be more
familiar with such common errors.
Regarding the responses of the inservice teachers, less
than a half of the teachers in the first year of the program
provided incorrect responses to all but one of the items. In
the second year of the program, however, at least 56% of
the teachers provided incorrect responses to each of the
item.
As stated previously, the two classes of inservice
teachers included teachers who taught in grades 5 and 6
(the grades in which operations with fractions are taught in
Israel) and teachers who taught in other classes. We
Combining theories in research in mathematics teacher education 867

assumed that the actual teaching of this topic provides Table 2 Distribution (in %) of prospective and inservice teachers’
teachers with many opportunities to observe students’ responses to the knowing-why items
common difficulties, making such teachers more knowl- Expression Prospective teachers Inservice teachers
edgeable about common mistakes. The small number of the
First year Third year First year Second year
teachers in each of these groups allows us only to share the
3
following observations: (1) 9  10 16 20 43 56
Inservice teachers teaching in grades 5 and 6 listed more (2) 34  12 37 10 27 50
common mistakes than teachers who did not teach these (3) 14  4 30 30 57 81
grades. (4) 14  35 24 10 30 56
Among inservice teachers enrolled in the first year of the (5) 5  15 22 20 43 63
professional development program (just beginning the (6) 4  1
4 11 10 37 62
program) the differences in mentioning students’ common (7) 320  13 11 13 33 69
mistakes between those who teach in grades 5 and 6 and
those who do not, are substantial while in the second year
these differences are not substantial. the first year teachers, the differences in the awareness of
All in all, our data suggest that experience in teaching, possible sources of common mistakes between inservice
by itself, is not sufficient for learning about common teachers who taught in grades 5 and 6 and those who did
incorrect responses of students to multiplication and divi- not were evident. However, almost no differences were
sion expressions. Participation in the professional observed in the second year of the program between those
development course, however, contributed to the teachers’ who taught in grades 5 and 6 and those who did not. These
related mathematical algorithmic-PCK. findings suggest, once more, that the professional devel-
Knowing why. We identified two main categories of opment programs for teachers with no practical experience
responses of the teachers to Item c (i.e., describe possible in teaching a certain grade could enhance their knowledge
sources of each of these mistakes): algorithmically based of students’ ways of thinking (that and why) about specific
mistakes (describing various ‘‘bugs’’ in computing the mathematical topics.
expressions, such as multiplying both the numerator and
the denominator by the whole number, inverting the divi- 4.1 Evaluating prospective teacher’s knowledge
dend instead of the divisor, or inverting both the divisor about infinity
and the dividend before multiplying numerators and
denominators), and intuitively based mistakes (e.g., ‘‘stu- The notion of infinity, in general, and that of actual infinity,
dents will think that it is impossible to divide a small in particular, is central in philosophy and in mathematics.
number by a larger one’’). As expected, due to the algo- The struggle with actual infinity has profoundly contrib-
rithmic nature of the expressions, the vast majority of the uted to the foundation of mathematics and to the theoretical
teachers mentioned only algorithmically based sources of basis of various mathematical systems. This notion had
mistakes. Few participants related to intuitively-based long and persistently been rejected by mathematicians and
sources of mistakes (mainly to the expression 5 7 15). philosophers, and was highly controversial even in the last
Table 2 shows that only few prospective teachers (no century in spite of the comprehensive framework given to
more than 37% to one item, and less than a quarter to most it within Cantorian Set Theory. In fact, even Cantor himself
items) mentioned common sources of mistakes to the was surprised by the conclusions that he had reached while
multiplication and division expressions. Here, again, the developing and investigating some aspects of the theory of
majority of the prospective teachers stated that they do not infinite sets. By 1877, after proving, contrary to prevailing
know the sources of the mistakes. Table 2 also shows that mathematical opinions, the equivalence between two sets
less than 50% of the teachers in the first year of the pro- of points with different numbers of dimensions (e.g., the
fessional development program wrote common sources of points of a segment and the points of a square), he wrote to
mistakes to all but one of the items, whereas at least 50% of Dedekind: ‘‘I see it but I don’t believe it!’’ (Dauben, 1983,
the inservice teachers in the second year of the program p. 115). In a subsequent letter to Dedekind, Cantor further
mentioned common sources of students’ mistakes to the noted that ‘‘The result I have informed you about, appears
listed expressions. In fact, 81% of these teachers mentioned to me so unexpected, so new that I would not be able to
common mistakes to the 14  4 expression. find my spiritual quietness before receiving, dear friend,
The teachers, who actually taught in grades 5 and 6 in your opinion about the exactitude of my finding’’ (cf.
both the first and the second years of the program, were Fischbein, 1987).
more knowledgeable about possible sources of common Cantor, and several of his late nineteenth century and
mistakes than teachers who taught in other grades. Among early twentieth colleagues (e.g., Fraenkel, Hahn, Hilbert,

123
868
Russell) analyzed the seemingly contradictory nature of
some properties differentiating between the finite and the
infinite. While pointing to the counter intuitive nature of
infinity, some of the leading mathematicians, such as
(Russell 1917) and Fraenkel (1953) argued that the rejec-
tion of the equivalency between a set and its proper subset
is rooted in a minor psychological obstacle, and that a little
practice enables one to grasp the true principles of Cantor’s
doctrine.
Still, the mathematics education literature has indicated
that this is not the case. Research in mathematics education
indicates that the transition from the comparison of the
number of elements in finite sets to the comparison of the
number of elements in infinite sets is usually problematic
for learners (e.g., Borasi, 1985; Duval, 1983; Fischbein
et al. 1979; Fischbein et al. 1981; Martin, & Wheeler,
1987; Tirosh, 1991; Tsamir, 1990; Tsamir, 1999; 2001;
Tsamir, & Tirosh, 1992; 1994). It was found (e.g., Tirosh,
1991; Tsamir, 1990) that before studying set theory stu-
dents tend to use five criteria to determine whether two
infinite sets are equal: (1) all infinities are equal; (2) infinite
sets are incomparable; (3) pairing, i.e., showing the exis-
tence of one-to-one correspondence between the elements
of the two sets; (4) part-whole, i.e., pointing to a rela-
tionship of inclusion between the two sets, arguing that that
the included set has fewer elements; (5) intervals, i.e.,
when the elements of two sets have the same range but
different intervals, then, the set in which the intervals are
larger consists of fewer elements. For example, when asked
to compare the number of elements in the set of natural
numbers and the set of the squares of the natural numbers,
students commonly use different criteria that lead to
unavoidable contradictions. When basing their comparison
on ‘part-whole’ considerations they conclude that the two
sets have different numbers of elements (the ‘squares of the
natural numbers’ set which is included in the ‘natural
numbers’ set has fewer elements), but, the use of ‘pairing’
considerations (pairing 1 with one square, 2 with two
squares, etc.) leads students to conclude that the two sets
have the same number of elements. Often, these two con-
tradictory solutions to the same problem are, both, accepted
by students (e.g., Tirosh, & Tsamir, 1996).
Given that actual infinity plays a significant role in
mathematics, it is an integral part of the curriculum for
secondary mathematics teacher education, and due to its
counter intuitive nature, we decided to develop an
enrichment course where prospective teachers took part in
reflective activities consisting of (a) analyzing the didac-
tical considerations underlying the activities posed in their
teaching, using Shulman’s notions of SMK and PCK in
class discussions, and (b) examining their intuitive ten-
dencies to err in the transition from comparing the number
of elements in finite sets to comparing the number of
123
P. Tsamir, D. Tirosh
elements in infinite sets, using Fischbein’s theory as a
frame of reference for suggesting possible sources for their
errors.
In the enrichment course, several activities dealt with
the transition from finite to infinite sets, aiming to develop
the participants’ abilities to reflect upon their ideas, and to
be critical of these ideas. That is, to increase the partici-
pants’ awareness of the characteristics that seem
transferrable, yet must be abandoned when passing from
finite sets to infinite ones. A major aim was to promote
their awareness of the significant role of consistency in
mathematics theory. During the enrichment-course we
discussed related research findings, including studies
regarding inconsistencies in students’ mathematical per-
formance, possible reasons for their occurrence and related,
suitable teaching methods which are suggested in the lit-
erature (e.g., Tall, 1990; Tirosh, 1990; Wilson, 1990).
In this segment we describe how we use the Shulman–
Fischbein framework as a conceptual and empirical tool for
analyzing prospective secondary school teachers’ knowl-
edge of infinity after participation in the enrichment course.
The study addresses Cell 2 in Fig. 1, that is, Teachers’
mathematical formal-SMK. The study mainly focuses on
one aspect of mathematical formal-SMK: Consistencies
and inconsistencies in prospective teachers’ responses
when comparing the powers (numbers of elements) of
infinite sets.
4.2 The study
We report on a study that evaluated the impact of the
enrichment course on secondary school mathematics pro-
spective teachers’ SMK, by comparing their performances
to the performances of secondary school mathematics
prospective teachers who participated in a traditional
course. More specifically, the effects of the two courses
were assessed by comparing the performances of 110
prospective secondary school mathematics teachers, who
had studied a traditional course of Cantorian Set Theory,
and 125 prospective teachers who had studies the enrich-
ment course.
Traditionally, Cantorian set-theory is presented in a
‘transmit’ ‘chalk and talk’ course. The discussions of
infinite sets follow Zermelo and Fraenkel’s theoretical
framework and reference is occasionally made to historical
aspects and to historical anecdotes.
In our study, participants were asked to provide, in
writing, justified solutions to comparisons-of-infinite-sets
tasks (see Fig. 3). Further, about 10 from each group were
interviewed, to get a better insight into their ideas. As
shown in the results section, this task allows for examining
consistencies and inconsistencies in the participants’
responses.
Combining theories in research in mathematics teacher education 869

Fig. 3 The comparison-of

infinite-sets tasks Compare the number of elements in each pair. Justify your judgments.
1) A={-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,... } B={1,2,3,4,5,6,...}
2) E={-1-,2-,3-,4,-5,-6... } B={1,2,3,4,5,6,...}
3) I={2,4,6,8,10,...} J={1,4,9,16,25,...}
K={0.3xyt... | all decimal fractions with 3 as a ‘tenth’
4) D={1/n | n is a natural number}
digit}
5) B={1,2,3,4,5,6,...} M={points on segment ST S__________T}
6) T={points on a straight line} M={points on a 7 cm line segment }
7) G={points on a circle. R=7 cm.} H={points on a circle R=10 cm.}

5 Results Table 3 shows that the frequencies of the use of a single

criterion was lower in the traditional-course (38%) than in
The findings indicate that after instruction, the participants the enrichment-course (94%). That is, most of the partici-
presented six major types of justifications in their solutions: pants in the traditional-course and only a few of the
‘powers’ (which was presented during the two courses as enrichment-course used more than a single unified-crite-
the criterion for comparing the number of elements in two rion when comparing infinite sets. Table 3 also shows that
infinite sets), ‘pairing’, ‘all infinities are equal’, ‘part- while both the traditional-course and the enrichment-
whole’, ‘intervals’ and ‘infinite sets are incomparable’. For course participants, when using a single criterion usually
the examination of the consistency of the approach in chose the valid, ‘pairing’ and ‘power’ ideas, only partici-
which prospective teachers solved the tasks, a number of pants from the traditional-course (a small number) still
logically interrelated criteria were combined into a single improperly used either ‘equal infinity’ or ‘incomparable’ as
category, leaving four categories of criteria: ‘extended their single criteria.
pairing’ (a unification of ‘pairing’ and ‘power’); ‘extended One of the givens when comparing infinite sets is that
part-whole’ (a unification of ‘part-whole’ and ‘intervals’); the use of more than one unified criterion will eventually
‘all infinities are equal’; and ‘incomparable’. lead to contradictions. However, two types of contradic-
The survey of the consistency in the prospective tions seem to be rather extreme: (1) declaring that infinite
teachers’ reasoning addressed their tendencies to compare sets are incomparable and then proceeding to compare
all pairs of infinite sets by a single unified criterion them; and (2) stating that all infinite sets ‘‘are equal’’ (have
(Table 3) and their tendencies to use both global (i.e., ‘all the same number of elements) and then proceeding to
infinities are equal’; and ‘incomparable’) and ‘‘local’’ (i.e., provide ‘‘unequal’’ as a solution to a comparison-of-infi-
‘extended pairing’ and ‘extended part-whole’) criteria nite-sets task. The first type was quite rare, but the second
(Table 4). was found in 41% of the traditional-course graduates and
only in 2% of the enrichment-course participants (see
Table 4).
Table 3 Frequencies (in %) of using various numbers of unified This phenomenon of using incompatible criteria to
criteria when comparing infinite sets
compare the number of elements in two, infinite sets, may
No. of used unified criteria Formal course Enrichment course result from compartmentalization in the prospective
Criterion 38 94 teachers’ reasoning, i.e., their tendencies to view each task
‘Paring’ 35 94
as independent, while ignoring existing connections
‘Infinities are equal’ 2 –
between the tasks (see, Vinner, 1990). Still, it is evident
‘Incomparable’ 1 –
that after the enrichment-course, participants’ tendencies to
use incompatible criteria significantly decreased. The high
Criteria 42 5
percentages of consistent solutions indicate an improve-
Criteria and more 20 1
ment in their mathematical, formal-SMK.

Table 4 Frequencies (in %) of negating answers 6 Final comments

The negating arguments Formal Enrichment
course course In this paper, we suggested a theoretical framework that
combines two theories, one embedded in teacher education
‘Unequal’ and ‘all infinities are equal’ 41 2
(Shulman’s theory) and the other in mathematics education
‘Incomparable’ and ‘equal/unequal’ 3 –
(Fischbein’s theory). In the introduction, we posed the

123
870
question: Could the Shulman–Fischbein framework serve
to develop research tools for examining mathematics
teachers’ knowledge?
In this paper, we illustrated ways in which this theo-
retical framework could be used to evaluate some aspects
of mathematics teachers’ (elementary and secondary, pro-
spective and inservice) knowledge. We focused on some
aspects of two mathematical topics: fractions and infinite
sets. More specifically, we addressed a slight portion of
mathematics teachers’ algorithmic-PCK of multiplication
and division of fractions and formal-SMK related to the
comparison of infinite sets, constituting two of the six cells
in the framework that is described in Fig. 1.
Each and every cell in Fig. 1 encompasses a variety of
mathematical concepts, operations, and relations on the one
hand, and various aspects of SMK or PCK, on the other
hand. We have developed items for some of the other cells
in Fig. 1, items that should still go through various pro-
cesses of validation.
There is, of course, a long way to go in the inquiry of the
applications of the Sulman–Fischbein framework in
mathematics teacher education. One direction is to exam-
ine the potential of this framework as a means to develop
research tools for studying mathematics teachers’ knowl-
edge of other components of Shulman’s theory (e.g.,
curricular knowledge). Another direction is to draw upon
other aspects of Fischbein’s theory (e.g., the intuitive
component). Clearly, there is a need to address various
aspects of each of these cells.
We are aware that the attempt to analyze mathematics
teachers’ knowledge according to the suggested framework
is an extremely demanding task. Yet, we believe that it is
an important task for mathematics teacher education. Fur-
thermore, teacher education and professional development
programs for mathematics teachers, much like instruction
for students, should be based on the knowledge base they
bring to the teaching/learning endeavor, and should aim at
developing the mathematics teachers’ algorithmic, intuitive
and formal dimensions of their SMK as well as their PCK.
We would like to conclude by stating that we view the
intertwined implementation of two theories, which were
developed in different domains (general teacher education
and mathematics education) as most beneficial to the
domain of mathematics teacher education. Other such
combinations (e.g., other general theories of teacher edu-
cation) and other theories addressing human mathematical
conceptions could, perhaps, be combined for similar pur-
poses as well. Still, each theory looks at a given situation
through specific lenses, and hence, as Radford argued, ‘‘a
dialogue between theories is much more complex as it may
appear at first sight’’ (2008, p. 318). Yet, we suggest that
the new, evolving domain of mathematics teacher educa-
tion could gain from studying how combining theories that
123
P. Tsamir, D. Tirosh
were developed in other domains (e.g., neuropsychology;
economics) could contribute to the development of our
fascinating field of study.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Israel-
United States Binational Science Foundation (BSF) (Grant 92–
00276), whose support made this work possible. The ideas presented
here are those of the authors, and no endorsement by BSF should be
inferred.
References
An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content
knowledge of middle school, mathematics teachers in China and
the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(2), 145–
172.
Ashlock, R. B. (1990). Parents can help children learn mathematics.
Arithmetic Teacher, 38(3), 42–46.
Ball, D. (1990). Prospective elementary and secondary teachers’
understanding of division. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 21(2), 132–144.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of
mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian
Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton, AB:
CMESG/GDEDM.
Barash, A., & Klein, R. (1996). Seventh grades students’ algorithmic,
intuitive and formal knowledge of multiplication and division of
non-negative rational numbers. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 35–
42). Sevilla, Spain.
Behr, M., Lesh, R., Post, T., & Silver, E. A. (1983). Rational number
concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of
mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 91–126). New York:
Academic Press.
Bell, A., Fischbein, E., & Greer, B. (1984). Choice of operation in
verbal arithmetic problems: The effects of number size, problem
structure and context. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15,
129–147.
Borasi, R. (1985). Errors in the enumeration of infinite sets. Focus on
Learning Problems in Mathematics, 7, 77–88.
Dauben, J. W. (1983). Georg Cantor and the origins of transfinite set
theory. Scientific American, June: 122–154.
Duval, R. (1983). L’Obstacle du dedoublement des objects mathe-
matiques. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, 385–414.
Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (1995). Subject-matter knowledge and
knowledge about students as sources of teacher presentations
of the subject-matter. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29,
1–20.
Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (2008). Teacher knowledge and understanding
of students’ mathematical learning and thinking. In L. English
(Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics
education (2nd edn.). USA: Laurence Erlbaum.
Fennema, E., & Franke, M. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its
impact. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathe-
matics teaching and learning (pp. 147–163). New York:
Macmillan.
Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An
educational approach. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Fischbein, E. (1993a). The interaction between the formal, the
algorithmic and the intuitive components in a mathematical
activity. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Straser, & B.
Combining theories in research in mathematics teacher education
Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific
discipline (pp. 231–245). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fischbein, E. (1993b). The theory of figural concepts. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 24, 139–162.
Fischbein, E. (1999). Intuitions and schemata in mathematics
reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 11–50.
Fischbein, E. (2001). Tacit models and infinity. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 48, 309–329.
Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Nello, M., & Marino, M. (1985). The role of
implicit models in solving problems in multiplication and division.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 3–17.
Fischbein, E., & Gazit, A. (1984). Does the teaching of probability
improve probabilistic intuitions? Educational Studies in Math-
ematics, 15, 1–24.
Fischbein, E., Nello, M., & Marino, M. (1991). Factors affecting
probabilistic judgements in children and adolescents. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 22, 523–549.
Fischbein, E., Tirosh, D., & Hess, P. (1979). The intuition of infinity.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 10, 3–40.
Fischbein, E., Tirosh, D., & Melamed, U. (1981). Is it possible to
measure the intuitive acceptance of a mathematical statement?
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 491–512.
Fraenkel, A. H. (1953). An introduction to mathematics, problems and
methods of the new mathematics (In Hebrew). Tel-Aviv:
Massada.
Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical
structures. Boston: D. Reidel.
Graeber, A. O., & Baker, K. M. (1991). Curriculum materials and
misconceptions concerning multiplication and division. Focus
on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 13(3), 25–38.
Graeber, A., & Tirosh, D. (1988). Multiplication and division
involving decimals: Preservice teachers’ performance and
beliefs. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7, 263–280.
Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations.
In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 276–295). New York: Macmillan.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge
and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hart, K. (Ed.). (1981). Childrens’ understanding of mathematics (pp.
11–16). London: Murray.
Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing
teachers’ mathematical 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). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Kerslake, D. (1986). Fractions: Children’s strategies and errors.
Windsor, England: Nfer-Nelson.
Kieran, E. (1976). On the mathematical, cognitive, and instructional
foundations of rational numbers. In R. A. Lesh (Ed.), Number
and measurement (pp. 101–144). Columbus, OH: ERIC/
SMEAC.
Lamon, S. J. (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). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics:
Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China
and the United States. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathe-
matical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher
Education, 41(3), 3–11.
Martin, W. G., & Wheeler, M. M. (1987). Infinity concepts among
preservice elementary school teachers. Proceedings of the 11th
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (pp. 362–368). Paris, France.
871
Moss, J., & Case, R. (1999). Developing children’s understanding of
the rational numbers: A new model and an experimental
curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
30(2), 122–147.
Noddings, N. (1992). Professionalization and mathematics teaching.
In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics
Teaching and Learning (pp. 197–208). New York: Macmillan.
Radford, L. (2008). Connecting theories in mathematics education:
Challenges and possibilities. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40,
317–327.
Russell, B. (1917/1988). Mathematics and the metaphysicians. In J. R.
Newman (Ed.),The world of mathematics (Vol. 3, pp. 1551–
1564). Washington, USA: Tempus Books.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth
with 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.
Silver, E. A., & Herbst, P. G. (2007). Theory in mathematics
education scholarship. In F. K. Lester Jr (Ed.), Second handbook
of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 39–67).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publications and National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1994a). Building and understanding
multiplicative relationships: A study of prospective elementary
teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5),
472–494.
Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1994b). Mathematical modeling as a
component of understanding ratio-as-a-measure: A study of
prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 13(2), 183–197.
Sowder, J. T. (2007). The mathematics education and development of
teachers. In F. K. Lester Jr (Ed.), Second handbook of research
on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–223). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publications and National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Tall, D. (1990). Inconsistencies in the learning of calculus and
analysis. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12(3–4),
49–64.
Tirosh, D. (1990). Inconsistencies in students’ mathematical con-
structs. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12, 111–
129.
Tirosh, D. (1991). The role of students’ intuitions of infinity in
teaching the cantorial theory. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced
mathematical thinking (pp. 199–214). Dordrecht, The Nether-
lands: Kluwer.
Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of
children’s conceptions: The case of division of fractions. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 5–25.
Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. (1990). Inconsistencies in preservice
elementary teachers’ beliefs about multiplication and division.
Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20, 95–102.
Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (1996). The role of representations in
students’ intuitive thinking about infinity. International Journal
of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 27(1),
33–40.
Tsamir, P. (1990). Students’ inconsistent ideas about actual infinity.
An essay presented as a thesis for the Degree of M.A.. Tel Aviv:
Tel Aviv University. In Hebrew.
Tsamir, P. (1999). The transition from comparison of finite to the
comparison of infinite sets: Teaching prospective teachers.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 209–234.
Tsamir, P. (2001). When ‘‘the same’’ is not perceived as such: The
case of infinite sets. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(2–
3), 289–307.
Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (1992). Students’ awareness of inconsistent
ideas about actual infinity. Proceedings of the 16th Annual
123
872
Meeting for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3,
pp. 90–97). Durham, USA.
Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (1994). Comparing infinite sets: Intuitions
and representations. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 345–352).
Lisbon, Portugal.
Vinner, S. (1990). Inconsistencies: Their causes and function in
learning mathematics. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathe-
matics, 12(3–4), 85–98.
123
P. Tsamir, D. Tirosh
Wilson, P. (1990). Inconsistent ideas related to definition and examples.
Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12(3–4), 31–48.
Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at history through
different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching
history. Teachers College Record, 89(4), 525–539.
Prediger, S., Arzarello, F., Bosch, M., & Lenfant, A. (2008).
Comparing, combining, coordinating-networking strategies for
connecting theoretical approaches (Special Issue). ZDM, 40(2),
163–164.