See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359710154

How Far is the Horizon?: Teacher Educators’ Knowledge and Skills for
Teaching High School Mathematics Teachers

Chapter · April 2020

DOI: 10.1163/9789004424210_002

CITATIONS READS

2 181

1 author:

Roza Leikin

183 PUBLICATIONS 5,148 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Roza Leikin on 09 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PART 1
THEORIES AND CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF
MATHEMATICS TEACHER EDUCATORS AND
THEIR CHARACTERISTICS

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 ROZA LEIKIN

1. HOW FAR IS THE HORIZON?

Teacher Educators’ Knowledge and Skills for Teaching High School
Mathematics Teachers

The overarching goal of mathematics teacher educators is to facilitate the education

and life-long learning and professional development of mathematics teachers.
Mathematics teacher educators are usually experts in mathematics teaching.
However, this expertise is not sufficient – in their profession mathematics teacher
educators require special (added) knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs. In this
chapter, I analyze the state of the art in research in mathematics teacher educators’
proficiency. I pay special attention to the connections between theory and practice
of mathematics teacher educators. The chapter includes a review of models of
mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge and expertise and explores how these
models differ from the models of mathematics teachers’ knowledge and expertise.
This analysis is accompanied by examples from mathematics teacher educators’
practices of different kinds.

INTRODUCTION

Mathematics teacher educators are responsible for the sustainability of high

quality mathematics teaching. They prepare prospective teachers for their future
work with students, support practising teachers in advancing and sustaining
excellence in mathematics teaching, and supervise changes in mathematical
content and teaching approaches during educational reforms. The mathematics
teacher educator’s work is extremely complex due to the multiple foci of attention
and multiple communities of practice involved in mathematics teacher education.
The complexity of mathematics teacher educators’ mission has increased in the
modern era due to the technological, scientific and societal developments that
happen nowadays at an alarming rate. These developments suggest that the goal
of educational systems should be not only to develop students’ knowledge and
skills in a particular content area, but also to advance students’ ability to learn,
and to promote their self-regulation and communicative skills, their motivation
and self-esteem, as well as their flexibility in both cognitive and social fields.
Teacher educators in general and mathematics teacher educators in particular

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004424210_002

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
ROZA LEIKIN

have to support teachers’ adaptation to the changing world in their work with new
generations of students (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012).
The question of mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge and proficiency
has been the focus of mathematics education researchers for more than two
decades (beginning with the Psychology of Mathematics Education [PME]
conference, 1999). The questions under consideration in these studies included
(but not been limited to) the following that are relevant to the discussion in this
chapter:
‡ Who are the professionals best suited to teach mathematics teachers?
‡ What types of activities can allow them to attain their complex goals?
‡ What knowledge and skills that are essential for proficient work with mathematics
teachers?
In the broad landscape of mathematics teacher educators’ practice, this chapter
focuses on the education of secondary school mathematics teachers and mathematics
teacher educators, whose goal is to facilitate initial preparation and promote the life-
long learning and professional development of mathematics teachers.
To address the three questions above, I analyze existing research on mathematics
teacher educators’ knowledge and proficiency through the lens of the hierarchy
between mathematics teacher educators’ and secondary school mathematics
teachers’ knowledge and practices as they appear in mathematics the education
literature. Then I consider the complexity and multiplicity of goals and activities
of mathematics teacher educators as associated with the variety of communities
of practice of mathematics teachers and mathematics teacher educators. I
describe a mathematical activity that I employed many times with practising and
prospective mathematics teachers. Using this task as an example, I present stories
of three mathematics teacher educators from different communities of practice: one
mathematics education researcher, one professional mathematician and one expert
mathematics teacher. These stories reflect some of the core differences between the
three mathematics teacher educators’ communities.
To address the third question in this chapter, I suggest that the concept of ‘horizon
knowledge’ (cf. Ball & Bass, 2009) be extended to include the areas of advanced
mathematical knowledge (as suggested earlier in Zazkis & Mamolo, 2011; Zazkis &
Leikin, 2010) and, as suggested in this chapter, psychological knowledge associated
with teaching and learning of mathematics. I argue that mathematics teachers’
horizon knowledge of mathematics and of psychology are integral components of
mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge and skills and explain this argument
using the model of mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge and skills in terms
of teachers’ mathematical potential and challenging content for mathematics
teachers.

16

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT MATHEMATICAL HORIZONS

BACKGROUND

Hierarchy between Mathematics Teacher Educators’ and Mathematics Teachers’

Knowledge and Skills

Over the past two decades, studies of mathematics teacher educators’ competencies,
knowledge and skills have indicated a hierarchical relationship between
mathematics teacher educators’ and mathematics teachers’ competencies (e.g.,
Chick & Beswick, 2018; Goos 2009; Jaworski, 2008; Perks & Prestage, 2008;
Zaslavsky & Leikin, 2004). Such a hierarchy presumes that to teach mathematics
in school, mathematics teachers’ competencies should include deep, broad and
robust mathematical knowledge of school mathematics and far beyond (what you
teach), accompanied with didactical proficiency (how you teach) and broad and
deep psychological knowledge of students and learning processes (who you teach
and how they learn). In turn, mathematics teacher educators are expected to be as
competent as mathematics teachers in all these areas, and in addition, to understand
the structure and the complexity of mathematics teachers’ knowledge. Mathematics
teacher educators must have knowledge and skills far beyond mathematics teachers’
knowledge and skills, allowing them to manage teachers’ learning and professional
development in an engaging manner. Figure 1.1 illustrates three models that
exemplify the hierarchy between the elements that are essential for mathematics
teacher educators’ and secondary school mathematics teachers’ (MTs’ in Figure 1.1)
proficiency.
The first model, “the extended Teacher-Educators’ Triad,” is based on Jaworski’s
(1992) Teaching Triad, which comprises three components of proficient mathematics
teachers’ practice. These are: mathematical challenge, which involves stimulating
mathematical thinking, inquiry and learning, management of students’ learning
associated with the creation of a learning environment and norms, and sensitivity
to students that allows matching between mathematical challenge, management
of learning and students’ mathematical competencies. The extended model
embraces factors which are critical for mathematics teacher educators’ proficiency:
management of teachers’ learning and sensitivity to teachers and challenging content
for mathematics teachers that includes the mathematics teachers’ teaching triad (as
suggested in Zaslavsky & Leikin, 2004) and mathematical challenge for teachers
(Leikin, Zazkis, & Meller, 2018). The addition of mathematical challenge to the
previously suggested extended model was based on the finding that mathematicians
consider mathematical challenge situated in advanced mathematical knowledge
(Zazkis & Leikin, 2010) to be central to their mission of teacher education.
The second model presented in Figure 1.1 is the extended Steinbring’s (1998)
model of the teaching process. Steinbring argued that this process is not linear
but cyclic. The cycle starts with mathematics teachers’ knowledge, which leads to

17

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
ROZA LEIKIN

Figure 1.1. Examples of hierarchical models of mathematics teacher educators’ (MTEs’)

knowledge and practice

18

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT MATHEMATICAL HORIZONS

“learning offers” that teachers suggest to their students (similar to teachers’ role of
devolution of a good problem to students, as described in Brousseau 1997). Based
on their knowledge, students interpret the learning offers and work on the tasks that
the mathematics teachers devolve to them. This process leads to the development
of students’ knowledge, while simultaneously, mathematics teachers critically
analyze students’ work, resulting in the development of mathematics teachers’
knowledge and skills as well. The extension suggested by Zaslavsky and Leikin
(2004) considers Steinbring’s cycle as an internal cycle in the context of teachers’
professional development that encompasses teachers’ learning-through-teaching
(Leikin & Zazkis, 2010) while mathematics teacher educators suggest “learning
offers” to mathematics teachers in order to encourage teachers’ learning. Mathematics
teachers, in turn, interpret these offers and work on them aiming at the professional
development while their own practice (the internal cycle of the extended model) is in
the background of these mathematics teachers’ learning experiences. The extended
model describes and explains development through practice of mathematics teacher
educators who are expert teachers themselves.
The third model presented in Figure 1.1 is suggested by Goos (2009) and is
rooted in Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of zone of proximal development and extended
by Valsiner (1997). It covers the continuing development of knowledge and beliefs
of the participants (referred as zone of proximal development), professional context
(referred to as zone of free movement) and sources of assistance to learners (referred
to as zone of promoted action). Goos (2009) claims that zone theory brings teaching,
learning and context into the same discussion and can be applied in three connected
layers. The first layer considers teacher-as-teacher (TasT in Figure 1.1) while zone
of free movement/zone of promoted actions structure student learning. The second
layer focuses on teacher-as-learner (TasL in Figure 1.1) with zone of free movement/
zone of promoted actions that structure mathematics teachers’ professional learning;
(iii) a teacher-educator-as-learner (TEasL in Figure 1.1) that presumes continuing
development of mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge and beliefs within their
zone proximal development, the way in which mathematics teacher educators’
professional contexts constrain their actions (zone of free movement), and the
opportunities to learn that are opened to mathematics teacher educators (zone of
promoted actions). The obvious hierarchy between mathematics teachers’ and
mathematics teacher educators’ learning processes in this model is expressed in the
connection of teacher-as-learner and teacher-educator-as-teacher. This hierarchical
model suggests explanations for the transformation of mathematics teachers’
practices of teaching (students), learning to improve teaching (from practice and
from teacher educators), becoming a mathematics teacher educator and learning as a
mathematics teacher educator to improve teacher education.
The three models described above put different theoretical lenses on mathematics
teachers’ and mathematics teacher educators’ proficiency through emphasis on the
centrality of mathematics teachers’ and mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge
in promoting teachers’ learning through making learning offers for mathematics

19

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
ROZA LEIKIN

teachers that integrate mathematical and didactical components. The hierarchy

between mathematics teachers’ and mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge
presumes that the structure of mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge and skills is
similar to that of mathematics teacher educators and integrates mathematics teachers’
knowledge and skills. However, mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge has
added to mathematics teachers’ knowledge and the hierarchy differs for mathematics
teacher educators from different communities of practice.
Focusing on mathematics teacher educators who are mathematics education
researchers, Jaworski (2008) argues that while “qualities required of teacher
educators are in many respects the same as those required of mathematics
teachers” (p. 1) there is additional knowledge required from mathematics teacher
educators. This includes knowledge of theory of learning and teaching, knowledge
of the educational system and skills associated with ways in which this additional
knowledge can be implemented in the educational setting for mathematics teachers.
In addition, as mentioned before, following analysis of mathematician’s conceptions
about what should be taught to high school mathematics teachers, Leikin et al. (2018)
added ‘mathematical challenge for teachers’ to the challenging content for teachers
as was suggested by Zaslavsky and Leikin (2004) in the earlier model that reflected
knowledge and skills of mathematics teacher educators who are expert mathematics
teachers themselves. That is to say, mathematics teacher educators’ conceptions,
knowledge and skills are a function of the community of practice of mathematics
teacher educators to which they belong and of the mathematics teachers with whom
they work.

DIVERGENCE OF COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE OF MATHEMATICS

TEACHER EDUCATORS AS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR GOALS AND
ACTIVITIES

In line with Leontiev’s (1983) activity theory, mathematics teacher educators’

practice is determined by the specific goals and conditions of particular educational
programs for mathematics teachers, which include corresponding activities, actions
and tasks. Jaworski (2008) stressed that while mathematics teacher educators’ goal
is to provide mathematics teachers with relevant experiences that foster construction
of their knowledge, the specific goals of mathematics teacher educators can differ
with respect to their work in different settings. Mathematics teacher educators work
with mathematics teachers from different communities of practice. The distinctions
between the communities are associated, for example, with mathematics teachers’
educational history (e.g., prospective, practising, or second-career mathematics
teachers), the grade level at which teachers work (primary, mid and high school),
the level of mathematics that mathematics teachers teach (e.g., special high-level
mathematics classes, classes for students with difficulties or regular level classes) or
teachers’ proficiency (novice teachers versus expert teachers).

20

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT MATHEMATICAL HORIZONS

During different stages of their education and working careers, mathematics

teachers meet mathematics teacher educators from different communities:
mathematicians who teach mathematics in universities, mathematics educational
researchers, instructional designers and expert mathematics teachers. Mathematics
teacher educators’ activities can have different goals depending on their professional
community. For example, their activities can be directed at the development of
mathematics teachers’ mathematical knowledge and skills associated with problem-
solving proficiency, task-generation ability, understanding of different types of
mathematical tasks and questions, and deep understanding of specific topics from
the mathematical curriculum and beyond. Mathematics teacher educators can also
aim for advancement of teachers’ didactical knowledge and skills associated with
development of students’ mathematical knowledge, including classroom settings,
norms and scaffolding practices. Alternatively, and no less important, mathematics
teacher educators’ goals can include promoting teachers’ 21st century skills,
including critical thinking, flexibility and collaboration (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012).
Examples of differences in the goals of activities of mathematics teacher educators
associated with differences in communities of practice of mathematics teachers and
of mathematics teacher educators can be seen in several studies. In Appova and
Taylor’s (2019) study, mathematics teacher educators are research mathematicians
with the primary goal of helping mathematics teachers to enhance their pedagogical
content knowledge. This study demonstrates that mathematicians assume the role
of mathematics teacher educators when teaching mathematics courses for teachers
and that the goals and practices of mathematics teacher educators who are expert
mathematics teachers differ significantly from the practices of mathematics teacher
educators who are mathematics faculty. Following this analysis Appova and Taylor
deduce that expertise in mathematics teachers’ education presumes both expertise
in teaching prospective mathematics teachers and in teaching K-12 mathematics.
Chen, Lin, and Yang (2018) examined a teacher education program in which
mathematics teacher educators were educational researchers. The main goal of this
program was development of mathematics teachers’ understanding of the meaning
of conjecturing and their ability to draw distinctions between different types of
conjecturing. Mathematics teachers’ ability to design conjecturing activities was
considered an essential component of mathematics teachers’ knowledge and skills
and consequently the mathematics teacher educators in this study were experts
in the examined conjecturing teaching approach. In Chick and Beswick (2018),
mathematics teacher educators, both researchers and expert teachers, consider
developing mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge to be a central
goal of mathematics teachers’ education. Similarly to the models analyzed in the
previous section, Chick and Beswick stressed the hierarchy of pedagogical content
knowledge of mathematics teacher and mathematics teacher educator and considered
mathematics teacher educators’ pedagogical content knowledge a meta-knowledge
of subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. According to this study

21

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
ROZA LEIKIN

mathematics teacher educators need to know what teachers need to know, and also
need to know how this knowledge can be developed as well as the content to be taught
to mathematics teachers. Even (1999) lead a program with the overarching goal of
developing a community of mathematics teacher educators capable of supporting
national educational reform. Expert mathematics teachers were recruited to develop
their knowledge and skills as mathematics teacher educators with a special emphasis
on understanding the nature of the mathematics teaching and learning as suggested
by the reform. Even stressed the centrality of mathematics teacher educators’
leadership skills and of creating a supportive professional reference group that
allows the mathematics teacher educators to lead the reform.
By focusing on different communities of mathematics teacher educators, it
becomes obvious that the hierarchy between knowledge and skills of mathematics
teachers and mathematics teacher educators is a function of the communities of
mathematics teachers and mathematics teacher educators under consideration.
Practices of mathematics teacher educators from different communities can
be tangent to each other, that is having only few common actions, while each
mathematics teacher educators’ community can have special (relative to others)
knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs. Because of the links between mathematics
teacher educators’ professional communities and their goals and activities, the
hierarchy described above is not always preserved. Oftentimes the importance or
even relevance of knowledge of educational theories (specific to the community
of educational researchers) or knowledge of university mathematics (specific to
research mathematicians) is not obvious for mathematics teachers (Zazkis & Leikin,
2010) and mathematics teachers feel confused by the connections between what they
learn and what they do.
In what follows, I introduce three mathematics teacher educators from different
communities of practice – mathematics education researchers, mathematicians and
expert high school mathematics teachers – and, using their views on one particular
mathematical discovery by a prospective mathematics teacher, illustrate the
differences outlined above.

Meeting Mathew, Merav and Eti – Representatives of Three Different Mathematics

Teacher Educator Communities of Practice

Mathew, Merav and Eti (pseudonyms) are mathematics teacher educators who belong
to the three different communities of mathematics teacher educators. All of them
work with high school mathematics teachers. Merav, Mathew and Eti oftentimes
work together on teacher education projects and task design projects. The stories
are written using field notes taken during conversations with mathematics teacher
educators and when interesting events happened during the courses and workshops
for teachers.
Merav is a mathematics education researcher with a PhD in mathematics
education who works with both prospective and practising mathematics teachers.

22

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT MATHEMATICAL HORIZONS

Merav specializes in researching teachers’ knowledge and professional development

and is interested in the advancement of inquiry-based teaching in Grades K-12. She
believes that computer software, for example Geo-Gebra, can promote teaching and
learning processes in any classroom. She also believes that high school mathematics
teachers should know mathematics beyond what is in the school curriculum and
thinks that advanced mathematical knowledge (cf. Zazkis & Leikin, 2010; Zazkis &
Mamolo, 2011) is a critical component of high school mathematics teachers’
proficiency. Merav directs her activities towards changing mathematics teachers’
instructional approaches and attaining teachers’ understanding of their students
based on analysis of research papers with an eye to reflective analysis of their own
practice. When teachers perform such an analysis, connections to mathematical
content can be less explicit and the connections between research and practice may
not be clear enough for mathematics teachers (Lin, Yang, Hsu, & Chen, 2018).
Mathew is a mathematician who teaches mathematical courses in the university
mathematics department. Prospective mathematics teachers study mathematics
in his courses together with other participants. Mathew directs his activity at the
education of a new generation of mathematicians and at developing robust and
deep mathematical knowledge in individuals whose profession requires a strong
mathematical background. Usually he does not design his lectures specifically for
mathematics teachers. Mathew, like Merav, believes that mathematics teachers
must know a lot more than what they teach to their students, and that they can use
mathematics that they study in university to rouse the interest of stronger students and
to be able to operate according to the school children’s questions. In this, his views
align with those of mathematicians in other studies of mathematics teacher educators
(e.g., Leikin et al., 2018; Appova & Taylor, 2019). Mathew thinks that studying in
a mathematics department gives future teachers a rather large body of knowledge.
According to him, university mathematics courses allow teachers to attract high
school students to all kinds of interesting things in advanced mathematics. They
mainly provide high school mathematics teachers with tools for the development of
rigorous thinking and allow deeper and more interesting teaching of mathematics in
school. Mathew thinks that even though his courses are not designed for teachers,
they can see a kind of didactical modelling of “good teaching” in his course that
includes elements such as learning from examples, proving, requiring the use of
rigorous language and presenting beautiful proofs.
Eti is an expert mathematics teacher who teaches high school mathematics and
works with other high school mathematics teachers as an mathematics teacher
educator. Eti completed an MA in mathematics education and has more than 10
years of experience in conducting courses and workshops for mathematics teachers
with different levels of expertise and developing technology-rich activities for
mathematics teachers. When working with other mathematics teachers, Eti aims
to share with them her successful mathematics teachers’ experiences, and to work
with them to analyse situations that they consider to be problematic in their classes.

23

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
ROZA LEIKIN

Eti attempts to develop mathematics teachers’ reflective skills, advance teachers’

knowledge of mathematical concepts that they teach, and help them to get access to
ready-to-use instructional materials that she finds useful in her teaching practice. In
contrast with Mathew, Eti pays less attention to mathematics teachers’ mathematical
knowledge beyond the curriculum, and in contrast to Merav, the use of research in
mathematics education is rarely integrated in her courses.

Story 1: Merav Introduces Activity to Prospective Mathematics Teachers and Is

Excited about Yoni’s Discovery

This incident took place at one of the workshops with prospective high school
mathematics teachers at a teaching certificate program. The group included 32
participants. Merav asked participants to work on Task 1 (Figure 1.2). The task was
borrowed from Leikin (2014). The choice of this task was based on the observation
that problem solving through investigations is an effective activity directed at the
advancement of mathematical knowledge and creativity. This kind of task has also
been shown to advance sensitivity to the excitement and the difficulties that school
students can experience while learning mathematics.
Several of the prospective mathematics teachers successfully performed two
proofs (Proof 1.1 and Proof 1.2) and presented them during the subsequent group
discussion. They found these proofs “comprehensible, but not easy to perform.”
They admitted that in the two proofs similarity of triangles was used to find ratio
of segments rather naturally. However, they had difficulty with the auxiliary
constructions – especially in Proof 1.2. Some of them argued they “would never
think to use that kind of a construction.”
The discussion also included analysis of the cognitive processes involved in
production of the proofs using Duval’s (1998) theory that connects difficulty in
geometry with “shifts” between different figures, especially when they play different
roles in proofs. For example, segment ED in Proof 1.2 (Figures 1.2a and 1.3a) was
attended as a midline in the triangle ABC, as a side in triangle MED and as a part
of the side EK in triangle HEK. This kind of discussion was directed at drawing
connections between the prospective mathematics teachers’ study of theory and their
own practice – to develop awareness of the importance of mathematics education
research.
Following the proving activity, the prospective teachers turned to investigation
of the given figure in DGE. Of the more than 40 discovered properties published
in Leikin (2014), they collectively found around 15 properties, mostly related to
ratios of segments and areas of different figures. Then, with Merav’s guidance, they
formulated problems that required proving properties P1–P6 depicted in Figure 1.2.
Discussion of the posed problems focused on the levels of complexity of the posed
problems, with “complexity” based mainly on conceptual density and the length of
proofs.

24

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT MATHEMATICAL HORIZONS

Figure 1.2. Investigation task. (a) Multiple solutions. (b) Problems posed by teachers.
(c) Yoni’s theorem

At the end of the session, Yoni (one of the prospective teachers – pseudonym)
said that he “found something interesting but does not know how to prove it.” He
described his discovery as follows:
While in the given problem BD is the median of the given triangle ABC and
BG is the median of the “half triangle” ABD, I continued constructing medians
in the following “half triangles.” I measured the ratios and found that they
represent a geometric series.

25

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
ROZA LEIKIN

Figure 1.3. Shifts in attention. (a) “different roles of the segment ED” when proving
Problem 1. (b) Focusing on different types of triangles when proving Yoni’s theorem using
Menelaus theorem

(See Figure 1.2: properties P7.1–P7.n with notations changed – D1, D2, …, Dn.)
All of the participants and Merav were excited by this finding. Merav reported
that she “never encountered such a property in mathematics textbooks.” Since Yoni
studied for an M.Sc. in mathematics, Merav felt disappointed that he did not find a
proof to this property.
There was no time remaining in the workshop and the prospective teachers were
asked to prove this property as a bonus task at home. The proofs were presented
at the discussion forum on the course website. The property was called ‘Yoni’s
theorem’ until the end of the course.

Story 2: Mathew Finds Yoni’s Discovery Trivial!

Merav was thrilled by Yoni’s theorem and told Mathew how the session developed.
Mathew liked Task 1 very much and said it is very rich. Nevertheless, he found

26

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT MATHEMATICAL HORIZONS

Yoni’s theorem to be trivial since it followed immediately from Menelaus’ Theorem

(Figure 1.2). He also noticed that the original problem can be “easily solved” using
masses and centers of mass. Merav was disappointed that she did not think of the
mass proof and the use of Menelaus’ theorem herself and decided to share this
experience with the prospective teachers in the course.

Story 3: Eti Develops Workshop for Mathematics Teachers Using Yoni’s Discovery
but Thinks It Is Not Good for All the Teachers

After her conversation with Mathew, Merav suggested that Eti use Task 1 in the
courses for experienced practising mathematics teachers that Eti managed at the
time. Eti prepared a PowerPoint presentation that introduced Task 1, proofs 1.1 and
1.2 and designed applets in Dynamic Geometry Environment “to perform collective
investigation.” She used this presentation in a “thinking together” manner. She
argued that this was an “exemplary” task for teachers before they were involved in
investigation of other problems by themselves.
Eti thought that Problem 1 as a proof problem might be used by the teachers in
their classes “since the proof problem originally is taken from the school textbook.”
She also decided to demonstrate to teachers, “shifts” in the role of the segment ED
as a midline in the triangle ABC, as side in the triangle MED and as a part of the side
EK in triangle HEK (Figure 1.3a). However, she decided that reading Duval (1998;
as suggested by Merav) could be too complicated for teachers in her courses. She
liked the mass proof suggested by Mathew a lot and prepared a slide with a reminder
of mass center.
Furthermore, Eti was skeptical about whether “the teachers will find time for the
investigation task.” At her workshop with teachers she used ‘collective investigation’
and performed dragging and measuring in her applet according to teachers’
suggestions. She directed them toward the properties that are “more interesting”
(Figure 1.2, P1–P6). She argued that “this is an excellent activity for teachers,
but not for students” since teachers have to focus on the proofs and proving that
eventually students need to be able to complete for the matriculation examination.
Thus, investigations can be done by more advanced students at home or in classroom
when they have spare time.
While preparing her presentation, Eti noticed that while Problem 1 required
proving the ratio of the segments on the median AE, Yoni examined ratios of
segments on the “medians that intersect AH.” Thus, she examined ratios of segments
created by Yoni’s medians and found that these ratios are terms in the series
(Figure 1.2 – properties P8.1–P8.n). Eti was very happy about this discovery and
included it in her presentation.
However, she decided to present ‘Yoni’s theorem’ and her discovery without
proof. She included a slide with Menelaus’s theorem and together with Merav they
created a slide that demonstrated how Menelaus’s theorem can be used to prove

27

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
ROZA LEIKIN

‘Yoni’s theorem’ and her own discovery (Figure 1.3b). Merav suggested to her that
using Menelaus theorem in proofs of the series P7.i and P8.i (Figures 1.2c and 1.3b)
is very effective for the discussion of “shifts of attention” when proving geometry
problems. However, Eti decided to allow teachers to understand the proof based on
the slide and said that “probably this is good for teachers but not for all teachers and
definitely for advanced students only.”

Three Mathematics Teacher Educators’ Communities Have Different Views on the

Same Mathematical Activity

The three stories illustrate huge differences in the views on the educative power
of Task 1 held by Merav, Mathew and Eti. These differences can be considered
typical for the members of three mathematics teacher educators’ communities
of practice: mathematicians, mathematics education researchers and expert
mathematics teachers. For Merav, mathematical challenge, mathematical inquiry
and psychological aspects associated with mathematical thinking and learning
are central in her work with mathematics teachers. She believed that mathematics
teachers’ personal experience would lead them to be willing to change teaching
approaches based on the personal enjoyment and understanding of the importance
of this experience from the psychological point of view. Story 1 demonstrates
that for her, mathematical activities served as the basis for the discussion of the
associated cognitive processes as, for example, Duval’s (1998) theory of the role
of visualization in proofs and proving in geometry. Obviously, Merav was sorry
that Yoni did not prove his property but agreed with him that the proof was not
trivial. Mathew, like Merav, found the discovery interesting, and especially exciting
because the teachers themselves discovered the property. However, in contrast to
Merav, he believed mathematics teachers should know Menelaus’ theorem and be
able to prove the discovered property immediately. Moreover, Mathew suggested
a proof of Problem 1 that used mass (Proof 1.3 – Figure 1.2), which required rich
knowledge “beyond the curriculum.” For him, university mathematics is a critical
basis for good teaching of mathematics in school. Eti also found the initial task
that Merav devolved to her mathematics teachers challenging and worth using
in her work as a mathematics teacher educator. She also decided to adopt Yoni’s
Theorem for her workshop. However, she made an adaptation of Problem 1 and its
development. In contrast to Merav, she did not believe that a task of this type could
be used by the teachers in their classes and thought “it is good for teachers but not
for students.” She also did not believe that discussion of psychological aspects of
learning of mathematics would be interesting for mathematics teachers in her course.
These differences in Merav’s, Mathew’s and Eti’s conceptions are definitely related
to the teaching and learning experiences that characterize the three communities
of practice to which they belong. I argue that these distinctions between Merav’s,
Mathew’s and Eti’s conceptions can be explained in terms of mathematics teacher
educators’ knowledge at the ‘mathematical horizon’ and ‘psychological horizon.’

28

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT MATHEMATICAL HORIZONS

MATHEMATICS TEACHER EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT

MATHEMATICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HORIZONS

The concept of horizon knowledge of mathematics is borrowed from Ball and Bass
(2009) who “define horizon knowledge [of mathematics] as an awareness … of
the large mathematical landscape in which the present experience and instruction
is situated” (p. 6). Knowledge at the mathematical horizon for high school
mathematics teachers is associated with extension of the concept of ‘horizon
knowledge’ (Ball & Bass, 2009) to teachers’ advanced mathematical knowledge
(Zazkis & Leikin, 2010; Zazkis & Mamolo, 2011), that is knowledge beyond
the high school mathematical curriculum that belongs primarily to university
mathematics. ‘Yoni’s theorem’ presented above, the mass proof to Problem 1, and
Menelaus theorem belong to mathematics teachers’ knowledge at the mathematical
horizon. For Mathew, these concepts are accessible, and his mathematical horizon
lies far beyond, while for Merav and Eti these concepts are situated at their
mathematical horizon. However, it can be speculated that these concepts are more
accessible for Merav than for Eti.
As with the concept of horizon knowledge of mathematics, I define horizon
knowledge of psychology as an awareness of the large psychological landscape
in which the present experience and instruction is situated. Knowledge at the
psychological horizon for teaching mathematics includes a broad range of theories
and concepts, including the concepts of zone of proximal development (Vygotsky,
1934/1982), mathematical challenge (Leikin, 2014), and student’s mathematical
potential. For example, a mathematics teacher’s knowledge of the role of domain-
general cognitive skills such as working memory, attention, inhibition, mental
flexibility for mathematical processing can be seen as the mathematics teachers’
knowledge at a ‘psychological horizon.’ The stories of Merav and Eti, described
earlier in this chapter, demonstrate that while Duval’s (1998) theory is used by
Merav in her workshop with prospective mathematics teachers and is important
for her, for Eti this theory is at the very far horizon and is not accessible at the
moment. Figure 1.4 depicts distinctions between the conceptions held by Mathew
(representative of mathematics teacher educators – mathematicians), Merav
(representative of mathematics teacher educators – mathematics education
researchers) and Eti (representative of mathematics teacher educators – expert
mathematics teachers) in terms of knowledge at mathematical and psychological
horizons.
I suggest that ‘horizon knowledge of mathematics’ and ‘horizon knowledge
of psychology’ for teaching are integral parts of mathematics teacher educators’
knowledge and skills that determine the quality of their work with mathematics
teachers. Moreover, it is desirable that mathematics teachers’ horizon knowledge be
in the zone of accessibility for mathematics teacher educators.

29

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
ROZA LEIKIN

Figure 1.4. Distinctive characteristics of the three mathematics teacher educators’

communities of practice

MATHEMATICS TEACHER EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS IN

TERMS OF MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL POTENTIAL AND OF
MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGE

The vision of mathematics teachers’ horizon knowledge of mathematics and

psychology as integral components of mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge
is linked to underscoring the structure and nature of mathematics teacher educators’
knowledge and skills in terms of mathematics teachers’ professional potential,
students’ mathematical potential and mathematical challenge. The construct of
students’ mathematical potential is a crucial element of mathematics teachers’
knowledge and comprises the multiplicity of factors that mathematics teachers have
to take into account in their instructional practices. Students’ mathematical potential
integrates students’ knowledge and skills, which include domain-specific (e.g.,
mathematical problem-solving skills) and domain general (e.g., working memory,
mental flexibility) affective characteristics associated with mathematics, students’
personalities and the learning opportunities provided to them. When mathematics
teachers design learning opportunities for students they must take into account
students’ mathematical potential, and must be aware that students’ learning is not
only a function of their mathematical knowledge and skills but depends on domain
general cognitive traits, motivation, beliefs, and learning histories as well. Thus,
mathematics teachers’ knowledge at the psychological horizon is essential for their

30

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT MATHEMATICAL HORIZONS

proficient work. Moreover, learning opportunities that mathematics teachers design

for their students have to be challenging to students.
Mathematical challenge is a mathematical difficulty that a person is able and willing
to overcome (Leikin, 2014, 2018). It is a function of three major factors in addition
to mathematical potential (Figure 1.5): the first factor is associated with conceptual
and structural characteristics of mathematical tasks, and the two other factors that
contribute to variations in mathematical challenge are socio-mathematical norms
and didactical setting. Mathematics teachers’ horizon knowledge of mathematics is
critical for teachers’ proficiency in realizing and advancing students’ mathematical
potential.
While knowledge at mathematical and psychological horizons is central to
mathematics teachers’ proficiency, mathematics teacher educators are responsible
for advancing mathematics teachers’ professional potential. Mathematics teachers’
professional potential is a complex function of their knowledge, skills and creativity
in mathematics, didactics and psychology of mathematics teaching and learning,
mathematics teachers’ beliefs, motivation and personality as well as their own
leaning and teaching experiences. Mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge has
to include all of these elements. Furthermore, activities that mathematics teacher

Figure 1.5. Mathematics teacher educators’ (MTEs’) knowledge in terms of intellectual

potential and mathematical challenge

31

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
ROZA LEIKIN

educators design for mathematics teachers have to be challenging for them, lead
to analysis of all the components of students’ mathematical potential and develop
components of teachers’ professional potential. Thus, knowledge at mathematical and
psychological horizons are integral for mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge
and skills (Figure 1.5).
Note though, that – taking into account the distinctions between Merav, Mathew
and Eti – we should be aware of the differences between mathematics teacher
educators from different communities of practice and the complementary nature of
the contribution of mathematics education researchers, mathematicians and expert
teachers to the education of mathematics teachers. Thus, in many cases collaboration
between mathematics teacher educators in the educational programs for mathematics
teachers seems to be critical in order to develop all the components of teachers’
professional potential.

REFERENCES
Appova, A., & Taylor, C. E. (2019). Expert mathematics teacher educators’ purposes and practices for
providing prospective teachers with opportunities to develop pedagogical content knowledge in
content courses. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(2), 179–204.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2009). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Knowing mathematics for
teaching to learners’ mathematical futures. Paper presented at the 43rd Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft
für Didaktik der Mathematik, Oldenburg, Germany. Retrieved from https://eldorado.tudortmund.de/
bitstream/2003/31305/1/003.pdf
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Chen, J. C., Lin, F. L., & Yang, K. L. (2018). A novice mathematics teacher educator–researcher’s
evolution of tools designed for in-service mathematics teachers’ professional development. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(5), 517–539.
Chick, H., & Beswick, K. (2018). Teaching teachers to teach Boris: A framework for mathematics teacher
educator pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(5), 475–499.
Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.),
Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century: An ICMI study (pp. 37–52). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Even, R. (1999). The development of teacher leaders and inservice teacher educators. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(1), 3–24.
Goos, M. (2009). Investigating the professional learning and development of mathematics teacher
educators: A theoretical discussion and research agenda. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess
(Eds.), Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 209–216). Palmerston North, NZ: MERGA.
Jaworski, B. (1992). Mathematics teaching: What is it? For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(1), 8–14.
Jaworski, B. (2008). Development of the mathematics teacher educator and its relation to teaching
development. In B. Jaworski & T. Wood (Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher
education: The mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional (Vol. 4, pp. 335–361).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Leikin, R. (2014) Challenging mathematics with multiple solution tasks and mathematical investigations
in geometry. In Y. Li, E. A. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple
approaches and practices (pp. 59–80). Dordrecht: Springer.
Leikin, R. (2018). Part IV: Commentary – Characteristics of mathematical challenge in problem-based
approach to teaching mathematics. In A. Kanjander, J. Holm, & E. J. Chernoff (Eds.), Teaching and

32

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
 EDUCATORS’ KNOWLEDGE AT MATHEMATICAL HORIZONS

learning secondary school mathematics: Canadian perspectives in an international context (pp. 413–418).
Cham: Springer.
Leikin, R. (in press). Characterization of mathematics teacher educators’ knowledge in terms of teachers’
professional potential and challenging content for mathematics teachers. In M. Goos & K. Beswick
(Eds.), The learning and development of mathematics teacher educators – International perspectives
and challenges. New York, NY: Springer.
Leikin, R., Zazkis, R., & Meller, M. (2018). Research mathematicians as teacher educators: Focusing on
mathematics for secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(5),
451–473.
Leontiev, L. (1983). Analysis of activity: Psychology (Vol. 14). Moscow: Moscow State University –
Vestnik MGU.
Lin, F. L., Yang, K. L., Hsu, H. Y., & Chen, J. C. (2018). Mathematics teacher educator-researchers’
perspectives on the use of theory in facilitating teacher growth. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
98(2), 197–214.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Educating for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge
and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/13398
Perks, P., & Prestage, S. (2008). Tools for learning about teaching and learning. In B. Jaworski & T. Wood
(Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education: The mathematics teacher
educator as a developing professional (Vol. 4, pp. 265–280). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.
Steinbring, H. (1998). Elements of epistemological knowledge for mathematics teachers. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(2), 157–189.
Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children’s action: A theory of human development.
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1982). Thought and language. Moscow: Pedagogika.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Zaslavsky, O., & Leikin, R. (2004). Professional development of mathematics teacher educators: Growth
through practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(1), 5–32.
Zazkis, R., & Leikin, R. (2010). Advanced mathematical knowledge in teaching practice: Perceptions of
secondary mathematics teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(4), 263–281.
Zazkis, R., & Mamolo, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing knowledge at the mathematical horizon. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 31(2), 8–13.

Roza Leikin
Department of Mathematics Education
University of Haifa

33

Roza Leikin - 9789004424210

Downloaded from Brill.com03/02/2021 09:57:11AM
via University of Haifa
View publication stats