Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge for Mathematical Problem Solving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on mathematics teachers’ knowledge has generally focused more on mathematics concepts than mathematical processes. This paper addresses the latter with a focus on mathematical problem solving (PS). It reports on a study that investigated the pedagogical knowledge for PS of prospective elementary school teachers of mathematics (PTs). Participants were 149 PTs at a university in Spain. They were at the end of their teacher education program. Data sources consisted of a questionnaire on knowledge of learning PS and a questionnaire on knowledge of teaching PS. Findings indicated that the PTs held combination of different levels of knowledge of PS learning and teaching. Many of them demonstrated appropriate knowledge of many characteristics for (1) PS learning consisting of student as a problem-solver, PS as a worthwhile task, non-cognitive factor related to PS, and (2) PS teaching consisting of PS teaching approaches, discourse in PS, intervention during stuck state in PS, PS assessment, and PS resources. However, there were also contradictions and limitations to their knowledge with implications for teacher education. These combination of appropriate and inappropriate knowledge resulted in some conflicts that are related to teaching actions and would limit student’ learning of PS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".