Theory-Enriched Practical Knowledge in Mathematics Full Text

Theory-enriched practical knowledge in mathematics
teacher education
Oonk, W.
Citation
Oonk, W. (2009, June 23). Theory-enriched practical knowledge in
mathematics teacher education. ICLON PhD Dissertation Series. Retrieved
from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13866
Version: Corrected Publisher’s Version

Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral
License: thesis in the Institutional Repository of the University
of Leiden
Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13866
Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if
applicable).
Theory-enriched practical knowledge
in
mathematics teacher education

Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching
Title: Theory-enriched practical knowledge

in mathematics teacher education
Titel: Met theorie verrijkte praktijkkennis in de lerarenopleiding
voor het vak rekenen-wiskunde & didactiek
ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching
Print: Mostert & Van Onderen! Leiden

Cover design: Reyndert Guiljam
Vertaling en Lay-out: Nathalie Kuijpers
ISBN/EAN: 978-90-804722-9-7
© 2009, Wil Oonk
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems, or
transmitted in any form of by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise without the prior written permission of the author.
Theory-enriched practical knowledge
in
mathematics teacher education
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van
de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden,
op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. P.F. van der Heijden,
volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties
te verdedigen op dinsdag 23 juni 2009
klokke 13.45 uur
door
Willy Oonk
geboren te Winterswijk
in 1940
Promotiecommissie
Promotores
Prof. Dr. N. Verloop
Prof. Dr. K.P.E. Gravemeijer
Overige leden
Prof. Dr. J.H. van Driel
Prof. Dr. J.A. van Maanen
Dr. J.W.F. van Tartwijk
Prof. Dr. L. Verschaffel
Prof. Dr. T. Wubbels
Table of contents
1 General introduction 9
1.1 Background and context 9
1.2 Purpose and relevance 10
1.3 Research questions 11
1.4 Nature of the study 13
1.5 Outline of the thesis 13
2 Theory and practice in teacher education 15
2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Orientations in teacher education programs 16
2.3 The concepts of theory and practice in teacher education 18
2.3.1 Theory in teacher education 18
2.3.2 Practice in teacher education 20
2.3.3 The knowledge base of the (prospective) teacher 21
2.3.4 Teacher practical knowledge 22
2.4 The relationship between theory and practice in teacher education 24
2.5 Theory and practice in primary mathematics teacher education
in the Netherlands 26
2.5.1 Introduction 26
2.5.2 History 26
2.5.3 New developments 29
2.5.4 Perspectives 30
2.6 Characteristics of a domain-specific instructional theory. Implications
for the learning environment of mathematics teacher education 30
2.6.2 The theory of learning and teaching to multiply 32
2.6.3 Characteristics of the theory of learning and teaching to multiply 40
2.6.4 Focal points for theory in mathematics teacher education 44
2.6.5 Conclusion 47
2.6.6 Perspective 49
2.7 The learning environment 50
2.7.1 Orientations for designing learning environments 50
2.7.2 Design research 52
3 The exploratory studies 55
3.1 Introduction 55
3.2 Prior development and research 58
3.2.1 Developing good practice 58
3.2.2 Good practice for teacher education 60
3.3 The making of MILE 62
3.3.2 Preparing the recording of good practice 62
3.3.3 The scenario 64
3.3.4 The screen-test 65
3.3.5 Recording and editing 65
3.3.6 Making the records of real teaching practice accessible 66
5
3.4 MILE, a digitalized teaching practice 67
3.5 The first exploratory research 69
3.5.1 Research question 69
3.5.2 Learning by investigating the recorded teaching practice 69
3.5.3 The process 70
3.5.4 Incentives in the learning environment 71
3.5.5 The main findings of pioneering 74
3.6 Larger scale field tests 75
3.7 Making MILE educative 77
3.8 The second exploratory research 80
3.8.1 Research question and method 80
3.8.2 Identifying theory in action 80
3.8.3 Theory in action. An example 81
3.8.4 Some results 82
3.9 Practice based professionalization and enriched practical knowledge 82
3.9.1 The necessity of enriching practical knowledge theoretically 82
3.9.2 The learning environment for the next research 83
4 The small scale study 85
4.1 Introduction 85
4.2 Method 86
4.2.1 Context and participants 86
4.2.2 The learning environment 87
4.2.3 The instruments 90
4.2.4 Procedure 93
4.2.5 Data collection and triangulation 93
4.3 Anne’s use of theory: a case study 94
4.3.1 Anne’s work plan 94
4.3.2 The initial assessment 97
4.3.3 Anne’s use of theory in class 99
4.3.4 Video stimulated interview 102
4.3.5 Anne’s concept map 107
4.3.6 The final assessment 108
4.3.7 The final interview 111
4.3.8 The numeracy test 113
4.3.9 Data analysis and results of Anne’s use of theory 113
4.4 Results and conclusion of the small scale study 116
4.4.1 Results 116
4.4.2 Conclusion and discussion 119
4.5 Implications of the small scale study for the large scale study 120
5 The large scale study 123
5.1 Introduction 123
5.2 Research questions 123
5.3 Method 127
5.3.1 The context and the participants 127
5.3.2 Design of the learning environment 128
5.3.3 Training the teacher educators 131
6
5.3.4 The instruments 133
5.3.5 Procedure and data collection 134
5.3.6 Data analysis 135
5.4 Analysis and results 145
5.4.2 Analysis and results of the first research question 146
5.4.3 Analysis and results of the second research question 153
5.4.4 Analysis and results of the third research question 159
5.4.5 The role of the teacher educator 164
5.5 Conclusion of the large scale study 165
6 General conclusion and discussion 169
6.1 Introduction 169
6.2 Conclusions 170
6.2.1 The exploratory studies 170
6.2.2 The small scale study 170
6.2.3 The large scale research 171
6.3 Towards a local theory of integrating theory and practice 177
6.4 Limitations 182
6.5 Suggestions for future research 183
6.6 Implications for teacher education 184
7 Summary 189
8 Samenvatting 203
9 References 217
Appendices part I 239
Appendix 1 Fifteen signals of use of theory by student teachers 239
Appendix 2A The development and try-out of the ‘Concept list’
(short version) 241
Appendix 3A Try-out of ‘The Theorem’ (short version) 244
Appendix 4 Cognitive network of student, constructed by Anne 245
Appendix 5 Two of Anne’s teaching narratives for theoretical concepts 246
Appendix 6 Anne’s reflective note for ‘the suitcase full of balls’ 248
Appendix 7 Characteristics concept map 250
Appendix 8 Key questions for the final interview 251
Appendix 14 Descriptive statistics of questionnaire
large scale study (n = 256) 252
Notes 253
Curriculum vitae 259
Dankwoord 261
7
Appendices part II (on added CD-rom; mainly in Dutch)
Appendix 2B The development and try-out of the ‘Concept list’
(extended version)
Appendix 3B Try-out of ‘The Theorem’ (extended version)
Appendix 9 The ‘individual learning question’ and ‘What has been learned’
Appendix 10 The development of the reflection-analysis tool
Appendix 11 The initial assessment in the large scale study
Appendix 12 The final assessment in the small scale and large scale studies
Appendix 13 Descriptive statistics of questionnaire small scale study (n = 13)
Appendix 15 Sample meaningful units
Appendix 16 Guidelines for rating nature and level of use of theory
Appendix 17 Sample nature and level of theory use (n = 15)
Appendix 18 Numeracy test small scale study
Appendix 19 Numeracy test large scale study
Appendix 20 Rating form numeracy test
Appendix 21 Sample numeracy test
Appendix 22 Teacher educators’ manual
Appendix 23 Examples of video material used for the initial
and the final assessment
8
1 General introduction
1.1 Background and context
Since the 1980s, teacher training colleges have gradually come to realize that
prescriptive transfer of theory is unsatisfactory. This was partly due to the fact that
theory was insufficiently in step with reality and with the complexity of action in
practice (e.g., Corporaal, 1988; Verloop, 2003). Furthermore, the observation was made
that student teachers do encounter different types of ‘theory’ in their practice schools
through the model function of the mentors. These theories are colored by various views
(Zanting, 2001).
It is clear that the tension between theory and practice is an important factor in the
practical training of student teachers. On the one hand both teacher educators and
student teachers consider practical training as an effective way to acquire (practical)
knowledge, on the other hand it is argued that the realization of teacher training goals is
occasionally impeded by the conformist and conservative influence that practical
training can have on student teachers (Zeichner, Tabachnick & Densmore, 1987).
Over the last few years, research on the relationship between theory and practice in
teacher training has focused on the question of how student teachers can integrate theory
and practice and what the relationship between the two components should be, or which of
the two has to be the point of departure when designing the learning environment (Eraut,
1994a,b; Leinhardt, McCarthy Young & Merriman, 1995; Ruthven, 2001). There is no
unambiguous conception of theory, nor of practice or the relationship between the two.
Little is known of how student teachers construct professional knowledge; this is
particularly true in relation to primary teacher education in the Netherlands.
With respect to primary mathematics teacher education in the Netherlands, in the 1990s
new developments were initiated by a group of twelve expert educators. This resulted in
a book that became a standard work for teacher educators (Goffree & Dolk, 1995). This
publication was also a reason for developing the Multimedia Interactive Learning
Environment (MILE) for primary mathematics teacher education, as a medium between
theory in teacher training colleges (Pabos) and student teachers’ training practice (Dolk,
Faes, Goffree, Hermsen & Oonk, 1996). MILE is a digital representation of primary
school practice for mathematics, which enables student teachers to intensively study
authentic practice within the primary school (see chapter 3). Research relating to the
new learning environment from the very beginning targeted student teachers’ ways of
constructing knowledge, with teaching practice as the starting point for the student
teachers’ learning process.
Research into student teachers’ knowledge construction is of vital importance for the
current and future curriculum development of primary mathematics teacher education.
9
General introduction
Such research can be considered in the context of at least three current issues.
First, there are complaints from inspectors, managers, teacher educators as well as from
student teachers about the level of the programs offered by teacher training colleges
(e.g., Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 1998; Onderwijsraad, 2005). Beyond organizational
conditions (such as no time for developing deeper understanding; overloaded
programs), there are ‘content-dependent’ reasons for this superficial level of programs.
One is the nature and the content of the learning environment for student teachers,
which often lacks a well thought-out strategy for linking theory and practice. Another
reason is the problem of how to gauge student teachers’ level of reflecting on practice,
particularly in relation to their use of theoretical knowledge.
Second, student teachers do not automatically appreciate theory (Lampert &
Loewenberg Ball, 1998). They often have their doubts about the point of (formal)
theory (e.g., Clark & Peterson, 1986).
Third, the age-old ‘gap’ between theory and practice exists in different forms and on
different levels. Although Freudenthal contended already in 1987 (p. 14) that “a gap is
not necessary”, recent researchers and teacher educators still refer – directly or
indirectly – to the existence of that phenomenon (e.g., Ball & Cohen, 1999; Jaworski,
2006; Van Zanten & Van Gool, 2007; see section 2.4).
1.2 Purpose and relevance

The importance of integrating theory and practice by (future) teachers is acknowledged
everywhere. Very little is known even now about the character of that process of
integration. The complexity of behaviour in practice and a lack of clarity about the
concepts of theory, practice and the relationship between the two, complicates the
discussion about the subject. This study intends to contribute to that discussion and to
the development of theory regarding the relationship between theory and practice.
The purpose of the present study was to gain insight in the student teachers’ process of
integrating theory and practice, and particularly to find out how they relate theory and
practice and to what extent they are competent to use theoretical knowledge in
multimedia educational situations.
It demands a huge effort of (future) teachers and their educators to become familiar with
the idiosyncratic and complex reality of teaching. In an elaborated model of teaching
practice, Lampert designed an image of the ‘Complicated Terrain of Teaching’ (Lampert,
2001). Practice and theory as well as the relationship between the two are a part of this
complicated terrain (Eraut, 1994b; Leinhardt et al., 1995; Jaworski, 1999).
The developments over the last thirty years in the area of Dutch primary mathematics
teacher education (Pabo), led to an approach of integrating subject matter, pedagogical
content matter and school practice. However, such an approach does not in itself lead
10
Theory-enriched practical knowledge in mathematics teacher education
automatically to student teachers’ integration of theory and practice. Acquiring a teacher’s

professional knowledge base in primary mathematics teacher education, the area in which
this study takes place, requires a constructive commitment and much effort to become
‘owner’ of the specific insights and procedures. Further research should show how student
teachers link theory and practice in an adequate – for example multimedia – learning
environment and should also express the quality of these activities.
The major scientific relevance of this research lies in its contribution to gaining an
insight in the student teachers’ process of integrating theory and practice and to find out
to what extent they are competent in relating the two. Insight in that relationship can
lead to a better understanding of the complexity of acting in practice.
The societal relevance of this research is twofold. First, (future) teachers’ use of theory
is part of the ‘linking process’ between theory and practice, particularly in the way that
theory supports observing and analyzing practice, and can therefore lead to improving
(future) teachers’ practice. Theories can provide an instrument for teachers to recognize
more quickly and adequately all kinds of aspects of the teaching-learning process.
Teachers that can handle such an instrument are able to see more in the same situation
and therefore can think, speak and act more effectively (Fenstermacher & Richardson,
1993). Second, establishing a knowledge base that underlies teachers’ practice is a
condition for improving the status of teaching as a profession (Booth, Hargreaves,
Bradley & Southworth, 1995). Theoretical knowledge as part of practical knowledge
(see section 2.3) is considered to form a part of the professional knowledge base of
teachers (Verloop, Van Driel & Meijer, 2001). Prospective teachers should provide the
experience that using theory is interesting and will gain a profit for one’s practice as a
professional teacher.
The present research might be a contribution to avoiding the gap between theory and
practice.
1.3 Research questions

The research questions described below are related to the consecutive research phases of
this thesis.
The first exploratory study (section 3.5) focused on knowledge construction and on
investigation processes experienced by student teachers in the Multimedia Learning
Environment MILE. In total, 15 meetings with two student teachers were held, eight of
which were two-hour sessions with participation of the researcher. The culmination of
the student teachers’ investigations consisted of an oral exam, a written report, and a
presentation. Audio recordings during the discourse, e-mail communications, and
written reflections documented the collaboration and the individuals’ learning and
thinking processes.
11
The underlying research question was:

What is the character of the investigation process of student teachers in MILE and what
is the output of their learning process in terms of knowledge construction?
The second exploratory study (section 3.8) was designed to find out how prospective
teachers made connections between theory and practice in MILE. Ten two-hour
meetings were held in two classes of 25 student teachers. Four pairs of student teachers
were observed and interviewed, and a participating study of the group work was
conducted with two student teachers. A list of possible signals of theory in action
(‘Signals of use of theory’) was generated to support and analyze the observations of
student teachers at work (cf. appendix 1).
The research question in this context was:
Which signals of utilizing theory do student teachers show in their reflections on studied
practices of MILE?
The small scale study (chapter 4) targeted student teachers’ use of theory in a more
structured and ‘theory-enriched’ learning environment. The research procedure
consisted of eight components for triangulation. Five meetings were held in Amsterdam
(6 student teachers) and Alkmaar (8 student teachers). All meetings were videotaped by
the researcher. In the first meeting student teachers were given an initial assessment and
a written numeracy test. After the third meeting, a 45-minute stimulated recall interview
was held with each student teacher. In the fourth meeting student teachers made a
concept map. In the last meeting there was a final assessment and a (anonymous)
questionnaire. Shortly after the course each student teacher was interviewed.
The research question for this phase was:
In what way and to what extent do student teachers use theoretical knowledge when
they describe practical situations, after spending a period in a learning environment that
invites the use of theory?
A sub-question to this question in the small scale study was:
To what extent is there a relationship between student teachers’ use of theory and their
level of numeracy?
The main goal of the large scale study (chapter 5) can be described globally as gaining
insight into the phenomenon of ‘theory use’ by students in teacher training colleges for
primary school teachers. Two dimensions are distinguished. On the one hand theory use
manifests itself in the way students describe situations with the aid of theory; this is
called the nature of theory use. This may occur for example in a factual description of a
teaching situation or by responding to a situation. On the other hand, theory use is
expressed by the degree to which the students use the theoretical concepts meaningfully,
the level of theory use.
12
The large scale study was performed on 269 students from 11 different teacher training
colleges. The learning environment of the student teachers was a more sophisticated
version of the learning environment from the small scale study. The research procedure
consisted of four components: the initial assessment, the final assessment, followed by
an anonymous questionnaire and a written numeracy test after the course for the
participating student teachers. The emphasis of the data-analysis was on the student
teachers’ reflective note in the final assessment.
The large scale study focused on three main questions, with the third question split into
two sub-questions:
1. In what way do student teachers use theoretical knowledge when they describe practical
situations, after spending a period in a learning environment that invites the use of theory?
2. What is the theoretical quality of statements made by the student teachers when they
describe practical situations?
3a. Is there a meaningful relationship between the nature and the level of theory use? If
so, how is that relationship expressed in the various components of theory use and in
various groups of students?
3b. To what extent is there a relationship between the nature or the level of the student
teachers’ use of theory and their level of numeracy?
1.4 Nature of the study

The research approach of the whole study – comprising the four sub-studies – can be
considered as an amalgam of exploratory research, qualitative research (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000), empirical research (Richardson, 2001) and design research (Gravemeijer,
1994). The design research emerges especially in the way in which the teacher education
curriculum – in particular the student teachers’ learning environment – for this research
was constructed, both in the way that it was formed and in its use by pre-service teachers.
The learning environment – necessary to develop for elaborating and answering the
research questions – was gradually refined in accordance with the developmental research
or educational design research approach (Gravemeijer & Cobb, 2006; section 2.7.2).
1.5 Outline of the thesis

In chapter two the theoretical foundation for this thesis is worked out. First, in the
context of the discussion about relating practical and propositional knowledge, it is
necessary to know in which way teacher education programs are different. Section 2.2
distinguishes ways in which teacher training colleges attempt to come to a balanced
view of both theory and practice and, as a consequence, to a view of the relationship
between those two components of the knowledge base of teaching. After discussing the
concepts of theory and practice in teacher education (2.3), we focus on that relationship
13
(2.4) finally pointed specifically to the situation in primary mathematics teacher

education in the Netherlands (2.5). Section 2.6 aims at gaining insight in characteristics
of a domain-specific instructional theory, which insight will lead us to qualifying focal
points for theory in teacher education, derived from the characteristics that have been
found. These points of interest are important for designing the learning environment
(2.7) for the student teachers involved in this research.
Chapter three continues with a description of the (making of the) multimedia learning
environment MILE. Next, we address the question – in the first exploratory study (3.5)
– of how student teachers do their investigations in MILE and which knowledge they
acquire from their particular way of studying and learning. In section 3.8, on the second
exploratory study, the main question is how prospective teachers make connections
between theory and practice. The focus is particularly on signals of utilizing theory that
student teachers show in their reflections on studied practices in MILE. The results of
the second exploratory research provided us with tentative evidence that the intended
learning by student teachers in the digitized learning environment could not be realized
without theoretical enrichment. The study raised questions concerning quality, namely
the depth of learning from practice. Among other things it was established that good
practice of primary mathematics teaching in MILE – indicated as practice that is
theoretically founded and observable in classrooms – does not naturally lead to good
practice for primary mathematics teacher education.
Chapter four describes the small scale study in the adapted ‘theory-enriched’ learning
environment for the student teachers involved. We address the question of how, and to
what extent, student teachers use theory when they describe practical situations after
spending a period in this learning environment. A sub-question focuses on the
relationship between the use of theory and student teachers’ level of numeracy. The
small scale research provided insight into the thinking and learning processes of student
teachers – particularly their reasoning – and also provided elements for refining the
design of the learning environment in the large scale study.
The fifth chapter, on the large scale research, addresses the issues of the nature and the
level of use of theory. The questions in this research were about the way that
prospective teachers used theory when they described practical situations, about the
quality of their reflections on the (multimedia) practice situations, and the possible link
between the nature and the level of use of theory. A reflection-analysis instrument was
developed for analyzing the data of the student teachers’ reflections of the final
assessment. As in the small scale study, one question focused on the relationship
between the use of theory and student teachers’ level of numeracy. The instrument for
the last question was a refined version of the one that was used in the small scale study.
Chapter six concludes this thesis with a general conclusion and discussion.
14
2 Theory and practice in teacher education
2.1 Introduction
Over the last decades, the problem of theory versus practice in teacher education has
increasingly become of interest. Before, the topic was highlighted in particular by
Dewey (1933), who distinguished ‘reflective action’ and ‘routine action.’ In the 1980s,
there was renewed interest for this topic through the work of Donald Schön (1983). His
ideas and conceptions – not primarily concerned with teachers – are among those that
have contributed to researchers and teacher educators becoming aware that
professionals rarely simply ‘apply’ theory in their practice. A teacher decides on the
basis of all kinds of situation-related components. Theoretical knowledge and insight do
play a part, but they do not unambiguously determine the behavior of the teacher (Schön
1983, 1987).
Schön mentions the ‘reflective practitioner’ as someone who is able to consider his
practice reflectively, not only before and after, but also during the performance of that
practice (reflection in action). There is an extensive literature relevant to Schön’s ideas,
gradually also followed by critical response (e.g., Gilroy, 1993; Eraut, 1995a). Other
shifts of accents in the last few years have influenced the theory versus practice
discussion. The focus on the (prospective) teacher’s thinking process and beliefs
characterizes the changes in research on teaching. This focus originates from the idea
that the behavior of the teacher can only be understood well, if the cognitions and
conceptions that guide this behavior are also taken into consideration. Along with
content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and general pedagogical
knowledge, practical knowledge is seen as an important component of the knowledge
base that underlies all actions by teachers (Elbaz, 1983; Carter, 1990; Verloop, 1992).
Teacher training colleges have come to realize that prescriptive transfer of theory is not
enough (Brouwer, 1989). At the same time it has become clear that the content itself
failed to meet expectations; theory was insufficiently in step with reality and with the
complexity of action in practice (Cohen, 1998; Coonen, 1987, p. 243; Corporaal, 1988,
p.13; Drever & Cope, 1999; Verloop, 2003, p. 203). Furthermore, student teachers are
confronted with different types of ‘theory’ in their practice schools – through their
supervisors’ exemplary role (Zanting, 2001). The extent to which the activities of
students match the goals of training will partly depend on the level and type of
cooperation between training institute and practice school (Emans, 1983; Watts, 1987;
Wubbels, Korthagen & Brekelmans, 1997).
It is clear that practical training of student teachers is a factor in the tension between
theory and practice. On the one hand both teacher educators and student teachers
consider practical training to be an effective way to acquire (practical) knowledge, on
15
Theory and practice in teacher education
the other hand it is claimed that the realization of teacher education goals – also in terms
of integrating theory and practice – is occasionally impeded by the conformist and
conservative influence that practical training can have on student teachers (Zeichner et
al., 1987). That influence can be a disadvantage for strongly practice-oriented teacher
training. There is still another disadvantage to the practice-directed approach. The one-
sided focus on school practice leads to insufficient depth in the reflective competence of
student teachers (Coonen, 1987).
In the course of the next sections we go from a more general analysis of the concepts of
theory and practice in teacher education to a more specific focus on these concepts
within the context of mathematics teacher education.
2.2 Orientations in teacher education programs

Over the last few years, research into the relationship between theory and practice in
teacher training has focused on the question of how student teachers can integrate
theory and practice and in which sense the design of the learning environment can
contribute to that integration. However, no unambiguous conception of theory exists,
nor of practice or the relationship between the two. In the context of the discussion
about relating practical and propositional knowledge, Thiessen (2000) distinguishes
three orientations that have been emphasized in teacher education over the last 40 years:
- ‘impactful behaviors,’ leading to the training of prospective teachers in behaviors
that appeared to be effective in process-product research;
- ‘reflective practices’ and,
- ‘development of professional knowledge.’
The three orientations should not be seen as mutually exclusive, all are more or less
recognizable in current programs. The ‘impactful behaviors’ orientation dominated in the
1970s. Particularly according to the initial teaching preparation programs, this orientation
appeared to be unsuccessful in linking student teachers’ theoretical and practical
knowledge. Gradually the awareness grew that in order to understand the behavior of the
teacher, cognitions have to be considered as well (Clark & Peterson, 1986). The ‘reflective
practices’ orientation emerged in the 1980s, after increasing criticism on the empirical
base underlying the ‘impactful behaviors’ orientation. According to Thiessen, the
reflective practices orientation concentrates on skills which help beginning teachers think
through what they have done, are doing or are about to do (Thiessen, 2000, p. 520). In his
view, while there are numerous published reports on program innovations in support of
the reflective practices orientation, the conceptual rigor and empirical foundation of this
work are uneven and less developed. Zeichner (1994) presented an analysis of the
different conceptions within this orientation. He distinguished five traditions of reflective
practice for teaching and teacher education: the Academic, the Social Efficiency, the
16
Developmental, the Social Reconstructionist, and the Generic Reflection Tradition.

Though intended for the U.S., Zeichner recognizes his framework of traditions of
reflective practice in other countries as well. Reflective practice is still an important
orientation in many teacher education programs, although this approach is also criticized
by different authors. For example, Eraut (1995a) posits that a (prospective) teacher is often
faced with lack of time to reflect in action, because of the necessity to react immediately
(cf. Dolk, 1997). Furthermore, a danger is that reflections remain superficial through lack
of – subtly ‘fed’ – adequate theoretical knowledge (Kennedy, 1992; Oonk, 2001). Another
problem is the (tacit) interpretation of the different concepts. Terms such as reflective
practice and reflection in action encompass some notion of reflection in the process of
professional development, but at the same time disguise conceptual variations that have
implications for the design and organization for teacher education courses (Calderhead,
1989; Boerst & Oonk, 2005).
The third orientation – the ‘development of professional knowledge’ – that Thiessen
(2000) mentioned, is the most recent one. He claims that this orientation is the most
promising for teacher education. In his view – considering the image of teaching as
‘knowledge work’ – the emphasis on concurrent use of practical and propositional
knowledge distinguishes this orientation from the impactful behaviors and the reflective
practices orientations. He argues that student teachers should experience “the concurrent
use of knowledge in each pedagogical phase and context – on campus through strategies
which focus on practically relevant propositional knowledge and in schools through
strategies which focus on purposeful, defensible practice (i.e. propositionally interpreted
practical knowledge)” (Thiessen, 2000, p. 529). What he contends in this way about
relating theory and practice, is to some extent in accordance with ideas of Eraut (1995b)
and Leinhardt et al. (1995). Verloop et al. argue that, although the importance of
integrating formal theoretical knowledge and teacher knowledge is evident, it is
necessary to come to a balanced view of both theory and practice before the relationship
between those two components of the knowledge base of teaching can be studied
adequately (Verloop et al., 2001, p. 445).
In fact, the central question here is which training method will prevent a gap arising
between theory and practice. Another, related question, focusing on the development of
student teachers, is how integrating several elements of the knowledge base of
(prospective) teachers can be realized and how this integration can be stimulated.
As yet, little is known about how student teachers construct knowledge or of the way in
which students link theoretical knowledge and practical situations, both vital
components of learning to teach. In the next section we will elaborate further on the
concepts of theory and practice as well as on the relationship between those concepts.
17
2.3 The concepts of theory and practice in teacher education
2.3.1 Theory in teacher education

Research literature shows a large variation of definitions and opinions concerning the
meaning of the concept of theory. The roots of that concept date back to ancient times,
in particular to the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Over the last decades, researchers have
rediscovered and deepened his ideas within the context of recent developments in
education (Fenstermacher, 1994; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999), in ethics (Nussbaum,
1986), in the theory of knowledge (Toulmin, 1990) and in social science (Van Beugen,
1988). Particularly Aristotle’s opinions on the manifestations of knowledge are
frequently cited.
Aristotle distinguishes philosophical-contemplative knowledge (the nous), knowledge
that is related to the surrounding world (epistème), knowledge of practical-ethical action
(the phronèsis) and ‘practical’ knowledge, skills (the technè). Aristotle considers the
first two forms of knowledge superior to the last two. The relationship between the nous
or the epistème and reality remain limited to a mental connection, by which, in
Aristotelian terms, those two forms of knowing distinguish themselves sharply from
knowledge that is aimed at practical action. In present terminology, for nous and
epistème, and to a smaller degree phronèsis, we might speak of knowledge which
originates from considering phenomena. Such a consideration involves reflection on
reality by taking distance from that reality. According to Van Beugen (1988) such a
reflective attitude emerges on three levels:
- the reflective attitude that one can adopt in contact with the surrounding reality as
an expression of the human ability to know;
- knowledge that rests on generalized experiences;
- knowledge as a system of verifiable judgments according to epistemological rules
(scientific theory).
Reflection can lead to ‘theory,’ according to our view meaning a coherent collection of
underpinned judgments or predictions concerning a phenomenon. At the highest level –
that of scientific theory – we then end up at the development of a theory that can be
expressed in theoretical terms and laws (Koningsveld, 1992). Fenstermacher (1994)
demands different requirements of theoretical (formal) knowledge, this is ‘justified true
belief’ for formal knowledge in scientific settings and, ‘objectively reasonable belief’ as
an acceptable form for formal knowledge that is used within the context of the
educational practice. In section 2.6 we will elaborate further on the concept of theory by
focusing on the characteristics of domain-specific instructional theory (Treffers, 1987).
Also in the field of research on teacher training, we find a jumble of almost equal,
related or overlapping elaborations of the concept of theory. Thus, there is a distinction
18
between objective and subjective theory (Corporaal, 1988), public and personal theory
(Eraut, 1995b) academic and reflective theory (Smith, 1992) or academic and practical
theory (Even, 1999). Considered in extremes, the distinction concerns the difference
between scientifically oriented conceptualization and personal, situational perception of
educational phenomena. Between these extremes there exists a range of ideas and
conceptions concerning the meaning of the concept of theory, for example characterized
by the concepts of abstract or concrete, universal or specific, generalizable or
situational, true or not proven, objective or subjective, formal or informal, justified or
plausible. Eraut’s description of what he defines as theory reflects the common (broad)
interpretation of researchers: “Educational theory comprises concepts, frameworks,
ideas, and principles that may be used to interpret, explain, or judge intentions, actions,
and experiences in educational or educational-related settings” (Eraut, 1994a, p. 70).
However, in that plurality of conceptions a tendency can be observed. Many researchers
who distinguish personal or subjective theory in their descriptions of theory honor the
belief that each action of the teacher is also an expression of theory (Schön, 1987; Carr
& Kemmis, 1986; Elliot, 1987; Griffiths, 1987). The source of that idea must be sought
in Aristotle and Dewey (Van Beugen, 1988) and the recent tradition of critical theory
(Griffiths & Tann, 1992).
Little is known as yet of how student teachers construct theoretical knowledge and how
that process of acquiring knowledge is influenced by their experiences and beliefs
(Branger, 1973; Cooney, 2001a; Eraut, 1994a,b; Kagan, 1992; Corporaal, 1988;
Coonen, 1987; Grossman, 1992; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Jaworski, 2001; Nettle, 1998;
Richardson, 1989). Student teachers are frequently of the opinion that they are not
offered the theory they need to prepare for their school practice (Knol & Tillema, 1995)
and often appear not to be able to integrate the offered theory with their practice
(Kagan, Freeman, Horton & Rountree, 1993; Cohen, 1998; Lampert & Loewenberg
Ball, 1998).
A prominent function of theory is providing an orientation base for reflection on practice.
Studies into research of professional knowledge for teachers, particularly into views on the
knowledge-practice link, describe a range of ideas and tools for teachers that are seen as
useful for fruitful recognizing and analyzing matters of practice. For example, Tom and
Valli (1990) describe one of four ways to portray knowledge as related to practice:
“knowledge as a source of schemata that can alter the perception of practitioners” (p. 384).
Grimmett & MacKinnon (1992) analyze in their review study among other topics the
research of Kohl (1986, 1988), who “(…) is committed to teachers taking control of their
work through the refining of their craft” (p. 419). According to Grimmett and MacKinnon,
the essential focus of Kohl’s books is developing teaching sensibility, which finds its
expression in the idea of loving students as learners.
19
Fenstermacher (1986) and Fenstermacher & Richardson (1993) introduce the idea of
practical arguments. Practical argument is the formal elaboration of practical reasoning:
laying out a series of reasons that can be viewed as premises, and connecting them to a
concluding action. Practical reasoning describes according to Fenstermacher and
Richardson (p. 103), the more general and inclusive activities of thinking, forming
intentions and acting. The authors contend that the process of eliciting and
reconstructing practical arguments allow teachers to take control of their justifications,
and therefore take responsibility for their actions. Practical argument seems a usable
concept. For student teachers it is a reason to use theory in practice, and so for teacher
education it is a reason to ‘feed’ student teachers’ learning environment with relevant
theory. Pendlebury (1995) agrees on Fenstermacher’s and Richardson’s assertion that
good teaching depends upon sound practical reasoning, but she doesn’t agree with their
statement that an improvement in teachers’ practical arguments results in better
practical reasoning. She thinks that sound practical reasoning requires situational
appreciation, a way of seeing which is better nurtured by stories than by formal
arguments (Pendlebury, 1995, p. 52). It is a relevant comment on Fenstermacher &
Richardson’s statements. The learning environment of (student) teachers does in any
case need the feeding – both implied and explicit – with a variety of theories and theory
laden stories and furthermore, the guidance of an expert in order to level up the student
teachers’ practical reasoning. Moreover, the expert has to be aware of the importance of
learning by interaction (Elbers, 1993) and of ‘constructive coaching’ (Bakker, Sanders,
Beijaard, Roelofs, Tigelaar & Verloop, 2008) 1.
An important question is to what extent the underlying intentions of theoretical
reflecting, namely: understanding, formulating, describing, explaining, and improving
practice can be realized for student teachers.
2.3.2 Practice in teacher education

The concept of practice can perhaps be best translated as ‘professional situation.’ It is a
(learning) environment – with materials, tools and actors – in which a profession is
practiced. The professional worker in that environment has been trained to act
professionally, that is to say to act adequately on the basis of (practical) knowledge. A
teacher can also be considered as someone who practices a profession (Verloop, 1995).
Practice has many representations, which can be based on a number of views. For
example, within the Dutch primary education system there are the views of Montessori,
Dalton, Freinet, Jenaplan and the Free School. In the case of teacher education, school
practice is an important representation of practice, being a learning practice for
prospective teachers. In the report of the visitation for the Teacher training colleges
(Pabo) in the Netherlands (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 1989), seven functions of
school practice have been described, for example, the function as a training area for
20
learning to teach or the function of the practice school as a laboratory to review and
improve student teachers’ educational designs. The functions illuminate the contribution
of school practice to the learning environment of the Pabo. A specific elaboration of a
learning practice for primary mathematics student teachers is the Multimedia Interactive
Learning Environment MILE, that has been a part of the Pabo learning environment for
a number of years (Dolk et al., 1996), in the shape of a digital representation of primary
school practice for mathematics (chapter 3).
2.3.3 The knowledge base of the (prospective) teacher

In recent years there has been much attention to two characteristics of professionalism,
namely monitoring the level of professional actions by experts or by the teachers’ network
and, secondly, working from a knowledge base which gives direction to professional
actions (Verloop, 1999). We will look at the second characteristic. Since the 1970s, the
study of the teacher’s professional knowledge base has received new impulses as a result
of increased attention to factors that guide the actions of the teacher, such as cognitions,
aims and beliefs. Up to that time the emphasis was on process-product research and on
studies into effective teaching (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Shulman, 1986a; Creemers,
1991). While Rosenshine & Stevens in the Handbook of research on teaching placed a
heavy claim on the role and the outcomes of process-product research, in the same book
Shulman criticized those studies (p. 13). From the 1970s on, after the ‘cognitive shift’
(Clark & Peterson, 1986), researchers became more and more aware of the distance
between research in academic settings and everyday practice (Schön, 1983, 1987;
Richardson, Anders, Tidwell & Lloyd, 1991). That applied in particular to teacher training
(Beijaard & Verloop, 1996; Harris & Eggen, 1993; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). New
theoretical conceptions were developed in educational research, such as situated cognition
(Leinhardt, 1988; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Borko & Putnam, 1996; Herrington,
A., Herrington, J., Sparrow & Oliver, 1998), constructivism (Piaget, 1937, 1974;
Kilpatrick, 1987; Cobb, Yackel & Wood, 1992; Von Glasersfeld, 1995; Gravemeijer,
1995), narritivism (McEwan & Egan, 1995; Oonk, 2000), metacognition (Brown, 1980;
Boekaerts & Simons, 1993) and learning styles (Vermunt, 1992).
The value of the new conceptions is not proven so much through (comparative)
research in terms of effective education, but the new concepts serve especially as a rich
source of inspiration for reform (Verloop, 1999). The source provides a cognitive tool
with which teachers can improve the formulation and recognition of the teaching-
learning process (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993; Tom & Valli, 1990). Also, in
recent years an entirely new direction in the study of the professional base of knowledge
for teachers has emerged. The study of the so-called practical knowledge or teacher
knowledge wants to honor the insights into professional practice developed by the
teachers themselves. Moreover, there is an intention to examine teacher cognitions more
21
in context, for example without taking a priori defined variables and analysis categories
of researchers as a starting point.
2.3.4 Teacher practical knowledge

It was particularly Elbaz, with her case study called ‘The Teacher’s practical
knowledge: Report of a Case Study’ (1981; 1983), who marked the change from
research of teachers’ thinking to research of teachers’ practical knowledge (Calderhead,
1996). Elbaz came to her study especially through dissatisfaction with what she saw as
incoherence in the approach of research into the work of the teacher. She considers
practical knowledge particularly as personally colored, situational knowledge. In the
Netherlands, Verloop (1991) gave an initial interpretation of the concept of ‘practical
knowledge’ in his inaugural lecture ‘Practical knowledge of teachers as part of the
educational knowledge base.’ He referred to teachers’ practical knowledge as a blind
spot in educational research, as this type of knowledge had not yet been given a place in
descriptions of knowledge that teachers should either have or have to acquire. This is
generally implicit knowledge concerning all kinds of aspects of learning and teaching.
Theoretical notions can be a part of it, but also images and ideas of experiences, for
example from teachers’ own educational history. International literature of educational
research shows us different names for practical knowledge, such as craft knowledge,
wisdom of practice and personal knowledge (Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992). We
follow Verloop, Van Driel & Meijer (2001, p. 446) by using the labels ‘teacher
knowledge’ – or ‘teacher practical knowledge’ – to indicate the whole of the knowledge
and insights that underlie teachers’ actions in practice. The concept of ‘knowledge’ in
‘teacher knowledge’ is used as an overarching, inclusive concept, summarizing a large
variety of cognitions, from conscious and well-balanced opinions to unconscious and
unreflected intuitions. We will stress that teacher (practical) knowledge is not opposite
to theoretical or scientific knowledge. In fact, knowledge gained from lectures, self-
instruction and other sources of teacher education may be absorbed and integrated into
(student) teachers’ practical knowledge. Because practical knowledge is often not
simply discernible in teachers’ actions, it needs expertise to make practical knowledge
explicit. Elbaz outlined characteristics of that ‘tacit knowledge’ and made a plea under
the motto ‘giving voice to the tacit’ for research into the possibilities of making that
knowledge explicit (Elbaz, 1991). Meanwhile research results of study of practical
knowledge have been published; this concerns mainly study of the practical knowledge
of (prospective) teachers in secondary education (Leinhardt & Smith, 1985; Peterson,
Fennema, Carpenter & Loef, 1989; Wubbels, 1992; Meijer, 1999; Korthagen and
Kessels, 1999; Verloop et al., 2001). In that research two important research lines can
be distinguished. The first not only aims at conscious knowledge realized by reflection,
but also at less conscious knowledge (Wubbels, 1992). The terms ‘image’ (Calderhead,
22
1989) and ‘Gestalt’ (Korthagen, 1993) are core concepts in that approach. The second
research line concerning study of teachers’ practical knowledge, is the study of domain-
related cognitions. This direction has in fact been launched with Shulman’s well-known
article (1986b), in which is contended that a fundamental component of the expertise of
teachers is a matter of translating content knowledge to knowledge that is suitable to
educational situations. He studied the kinds of teacher knowledge that teachers possess
and that underlie their actions, and developed an overview of domains and categories of
teacher knowledge (Shulman, 1987).
- content knowledge;
- general pedagogical knowledge, with special reference to those broad principles
and strategies of classroom management and organization that appear to transcend
subject matter;
- curriculum knowledge, with a particular grasp of the materials and programs that
serve as ‘tools of the trades’ for teachers;
- pedagogical content knowledge, that special amalgam of content and pedagogy
that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional
understanding;
- knowledge of learners and their characteristics;
- knowledge of educational contexts, ranging from the workings of the group or
classroom, the governance and financing of school districts, to the character of
communities and cultures;
- knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values, and their philosophical and
historical grounds.
(Shulman, 1987, p. 8).
Since then, much attention has been given in the international research literature to this
‘pedagogical content knowledge’ (e.g., Cochran, De Ruiter & King, 1993; Even, 1990;
Even, Tirosh & Markovits, 1996; Lerman, 2001; Grossman, 1990; Gess-Newsone &
Lederman, 1999). We follow Van Driel, Verloop & Vos (1998), who consider
pedagogical content knowledge as a specific type of practical knowledge. In comparison
with experienced teachers, student teachers’ practical knowledge will be different,
supposedly more extreme, which means either more theoretical (formal) or more of a
‘practical wisdom’ character (informal). Experienced teachers select (filter) useful
knowledge on the basis of their teaching experience; student teachers mainly have to draw
from experiences from their own educational history or from knowledge that they
acquired in ‘colleges’ (Cohen & Ball, 1990; Stipek, Givvin, Salmon & MacGyvers, 2001).
In section 2.4 we discuss the meaning of the phenomenon ‘theory and practice’ in teacher
education, firstly in the more general sense, subsequently aimed at mathematics teacher
23
education and, finally with respect to the specific situation in the Netherlands (2.5).
In section 2.6 we discuss the characteristics of the knowledge base for the subject area
of learning and teaching mathematics at primary teacher training colleges (Pabo), at the
center of this study.
2.4 The relationship between theory and practice in teacher education

Teacher training colleges have already struggled for decades with the problem of how to
define the theoretical dimension of the training programs (Kennedy, 1987). The simplest
approach was: you will learn theory during lectures and will then apply it in practice.
Drever & Cope (1999) had to say the following about that: “Theory, in this context, was
presented as a kind of pseudo-scientific justification for practitioner action, the implication
being that, by using it to generate hypothetical solutions to problems, it could be ‘applied
in practice.’ ” Student teachers often indicated that knowledge acquired in teacher training
did not enable them to handle the uncertainty, the complexity and the instability of actual
practice situations (Coonen, 1987; Corporaal, 1988; Zeichner & Gore, 1990; Harris &
Eggen, 1993; Oosterheert, 2001). By now one can state that the training philosophy slogan
‘Learning theory at academy and applying theory in practice’ is outdated. Over the last
few years a number of researchers have brought up the problem of the relationship
between theory and practice (e.g., Freudenthal, 1987; Bengtsson, 1993; Beattie, 1997;
Beijaard & Verloop, 1996; Eraut, 1994a,b; Griffiths & Tann, 1992; Korthagen & Kessels,
1999; Leinhardt et al., 1995; Ruthven, 2001; Jaworski, 2001). Some authors express –
often implicitly – the belief that there should be no gap between theory and practice in an
appropriate teacher training program. Beattie describes a component of a teacher
education program based on the principles of reflective practice and inquiry, where “the
theory and practice of teaching and learning to teach are inseparable (…)” (Beattie, 1997,
p. 10). Leinhardt et al. stress the important role for teacher education to facilitate the
process of linking theory and practice.
Future practitioners should be given the opportunity to construct their own theories
from their own practice, and to thoughtfully generate authentic episodes of practice
from their own theories. We have proposed that the university should take on the
task of helping learners integrate and transform their knowledge by theorizing
practice and particularizing theory. We believe that the university can facilitate this
process because it can create opportunities for time and pace alteration, reflection on
practice, and examination of consequences. Ideally, such episodes of integration and
transformation should be systematic and comprehensive rather than arbitrary and
piecemeal (Leinhardt et al., 1995, p. 404).
Freudenthal contends in an article (1987) concerning theoretical frameworks (e.g.,
learning lines, structures) and theoretical tools (e.g., mathematizing, didactisizing,
context) that the gap between theory and practice can be avoided.
24
From the wish to understand practice, theory from its side grows and purifies and
improves practice. And if theory has been described efficiently enough to re-occur,
it will likewise influence the practice of outsiders who did not directly experience
the development process. After all, that is the sense and the aim of theory. The
proverbial gap between theory and practice does not occur there – as I just said,
perhaps somewhat too proudly and too prematurely. I should have been more
cautious and say: the gap should not have to exist (translated from Freudenthal,
1987, p. 14).
Van Eerde notices as a result of an analysis of interviews, that Freudenthal for example
interpreted observing learning processes as an intuitive process with a more or less
implicit role for theory. His observations have been theory-guided, in the sense that
theory is only made explicit afterwards, as a reflection on the mathematics teaching that
actually occured (Van Eerde, 1996, p. 43). In his last work (1991) Freudenthal chiefly
viewed the theory-practice relationship as derived from the level theory of Van Hiele
(1973, 1986). He formulated his own, more extended interpretation of the level theory,
both concerning subject matter and concepts (levels of learning, practice, theory) 2.
Concerning this thesis we already advanced our conceptions concerning the function of
theory in teacher training (section 2.3.1). Our assumption is that reflection of student
teachers concerning jointly observed and discussed practical experiences, or reflection
as a result of investigations in a (digital) practice, will start a process in which they link
theory and practice in a meaningful way. We define ‘linking theory and practice’ as the
adequate use of theoretical knowledge when considering a (current) practice situation.
The situation is the starting point of that activity. Therefore the learning environment
has to be ‘charged’ theoretically. The expectation is that theoretical knowledge – as part
of the professional knowledge base – will manifest itself in several qualities and
gradations. This study takes place within the context of the formerly outlined problems.
There are interesting developments in primary teacher education, which might generate
answers to the questions that have mentioned in section 2.2. Digital applications such as
multimedia learning environments seem to be able to fulfill a useful function within the
area between theory and school practice (Lampert & Loewenberg Ball, 1998; Goffree &
Oonk, 2001). An environment such as the Multimedia Interactive Learning
Environment (MILE, cf. chapter 3) – developed for primary mathematics teacher
education but also usable in the field of general education and language teaching –
offers a possibility for student teachers to study intensively the authentic practice within
the primary school. Student teachers’ own school practice, where ‘survival’ takes first
place, is less appropriate for such activities (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Daniel, 1996). Such a
learning environment offers the advantages of both ‘reflective practices orientation’ and
the ‘development of professional knowledge orientation’ (section 2.2). Unhindered by
everyday concerns, student teachers can reflect on authentic situations, whereas in the
25
same learning environment all kinds of content-related and organizational components

can be created that will ‘feed’ the learning environment with theory. In such a learning
environment theory can fulfill the desired function of laying an orientation base for
reflection on practice (section 2.3.1). We suspect that teacher education arranged in this
way should enable student teachers to acquire ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge’
(EPK; section 2.6.5.5 and 3.9).
2.5 Theory and practice in primary mathematics teacher education in the

Netherlands
2.5.1 Introduction
The history of primary mathematics teacher training in the Netherlands shows how the
concept of theory has changed and evolved in the course of time from a limited subject
matter concept to a more extensive concept that aims at the ongoing development of
(prospective) teachers’ professionalism (Goffree, 1979, 2000; Freudenthal, 1984a, 1991;
Goffree & Dolk, 1995; Dolk et al., 1996; SLO/VSLPC, 1997; PML, 1998; Dolk & Oonk,
1998; Goffree & Oonk, 1999, 2001; Oonk, 2000, 2005; Dolk, Den Hertog & Gravemeijer,
2002; Van Zanten & Van Gool, 2007). Next, in a historical context, we will describe in
brief how integrating theory and practice in teacher education developed, in particular
concerning mathematics teacher education. First we describe (section 2.5.2) the
characteristics of that development before 1971, the year that the Institute for the
Development of Mathematics Education (IOWO, nowadays the Freudenthal Institute for
Science and Mathematics Education (see also section 3.2) was established. Section 2.5.3
reports on some developments that are characteristic for the last decades.
2.5.2 History
The first Dutch primary teacher training college was established in 1813 by the
government. Before 1800, Dutch primary teachers were not specifically trained for
teaching as such. For centuries – until the fourteenth century – the profession of teacher
was practiced by conventuals. Through the establishment of ‘city schools’ the convent
schools gradually disappeared. However, the teacher’s profession changed little:
education was mainly seen as memory training. The teacher’s work regarding
mathematics was generally limited to explaining instrumentally; arithmetical procedures
were described and then exercised through an impressive quantity of problems.
Providing insight was seen as unnecessary and a waste of time. The quality of teachers
differed widely (Kool, 1999). In those days the best pupil from the graduating class of a
primary school would be chosen to assist the head teacher on a regular basis and, after
additional lessons at home from the head teacher and demonstrating a sound
understanding of the subjects, he or she was expected to teach. In a later period the
26
private lessons by the head teacher became more systematic or normalized and came to
be seen as normal lessons. The so called ‘Normal Schools’ that evolved from this
practice became later – around 1800 – the teacher training colleges.
From 1800 up to the present time, development can be seen in views concerning the
relationship between theory and practice in the curriculum for primary teacher
education. Van Essen suggests:
Opposite the belief that the prospective teacher had to be an especially ‘smart
fellow’ with a lot of general ‘book knowledge’ or a sound theoretical, subject matter
stock-in-trade, the belief existed that benefit had to be expected in particular from a
direct confrontation with school practice (...) (translated: Van Essen, 2006, p. 15).
Nevertheless, it would not be until the introduction of the New Training College Act in
1952, that real change was realized in teacher training. Up to then, the curricula of these
training institutes were essentially the same as those for higher secondary schools, albeit
with the addition of pedagogy and teaching methodologies and with half a day a week
allocated for working in the practice schools. For example, the contents of primary
mathematics teacher education in 1923, were arithmetic, algebra and geometry, with the
following components:
The art of arithmetic: Knowledge of the central issues of the art of arithmetic: basic
operations with whole numbers and fractions; smallest general multiplicator and
largest general divider of numbers; geometric proportionalities; determining square
roots.
Knowledge of the central issues of commercial arithmetic.
Maths: Algebra. Knowledge of the central issues of algebra up to and including the
equations of the second degree with one unknown variable.
Geometry: Knowledge of the central issues of two and three-dimensional geometry.
(Goffree, 1979, p. 19)
As a result of the New Training College Act of 1952, teacher training was changed. The
school subjects of secondary education were replaced with the teaching methods for the
subjects taught in primary schools. For example, mathematics was replaced with
teaching methods for arithmetic (Van Gelder, 1964). However, because the teacher
educators remained the same, little changed in practice. The teaching methods for
arithmetic were frequently augmented with tough calculations for the student teachers,
supplemented with some hints for working in the classroom. Most of these hints were of
a general educational nature, they referred to for example teaching with visual aids, and
elements of educational psychology such as different levels of thinking (Goffree &
Oonk, 1999). Although theory and practice were closer in terms of curriculum
development, subjects remained isolated and methods were far from the real practice.
Goffree (1979) gives an example of a mathematics method book for teacher education
27
the title of which, ‘Theory and Practice,’ raises high expectations. In the explanation by
the author J.H. Meijer (1963), it turns out that his concept of ‘theory’ encompassed the
art of arithmetic and that ‘practice’ implied skills of arithmetic. This belief is
characteristic for the lack of vision in teacher education during the 1950s and 1960s.
The reorganization of 1968, when teacher-training colleges were to be named by law
‘Pedagogical Academies,’ did not in general lead to important changes. Because of the
idea that the methods of ‘all subjects of the primary school’ should be taught, the matter
of domain-specific instructional theory barely existed. As a result, teacher-training
curricula remained fragmentary, with consistency and commonality towards goals
lacking. In fact, ‘theory’ for the student teachers comprised mainly general educational
theory. In 1984, the teacher training colleges were reorganized to a four year course, but
it was only in the early 1990s that any significant changes occurred. Research by among
others Coonen (1987) and Corporaal (1988) indicates that the desired consistency
between theory and practice was still absent. While there was a shift towards practice,
the need to do so did not necessarily arise from motives and considerations based on
teacher training philosophy. Coonen wrote for instance the following about that:
The respondents [teacher educators; w.o.] mentioned that the stronger orientation on
practice also originates from the resistance of student teachers to everything that is
associated with theory. Student teachers appear to show little interest for knowledge
of a more abstract, deepening and explanatory nature. Because of this lack of
interest, one fears that student teachers acquire a too naive, and too subjectively
colored repertory of action, as a result of which their reflecting capacity is also
limited. Many teacher educators experience the gap between theory and practice as
a large problem (translated from Coonen, 1987, p. 236).
The cause of the changes in the 1990s lays in a large scale inspection of all Pabos in
1991 – the first inspection of its kind. The judgment of the inspection was scathing. The
criticism was mainly directed towards the lack of a good academic background for
primary school teachers and of a clear training concept involving teaching methods. In
the following years, a variety of publications appeared with recommendations for
improving the quality of primary teacher education (Inspectie van het Hoger Onderwijs
en Basisonderwijs, 1996; SLO/VSLPC, 1997; PML, 1998). Problem-based learning,
self-instruction and thematic education were espoused, and teacher educators from all
disciplines were expected to develop their own materials according to these concepts.
Again, the colleges were required to leave behind the paradigm of a program dominated
by the school subjects and to look for themes, case studies, and problems that would
have obvious validity to the study of teaching per se.
28
2.5.3 New developments

Although until the 1990s little change occurred generally in the training curricula
concerning the relationship between theory and practice, it appeared to be different for
the subject area of mathematics teacher education. With the establishment of the IOWO
in 1971 (see section 3.2), in the Netherlands a bottom-up development in primary and
secondary mathematics education and the related teacher education started. For primary
mathematics teacher education, a model for learning to teach was developed (Goffree,
1979; Goffree & Oonk, 1999).
The main idea was that mathematics education, both for student teachers and pupils,
should take concrete situations and familiar contexts as its starting point. While
mathematization of those contexts plays an important part in the learning processes of
children, for the student teachers it is a process of both mathematizing and didactisizing
(Freudenthal, 1991). Student teachers carry out pupils’ mathematical activities at their
own level and then reflect on and discuss the results of those activities. These reflective
discussions create a foundation for learning how to work with children. Freudenthal saw
reflective thought as ‘a forceful motor of mathematical invention,’ i.e. guided
reinvention for the pupils and the student teachers. The guide should provoke reflective
thinking (1991, p. 100). In his view, the theory of the level structure of learning
processes (Van Hiele, 1973) shows what matters in such processes, namely the
discontinuities, ‘the jumps’ in learning (Freudenthal, 1991, p. 96).
The model for learning to teach was elaborated in books for primary mathematics
teacher education (Goffree, 1982, 1983, 1984; Goffree, Faes & Oonk, 1989), which
were used in more than 80% of the teacher training colleges. Following the Standards
for primary mathematics education and the Standards for mathematics evaluation and
teaching (NCTM, 1989, 1992), in 1990 a group comprising ten mathematics educators
started developing national standards and presented the results to colleagues as a
handbook for teacher educators (Goffree & Dolk, 1995). The philosophy of teacher
education elaborated in the handbook is founded on three pillars: a teacher education
adaptation of the socio-constructivist vision of knowledge acquisition, reflection as the
main driving force of the professionalization of teachers and the interpretation of
practical knowledge as a way of narrative knowing (see section 3.1 and 3.2).
Discussions between the developers and fellow teacher educators of four teacher
training colleges from the United States, who were interested in the Dutch MTE-
standards, had major consequences for the training of Dutch primary school
mathematics teachers. The Dutch teacher educators became acquainted with Magdelena
Lampert and Deborah Ball’s MATH project (Lampert & Loewenberg Ball, 1998). The
student learning environment developed in their project coincided with ideas developed
in the Netherlands about the training of student teachers and the way they learn. It was
29
decided to develop an environment for student teachers in the Netherlands similar to

that developed in Lampert and Ball’s project. And so the MILE-project in the
Netherlands was born (see chapter 3), in which the developers saw a position between
theory and practice in teacher education and, by which the statement “Real teaching
practice has to be the starting point of teacher education” became emphasized.
2.5.4 Perspectives
The knowledge base of primary mathematics teacher education (Pabo), the area in
which this study takes place, can be distinguished in two ways from other fields in
teacher training. In the first place the nature of the mathematical knowledge requires a
constructive commitment and much effort to become ‘owner’ of the specific insights
and procedures. Furthermore, the developments over the last thirty years in this area at
the Dutch Pabos led to an approach of integrating subject matter, pedagogical content
matter and school practice (Goffree, 1979; Goffree & Dolk, 1995; Goffree & Oonk,
1999). However, such an approach does not lead naturally to student teachers’
integration of theory and practice. That will perhaps happen if student teachers can use a
‘rich’ learning environment, for example the multimedia interactive learning
environment MILE. Further research should show how student teachers link theory and
practice if they have such a learning environment at their disposal; further study will
also express the quality of their activities.
Next, as mentioned in section 2.3.4, we will elaborate further on the role of theory in
mathematics teacher education.
2.6 Characteristics of a domain-specific instructional theory. Implications for

the learning environment of mathematics teacher education i
2.6.1 Introduction
2.6.1.1 Focal points for a theory enriched learning environment
To get get an image of the focal points that are essential for the function of theory in
teacher training, first an attempt is made to map core characteristics of theory. To achieve
this, the domain-specific instructional theory for learning and teaching to multiply is
analyzed, the theory that is part of the student teachers’ learning environment in both the
small scale study (chapter 4) and the large scale study (chapter 5). Examining existing
i
Section 2.6 has been published in adapted form as: Oonk, W. (2007). Kenmerken van
vakdidactische theorie. Implicaties voor de Pabo. [Characteristics of domain-specific theory.
Implications for mathematics teacher education]. Reken-wiskundeonderwijs: onderzoek,
ontwikkeling, praktijk [Primary mathematics education: research, development, practice], 26 (3),
19-32.
30
theories can make ideas about the ways prospective teachers use theory become manifest
(Oonk, 2002). The underlying thought is that focal points for theory in teacher education
can be derived from the characteristics that have been found. As a consequence, these
points of interest can be important for developing a ‘theory-enriched’ learning
environment for student teachers.
2.6.1.2 Working definition of a domain-specific instructional theory
Earlier (section 2.3.1), the large variation of definitions and beliefs concerning the
meaning of the concept of theory was mentioned, as well as the concept’s origin in
Greek philosophy. According to Plato and Aristotle the purpose of being lay in the
theooria or contemplation. In Plato’s opinion the highest purpose is to rise above the
low. Nevertheless he finds it necessary to return to the low (Bor, Petersma & Kingma,
1995, p. 49). Aristotle, Plato’s brilliant student, is even more attached to the relationship
between knowledge and reality than his teacher. According to him, knowledge also
exists to enrich the everyday world. Scientists often refer to these different modes of
thought. Korthagen (2001), for example, clarifies the term theory using two concepts of
knowledge as developed by Plato and Aristotle, namely the epistème and the phronèsis.
Epistème represents academic, conceptual knowledge, the phronèsis stands for
perceptual knowledge, and this is practical wisdom that has been based on the
perception of a situation and the reflection on that situation. Korthagen thinks that the
development of the last type is the most important for teacher training.
The entirety of assumptions, arguments and conclusions – what the ancient Greeks saw
as contemplation (theooria) – provides theory and new knowledge. A changed view on
the original problems affords new perspectives and presuppositions and causes a cycle
of self-renewing theories. The development of the theory of gravity – with successively
the conceptions and findings of Aristotle, Newton and Einstein – is an example of such
a course.
For the benefit of the analysis below it is necessary to provide a ‘working definition’ of
a domain-specific instructional theory. It seems possible to formulate such a definition
as an extension to what has been discussed in section 2.3.1 and, which is also in line
with existing ideas about domain-specific instructional theories (Treffers, 1978, 1987;
Freudenthal, 1991; Gravemeijer, 1994). As soon as a collection of descriptive concepts
displays consistency, and the coherence has been underpinned, one can speak of theory.
Such a system can contain statements and arguments as well as explanations,
assumptions, conjectures, predictions and proofs. Very different concepts can be an
object of establishing a theory. For example, educational researchers have been looking
for years for theoretical constructs which can throw a different light on the development
of children. The development of children’s numeracy is one such example 3.
31
2.6.1.3 Selection of the theory to analyze

Considering theories on a continuum from ‘pure,’ formal (e.g., the Boolean Algebra) to
empirical (e.g., Gestalt theory), the theory of learning and teaching multiplication seems
to provide a ‘rich’ situation for analysis. This theory is characteristic of both a formal,
mathematical background theory, evolved by deduction, and a more empirical theory
developed by induction. The two types distinguish themselves to a certain degree also
by objective and subjective characteristics. The characteristic ‘objectivity’ refers in its
most extreme form to scientific theories which borrow their ‘status’ from acceptance
within the paradigm of a scientific community. A scientific theory is considered as
(tentatively) true on the basis of the methodology chosen within that paradigm
(Koningsveld, 1992). In the development of the method for learning multiplication,
there are also subjective characteristics, colored by individual beliefs.
The formal and empirical components of learning and teaching multiplication also differ
in the relationship that they have with (associated) practice. That relationship is partly
determined by the way in which theory is produced or used (Fenstermacher, 1986), for
example ‘in action’ or ‘on action’ (Schön, 1983), or by the degree in which theory
influences or even directs practice (Eraut, 1994b).
An attempt will be made to identify in reflective analysis features of the theory which
are characteristic of the theory, for example the coherence between concepts or the
grounding of assertions. This allows to make a distinction between intrinsic
characteristics, which are aspects of the internal structure of the theory and the
remaining, extrinsic characteristics, which appear in the context in which the theory is
used or developed. While analyzing the theory, the aforementioned working definition
(section 2.6.1.2) of theory is used as a tentative framework. We will start with a
description of the history of the theory, i.e. its genesis and development. On the basis of
an analysis of the theoretical characteristics we will come to points of interest for the
place and function of theory in teacher education.
2.6.2 The theory of learning and teaching to multiply

2.6.2.1 The origin of the theory in the Netherlands
Learning and teaching to multiply occurs within the world of education, at the level of
teaching students and, at the level of the school book authors who provide content and
formats to teaching, and at the level of science, where theorists are studying the
background of learning multiplication. The ‘birthplace,’ the field where work was being
done at these different levels (student/teacher, developer/author, scientist/theorist) and
from different points of view (e.g., mathematics and psychology) can therefore be seen
as the context in which the theory was initiated. Learning (memorizing) the tables of
multiplication, is traditionally the core of learning to multiply. In primary education
32
before 1970 – before Wiskobas 4– memorizing the tables was therefore given most of
the attention there was for multiplication. Many children already knew table products
before they understood the meaning of the operation of multiplication. Teachers and
schoolbook authors considered multiplying as no more than repeated addition. Teachers
were taught that way in teacher training. They learned from a mathematical
(arithmetical) point of view that 3 x 7 is the same as 7 + 7 + 7. That was calculated step
by step as 7 + 7 = 14 and 14 + 7 = 21. This approach became the basis for learning the
table products; so, through continuous recitation, students gradually learned more and
more answers by heart. The smarter students rapidly realized that 6 times 7 could be
calculated by adding up 2 x 7 and 4 x 7. Only those who had to do too much calculating
did sometimes lose track and forgot where they were in the list; but without this clever
calculating the tables of multiplication became a line of meaningless objects for the
students. In terms of educational psychology, this way of learning the tables was based
on ideas from the theory of association psychology 5.
Developer and researcher Hans ter Heege tells us about his own past experiences in this
field both as a student and as a teacher. Among other things, working with children
brought him face to face with his own conceptions. Those conceptions were colored by
his own experiences in primary school, and had been confirmed in teacher training
college and were reinforced further by working as a primary school teacher using the
‘mechanistic’ textbook ‘To independent arithmetic.’ Reflecting on working with
children, his own conceptions and his own learning process, partly fed by the
discussions in the Wiskobas team, stimulated him to develop a theory in which
mechanistic characteristics were lacking. Ter Heege (1978, 1985, 1986) developed a
new theory of learning and teaching to multiply.
2.6.2.2 The ingredients of the theory
The theory of learning and teaching to multiply contains the following components:
- Concepts, such as multiplication (with associated notation x), multiplication
strategy, informal strategy, repeated addition, structured multiplication, formal
calculation, memorization, automation, properties, anchor points, reproduction,
reconstruction, models, line structure, group structure, rectangle structure,
contexts, practice, apply.
- Indications for teaching which are related to phasing of the learning process of
students in levels of acting and thinking, and indications for shortening that
process with examples of student activities in the field of concept attainment,
memorization, practice and application.
- Directives for entwining learning trajectories and for interweaving learning and
teaching (Treffers, 1991; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, Buys & Treffers, 1998,
p. 41).
33
In explaining this theory we will limit ourselves to the core concept of multiplication;
other parts will brought up in section 2.6.2.4.
2.6.2.3 The concept of multiplication, considered phenomenologically and mathematically
The sum 3 x 4 = is bare (formal) multiplication, and every practitioner will know the
answer. This multiplication can be the mathematical representation of a number of
everyday situations. The practical value of multiplication is undisputed; we know that
the operation of multiplying numbers already occurred in ancient times 6. It is a means to
understand, analyze and communicate situations that have a multiplicative structure.
Situations (manifestations) of the multiplication 3x4 or 2x3x4 are for example:

- 3 pieces of rope of 4 meters;
- 3 pants and 4 shirts, how many combinations?
- 3 golden stars per decimeter on 4 decimeter long Christmas garlands;
- there are 3 of us; everyone gets 4 sheets of paper;
- a square of 3 by 4 tiles;
- 4, three times enlarged;
- 3 routes from the town of Hilversum to the village of Laren and 4 routes from
Laren to Huizen. How many routes from Hilversum to Huizen via Laren?
- on the calculator, 3 times 4 becomes…?
- the size of the pond is 2 by 3 by 4 meters. How many liters of water do we need to
fill the pond?
The fact that one in three children at the end of primary school will not see a
multiplication in some of these situations (Carpenter, 1981), particularly the situations
in which combinations appear, illuminates the hidden character of the operation
(multiplying) in those situations.
In 1998, developers at the Freudenthal Institute distinguished three types of structures in

multiplicative situations: the line structure (3 strips of 4 meters), the group structure (3
boxes with 4 balls each) and the rectangle structure (3 rows of 4 tiles). It is a
phenomenological description of mathematical structures, which means a description of
concepts and structures (in this case multiplication) related to the phenomena for which
‘they are created and to which they were extended in the learning process of humanity’
(Freudenthal, 1984a, p. 9). The fundamental mathematical background of multiplying
cannot be interpreted as readily as its phenomenological aspects. The operations of
adding and multiplying and – with them other operations with numbers – are
mathematically grounded in number theories. Euclid (approx. 300 before Chr.) was the
first who developed a theory of natural numbers, with the main idea that a natural
number exists of units.
34
Euclid says about that among other things:

Unit is which to which each thing is called one. Number is a collection composed
from entities. (Euklides VII, def. 2. in Freudenthal, 1984a, p. 86; Struik, 1990)
Until the beginning of the twentieth century this was the dominant concept. Around
1900 this view was formalized by the Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano (1858-
1932) in his design of an axiom scheme for natural numbers. The fifth and last axiom of
that scheme, the so-called axiom of complete induction, stipulates in fact the complete,
ordered and infinite collection of natural numbers (Loonstra, 1963, p. 18). Complete
induction is seen as one of the tools to define addition and multiplication. The definition
of multiplication by complete induction can be seen as repeated addition (table
production).
A second definition originates from the cardinal approach to multiplication. The
German mathematician Georg Cantor (1845-1918), inventor of the Set Theory, lay the
foundations for that theory at the end of the nineteenth century by considering the
number as a quantity of something. Considered mathematically according to that theory,
number is a property of a finite collection, the so-called cardinal number. Adding up can
then be defined as uniting disjunct sets, i.e. sets that have no common element. In non-
mathematical language this means as much as merging quantities. Multiplication into
the cardinal approach is defined as the cardinal number v = m x n of the product set [
A,B ] of number pairs (a,b) with a € A and b € B, where set A consists of m elements
(cardinal number m) and, the set B has the cardinal number n. Concretization in a grid
(or rectangle) model, demonstrates that this definition of multiplication – different from
that according to complete induction – easily exposes its properties, because the
structure of multiplication becomes visible.
As an example, we choose the set of products [A,B] with A = {a1, a2, a3, a4} and B =
{b1, b2, b3}.
With m = 4 and n = 3 we construct then the matrix (AxB), that visualizes the number
4x3 in a grid structure.
(a1, b3) (a2, b3) (a3, b3) (a4, b3)

• • • •
(a1, b2) (a2, b2) (a3, b2) (a4, b2)
• • • •
(a1, b1) (a2, b1) (a3, b1) (a4, b1)
• • • •
For example by turning the grid over ninety degrees, it becomes visible that 3 x 4 = 4 x
3 (formulated generally: the commutative law applies, m x n = n x m).
35
What is notable is the effort necessary – even for a trained mathematician – to recognize
the two formal approaches of multiplication in the phenomenology of mathematical
multiplicative structures. Freudenthal acknowledged that indeed. In his ‘Didactical
Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures’ (1983, 1984a), he writes about the
relationship between the two mathematical approaches and about their didactical
(methodological) relevance. One of the points he contends is that the set-product, as
reflected in the grid model, is didactically (methodologically) inadequate. What he intends
to say is that students’ learning processes do not need to be a reflection of those
mathematical (re)structuring processes 7. The mathematical foundation does play a
background role, but the phenomenology of mathematical concepts and structures is more
appropriate for guiding the teacher towards the learning process of the student.
Concerning the phenomenological character of multiplication, Freudenthal talks about the
obviousness of the operation of multiplying: “No operation – not even adding or
subtracting – presents itself so naturally.” (Freudenthal, 1984a, p. 120). He then talks
about the way in which young children construe the concept of multiplying. Before they
are actually confronted with the arithmetical operation, there are years of experience in
which they are already building a meaningful foundation with ‘multiplicative words’ such
as ‘double’ and ‘time.’ Some examples: I have double; you already heard it three times
now; you can take three times four beads or four beads and four beads and four beads. We
will see that Freudenthal’s views have had much influence on the development of the
theory of learning to multiply in the Dutch educational situation. Elsewhere he discussed
(Freudenthal, 1984c) acquiring basic knowledge through exercises on the computer. He
experienced that determination of outcomes was possible with the computer, but it was
impossible to make an analysis of errors or justify an arithmetic procedure; he considered
the last to be aiming too high. He could not suspect that three years later Klep (together
with Gilissen) would develop a software bundle, called ‘a world around tables’ which let
the computer do much more than merely produce answers. In his dissertation Klep (1998)
showed subsequently that it is possible to develop software with which the computer can
follow the students’ process of meaningful practice.
2.6.2.4 Genesis and development of the theory
The period until 1970: the mechanistic theory
It is only recently that changes have appeared in the vision on learning multiplication.
Until the1970s ‘drill and practice’ were considered obvious for learning the tables of
multiplication. In fact, for centuries, learning to multiply had consisted of little more
than learning a number of arithmetic rules which had be acquired through
‘demonstrating, imitating and practicing.’ From the research of Kool (1999) into Dutch
arithmetic textbooks from the fifteenth and sixteenth century, we know that at that time
teaching multiplication mainly involved giving the students a definition of multiplying
36
and a table with table products. The purpose in laying the foundation for multiplying
was memorizing knowledge that could be used for arithmetic algorithms. In fact
understanding of the procedures was not required for using algorithms either, as can be
seen in the work of Willem Bartjens, who is an example of a Dutch schoolmaster from
the seventeenth century. He became famous with his textbook ‘Cijfferinge’ (published
in 1604; see Bartjens, 2005). His books reflected the arithmetic habits of that time and
would remain influential for centuries to come. The expression ‘according to Bartjens’
typifies the arithmetic of that period; the schoolmaster had to explain how the rule was
‘according to Bartjens,’ this is ‘according to the rules of the art of arithmetic.’ This
meant instrumental explanation: the arithmetic procedures were first told and then
practiced through doing an impressive amount of sums. Teaching understanding was
considered unnecessary, and even a waste of time. Students had to learn to do arithmetic
as quickly and as well as possible for daily life. Adults needed to train for professions
such as clerk, teacher or surveyor; these involved skill and certainty, rather than the
underlying explanations. There was no benefit in understanding arithmetic, that was for
scientists. Associative psychology and behaviorism have had long and intense influence
on that ‘practice.’ Barely thirty years ago, there were still textbooks in use that were
based on a mechanistic foundation. One example of a much-used mechanistic method is
‘Naar zelfstandig rekenen (Towards independent reckoning)’ from the 1950s. Even
today’s education still contains elements of that approach. The following page from
‘Naar zelfstandig rekenen’ illustrates that textbook’s approach (fig. 2.1).
2 1x2=2
2+2 2x2=4
2+2+2 3x2=6
2+2+2+2 4x2=8
2+2+2+2+2 5x2=10
2+2+2+2+2+2 6x2=12
2+2+2+2+2+2+2 7x2=14
2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 8x2=16
2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 9x2=18
2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 10x2=20
Learn the two-times table by heart
figure 2.1 A page from the textbook
‘Learn the two-times table by heart’ is the only instruction given to the students, while
there is no further information on possible didactical approaches for the teacher in the
manual either.
In summary, the mechanistic theory of learning to multiply can be characterized as a
collection of mathematical symbols, definitions, procedures and views, including:
37
- the symbols +, x and = ;

- the definition that the repeated addition b + b + b +…(and that a times) can be
written as a x b with the silent assumption that both have the same solution (for
instance 2 + 2 + 2 = 3 x 2);
- the procedure of learning to multiply through the use of table charts;
- the view that learning to multiply occurs through memorizing table products and
applying standard procedures.
That the theory survived for so long is probably linked to the authority of the just as
tenacious underlying ideas about learning (associative psychology and behaviorism),
possibly in combination with the consensus about the approach among teachers and
pedagogues in those days, or the lack of communication about criticism of the approach 8.
The change from 1970 onwards: a new theory

In fact the theory of learning to multiply only significantly changed in the 1970s.
Influenced especially by Piaget, who developed and described the clinical interview as a
method, an interest in learning and developmental processes in children arose. Such
methods were used in mathematics education by several researchers 9. Ter Heege – a
pioneer in the Netherlands on learning to multiply – used it when he discussed their
knowledge of tables with children (Ter Heege, 1978, 1986) 10. Using the title ‘Johan, een
afhaker haakt aan,’ (Johan, a dropout drops in) Ter Heege analyzed seven interviews
with Johan, a twelve-year old boy in grade 5. He discovered that Johan, who was known
as being weak in arithmetic, applied a great amount of flexibility in calculating basic
multiplications. Johan used his own arithmetic strategies which had not been taught
before, becoming aware that it was allowed to do so. The yield of these interviews was
both the reason and the means for the development of a new theory on learning
multiplication.
Looking back on the development, it starts as a personal theory based on personal
experience and analyses. What the ‘theory’ – phrased in conclusions and a
recommendation (Ter Heege, 1986, p. 56) – comes down to, is that children find it much
harder to learn the products from the tables of multiplication than is suggested by the
traditional view on education. Also, the way that children do learn the products, deviates
greatly from what teachers and authors of textbooks assume; children often use their own
calculation strategies for multiplication. The recommendation is: “Children should learn
the basic multiplications by flexible use of a number of characteristics and calculation
strategies, such as the commutative property, the strategy of ‘one time more’ or ‘one time
less’ and the strategy based on the factor 10.” Ter Heege finds support for this and other
conjectures that have been developed into hypotheses through analyzing of prevailing
textbooks and an exploration through the literature on the psychology of memory 11. This
is the case especially for the fact that children will make use of mental strategies on their
38
own, and that they construct their own cognitive network for basic multiplication.
Reflection on that ‘practice’ of research into memory evokes the next development
question in him, namely: “(…) whether it is possible to develop an approach that
maximizes the opportunity for children to construct an adequate network for the basic
products they have to learn as arithmetical facts and have to be able to apply.” (p. 133). In
answer to that question, Ter Heege designs a teaching unit for multiplication. He then tests
that unit in the practice setting of primary education. In another reflection on practice,
which we can now describe as the practice of curriculum development, he describes the
theoretical foundations that the development of the program is based upon. In fact, Ter
Heege formulates a provisional final version of the theory of learning to multiply. The
most important innovation compared to the previous version is its systematic
underpinning. He creates the structure for doing so by placing three ‘fundamental
elements’ (p. 171) in a central position: children’s own constructions, children’s own
productions, and so-called horizontal and vertical mathematization (Treffers, 1978, 1987).
This occurred against the background of the current domain-specific instructional theory
for realistic mathematics education in the Netherlands (Treffers & Goffree, 1985).
Ter Heege clearly looks for connections with that theory and for consensus with its
basis and principle. To do so, he further grounds the earlier-mentioned three ‘theoretical
elements’ from his own research. For instance, his research shows that for the role of
‘own constructions’ in the learning process of students, that children, in their struggle to
learn multiplication, look for their own solutions and find their own way. It turns out
that the solutions the child itself ‘invents’ are better and more profoundly understood
than solutions that are ‘taken’ from the teacher.
In ‘de Proeve van een nationaal programma voor het reken-wiskundeonderwijs op de
basisschool’ [Standards for primary mathematics education], part II, chapter 3 (Treffers
& De Moor, 1990), we can see how the theory on learning multiplication that Ter Heege
developed is adopted and elaborated. To legitimize the ‘Proeve,’ it was submitted to a
large number of experts. This testing has been further strengthened by previous
publications in specialized magazines and by peer discussions during conferences. After
another eight years the TAL brochure 12 is published (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, et al.,
1998, 2000, 2001), describing intermediate goals for mathematics education in the
lower groups in primary school. The intermediate attainment targets for multiplication
and their justification (p. 59-63), echo the spirit of the theory of learning to multiply that
is discussed above. The goals in fact present ‘the theory in activities,’ partly through the
nuanced underpinning of the goals and their illustration with core examples.
The description of the domain-specific instructional theory in the TAL-publication leads
towards a learning-teaching trajectory in three stages. In the first stage, most children
operate at the level of multiplication by counting, helped by the use of jumps on the
39
number line. They are taught with situations requiring repeated addition. During the
second stage they work at the level of structural multiplication. This should put the
children into a position in which they can build up or reconstruct table products for
themselves (informal strategies). Multiplication can take on the following appearances
(models) in context:
- a line structure: chain, strip, number line;
- a group structure: groups of varying types (bags, boxes, coins);
- a rectangular pattern: grids, weave patterns.
Children are able to recognize, partly with the help of the rectangle model, the two core
properties of multiplication, namely the distribution property (6 x 8 = 5 x 8 + 1 x 8) and
the commutative property (5 x 8 = 8 x 5) (see also Buijs, 2008, p. 41 and note 14).
In the third stage, formal multiplication is used and the tables are gradually automated
and finally memorized. Application of the network of table-knowledge will take place
through calculating by heart and through algorithmic calculations, keeping the
knowledge current.
We can characterize the most recent theory (in ‘De Proeve’ en ‘TAL’) as follows:
- As in earlier theories, the students’ learning process is seen as a process of
reconstruction 13 and defined in stages. Here, however, the stages are substantiated
with more nuance and detail.
- Where Ter Heege’s theory only gives little attention to models, their role has
become much stronger in the Proeve, and even more so in the TAL brochure.
- A special focus on levels appears. Other than in earlier theories on learning to
multiply, rises in the level of children’s learning process are described that allow
for recognizing and utilizing differences between children.
- In general the justification for approaches and choices is sharper than in the earlier
described theory.
There are however still clear signs of previous theories 14.
2.6.3 Characteristics of the theory of learning and teaching to multiply

In this section we examine characteristics of the theory of learning and teaching
multiplication previously discussed, with the intention to derive focal points for theory
in teacher education (section 2.6.4).
We distinguish intrinsic characteristics (2.6.3.1), that are aspects of the internal
structure of the theory, and extrinsic characteristics (2.6.3.2), that appear in the context
in which the theory is used or developed.
2.6.3.1 Intrinsic characteristics
Grounding
The domain-specific instructional theory is grounded in reflections on practice
(observations) that are colored by the theory-developers’ own experiences and opinions.
40
Along the way the foundation becomes more ‘objective’ and a more systematic
approach to development is taken, among other things through the use of the results of
other development researchers and existing theory. The systematic approach can be seen
in the cycle from reasoning processes on designing curriculum content, analysis of and
reflection on the results from tryouts and the subsequent development of new theory.
The quality of the foundation is determined to a large extent by the persuasiveness of
the reasoning (e.g., ‘multiplicative reasoning’).
The range of application of theory
The cyclical process that was referred to before, indicates a strong, reciprocal
relationship between theory and practice. We therefore speak of the domain-specific
instructional theory of multiplication and the practice of curriculum development.
Theory and practice in a way ‘question’ each other. Practice, through examples and
counterexamples, can confirm, clarify or refute the theory, show dilemmas or evoke
new connections for the theory. The theory provides understanding of practice by
describing, explaining or predicting it, provides solutions for practical problems, is of
assistance in justifying choices and more. The concept of multiplication takes its
meaning from a number of practices. These are ‘daily practices’ 15, which initially –
until the fifteenth century – involved a limited number of professionals such as
merchants and the clergy, the practice of mathematicians for whom the concept of
multiplication has a fundamental mathematical meaning and the practice of didacticians,
those involved in learning and teaching multiplication. For the latter practice, there is a
small distance between practice and theory.
The ‘truth’ of theory

A typical characteristic in the development of this theory is the designers’ search for
consensus. It is not just a case of keeping on trying, but also of negotiation. There can be
two types of consensus, one relating to finding common ground with other theories, the
other relating to the desire to find common ground in the discourse with fellow-scientists
or with professionals in the relevant field. Here, development of theory is a subtle
combination of individual and collective effort. Not only do such attempts at integration of
the newly developed theory with existing theories strengthen that theory, they also
facilitate the theory’s ongoing development. The threshold of access to the existing
paradigm 16 is lowered, along with the opportunity of extending the theory and widening
consensus. That wider consensus means that the theory gains in strength and validity.
41
2.6.3.2 Extrinsic characteristics

Theory in action
The realistic theory in the Netherlands started as a response to mechanistic theory and to
the ‘New Math’ movement in the 1960s. The various prototypes of the realistic theory
are a result of adapting, modifying and expanding the previous versions. The designer
uses and develops theory when he is working on designing and testing his teaching
package. He develops theory as a reflection on his practice 17 and makes use of the latest
developments in domain-specific instructional theory. In Schön’s terminology (1983)
we can speak of interaction between ‘theory on action’ and ‘theory in action.’ This is a
cyclical process. The process of curriculum development, as we can see it in Ter
Heege’s work, but also with developers following him, can be named a ‘theory-led
bricolage.’ The term has been used by Gravemeijer (1994, p. 110) to describe such a
process, namely as the creative work of a kind of ‘bricoleur’ (handyman) who
brainstorms, invents, improves, adjusts and adapts continuously. He uses appropriate
tools and materials, whatever is available, to realize a specific function. While such a
process is theory-led, theory is also developed in it. In all facets of the process the views
of the designers – including their views on the concept of theory itself – help to
determine the dynamics of (the development of) the theory.
The developmental process of the theory shows that it has been a process of trial and
error, and that it involves continuous development, the theory is never done. Ter Heege
(2005) makes that point yet again when he analyzes the developments in teaching
multiplication. He describes how Freudenthal’s view on memorization processes for
learning arithmetic and mathematics developed. This refers to views that are still
recognizable, at various levels and in different educational settings, views that have had
a lasting influence on the development of theory in this field.
Adoption of the theory

The theory is influenced by a number of factors, which can make or break the adoption
of theory. To begin with, there is the influence from other theories. This domain-
specific instructional theory contains elements from mathematical theories and from
theories of learning. What is unique is the way in which elements from domain-specific
instructional theory, from didactical phenomenology and from learning theories are
integrated.
Second, there is the influence of the designer-developer with his knowledge,
understanding, values, standards and opinions. For example, earlier we discussed the
confrontation with his own opinions that designer-developer Ter Heege experienced.
His position as learner, teacher researcher and developer all color his theory. Finally,
there is the user who influences (the development of) theory, teachers and students
provide important impulses for change and are in the end the determining factor in what
42
becomes of a theory. These three factors reflect the open character and the dynamism of
the theory as well as the complexity 18 of the educational setting in which the theory is to
be adopted.
2.6.3.3 Summary of the characteristics
As described before, the history of the development of the theory of learning and
teaching multiplication shows a drastic evolution. The content of the theory varies from
a collection of simple concepts, rules and views, dominated by associative psychology
and behaviorism, to a refined, content knowledge based system of concepts, suggestions
and guidelines. In all cases there is a strong connection between the theory and ‘the
practice of education.’ The relationship with that practice becomes a solid and specific
one only after the 1970s. Freudenthal’s mental legacy, specifically his didactic
phenomenology of mathematical structures, stimulates the experts involved (developers,
researchers, supervisors, teachers) to change their views. Thinking in terms of
increasing complexity of the material offered to students changes to thinking about
progress in students’ learning processes. Development of theory on that largely occurs
as reflection on practical experiences during developmental research. In that respect the
theory can be seen as beginning with reflection on practice, which then evolves into a
theoretical foundation and justification of that practice. The reciprocal relationship
between theory and practice is determined to a large extent by a theory-led, cyclical
process of brainstorming, designing, trying, analyzing and reflecting (from the theory);
the designers themselves, as an exalted kind of ‘bricoleurs’ keep this process going,
while positioning themselves as learners.
The description in the TAL brochure, even more than for Ter Heege and in ‘De Proeve,’
is characterized as a practical theory; that character is partly determined by the practice-
oriented goals, as represented in activities, and the immediately included theoretical
justification (called ‘theory in activities’). It is a characteristic that is associated with the
description Boersma and Looy (1997) give of practical theory 19.
The evolution of the theory for learning to multiply is influenced by its relationship with
practice from another point of view as well, as debate and looking for consensus among
those involved play an important part in the relationship between theory and practice. In
the course of the process of the development of the theory there has been an increase in
the consensus about the theory being developed among experts. From the 1970s
onwards a close network of experts and interaction with practice develops, which leads
to theoretical statements becoming gradually more profound and better understood and
accepted in an ever-wider circle. That process – which as a ‘democratic development of
a curriculum’ is of great importance for innovation – leads to a more and more balanced
and widely-accepted theory.
43
The cohesion of the theory of learning and teaching to multiply is largely determined by
views and goals, for example by learning-teaching principles (Treffers, 1991; see also
section 3.2.1).
Looking back to the developmental process of the theory, we notice that its cohesion
played an important part in the acceptance of the theory.
2.6.4 Focal points for theory in mathematics teacher education

We can deduce focal points for the use of theory in teacher education from the above-
mentioned intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of theory (see figure 2.2). The
relevance of the focal points for this study is that they guided the thinking and designing
of the student teachers’ learning environment (chapters 3, 4 and 5). To illustrate this,
some of these focal points will be discussed here.
The focal point for theory ‘Underpinning (intended) actions, seeing patterns in student
behavior’ (ad. 1 in figure 2.2), derived from the intrinsic characteristic ‘Grounding:
reasoning, arguing; patterns,’ is a first example. In training colleges where interaction is
considered of paramount importance, (learning) reasoning for students and their pupils
in their practice schools is a core activity. Considered at a higher level the essence of
this focal point for the student is especially learning to motivate (intended) actions and
seeing patterns in their students’ acting and thinking, and learning to capitalize on that.
Lampert, in an article called ‘Knowing, Doing and Teaching Multiplication,’ already
points this out in 1986:
In the lessons [grade 4] my role was to bring students’ ideas about how to solve or
analyze problems into the public forum of the classroom, to referee arguments about
whether those ideas were reasonable and to sanction students intuitive use of
mathematical principles as legitimate (Lampert, 1986, p. 339).
Furthermore, she contends that the teacher needs a comprehensive repertoire of content
and pedagogical content knowledge to be able to provide that style of teaching. Her
colleagues recently brought notice to that necessity again (Ball, Hill & Bass, 2005) by
pointing out the specific character of the mathematical knowledge required for teaching.
Another focal point of theory we found, derived from the intrinsic characteristic ‘the
truth of theory,’ is ‘Cogency and consensus’ (ad. 8; figure 2.2). Whether something is
‘true’ or not in pure, formal multiplication is determined by ‘the answer,’ and in the
case of the teaching method of multiplication based on arguments from experts. In
teacher education it is an important part of the discourse that students debate, for
example on a didactical principle directed by their teacher educator, and try to convince
each other and come to a deliberated consensus.
44
Characteristics of the theory Focal points for theory in mathematics teacher

education
Intrinsic characteristics
1. Grounding: reasoning, arguing; ad. 1. Underpinning (intended) actions, patterns in
patterns. student behavior.
2. The nature of theory. ad. 2. The nature of the theory that is brought into
play (practical wisdom, the ‘common sense caliber,’
perceptual, conceptual, prescriptive, formal).
3. Value of reality. ad. 3. Reality as a source for the development of
theory (in the sense of didactical phenomenology).
4. A relationship to other theories. ad. 4a.The context for the development of theory
(construction of knowledge).
ad. 4b.Personal theoretical network.
5. The beauty of theory. ad. 5. Beautiful reasoning and constructs.
6. Level of formalization. ad. 6. Levels of thought and action (concrete-abstract,
material-mental, use of models).
7. Subjectivity. ad. 7. Subjective concepts and theories.
Personal preferences and beliefs.
8. The ‘truth’ of theory. ad. 8. Cogency and consensus, e.g., in the discourse.
9. The presence of theory-charged ad. 9. Narratives as a means to acquire practical
examples. knowledge.
10. The range of application of theory. ad. 10. (General) validity of theory, generalizing the
knowledge and actions of students and teacher.
Extrinsic characteristics
1. The genesis and dynamics of theory. ad. 1a.‘The Spark,’ intuition and creativity.
ad. 1b. Effort and success stories.
ad 1c. A theory’s history as an object of study.
2. Theory-in-action; theory-on-action. ad. 2. Theory as a basis for pedagogical reflection on
practice (describing, interpreting, clarifying,
predicting, capitalizing on situations).
3. The discourse in the ‘school’ of ad. 3. The discourse (deliberation) as the motor of
scientists. constructing theoretical knowledge.
4. Adoption of theory. ad. 4a. Appreciation of theory.
ad. 4b. Becoming aware of one’s own beliefs.
ad. 4c. The tendency to apply theory (developing
sensitivity for the use of theory).
ad. 4d. ‘Appropriating’ theory.
ad. 4e. Confidence through applying theory.
5. Judging the merit of theory. ad. 5a. Applicability of theory.
ad. 5b. Explanatory and predictive value of theory.
6. Justification of theory. ad. 6. Justification: empirically-grounded norms of
how the theory works.
7. Development of theory on the basis ad. 7. Acquiring theory through (re)searching.
of research.
figure 2.2 Characteristics of the theory and focal points for mathematics teacher education
45
An extrinsic characteristic that came to the fore in the theory of learning to teach
multiplication is the genesis of the theory (ad. 1; figure 2.2). The history of the
development of multiplication makes it abundantly clear that theory is a human
invention, meant to make situations (phenomena) transparent and describe them
(conveniently). Core ideas for an innovative, realistic didactic of multiplication arose
partly because of coincidental observations or experiences of success (ad. 1b; figure
2.2) from a developer, albeit that he created a well thought-out ‘design environment.’ 20
The stories about the genesis of multiplication and its didactics provide us with a
number of focal points for the use of theory in teacher training. They make it clear that
especially an inspiring (learning) environment may lead to the ‘spark,’ a discovery or
an aha-experience (ad. 1a; figure 2.2). Experiences of success in their turn may lead to a
chain reaction of targeted activities (Janssen, De Hullu & Tigelaar, 2008), increasing the
chance that students will use and further develop theory as a matter of course. Finally
there is the history of (learning) multiplication itself (ad. 1c; figure 2.2) that deserves
attention as an object of study within teacher training courses. Ultimately it is
knowledge of history that gives students an insight into the foundations of theory, and,
by extension, of what they themselves and their students must be able to do and know to
become ‘competent’ in this field (Fauvel & Van Maanen, 2000). History does not only
show the knowledge, skills and insights that people gradually acquired, it also shows
how important motivation and (work) attitudes are for the process of (learning) the
acquisition of theory.
Finally, another (extrinsic) focal point has been derived from the characteristic ‘theory-
in-action, theory-on-action’ (ad. 2; figure 2.2), two expressions that are often cited in
literature, and that have been coined by Schön (1983) to distinguish (theoretical)
reflection during and outside practical activities. Theory serves a clarifying and
explanatory function in nearly all stages of the learning and teaching process. We have
seen how the designer uses and develops theory while he works on designing, trying
and evaluating his teaching package.
For teacher education we can consider (theoretical) reflection – before, during and after
practical activities – as an important derived focal point from the above-mentioned
characteristic of theory. A good (future) teacher can be recognized partly from the
ability to ‘look ahead through looking back.’ In training theory mainly functions as a
basis for orientation for reflection on practice. Through theoretical knowledge practice
can be understood, explained, predicted or even improved; in reverse, practice can also
shed new light on theory.
For a complete overview of the remaining characteristics of theory and the focal points
for teacher education that have been derived from that, we refer to the outline of
characteristics and focal points that has been provided earlier (figure 2.2).
46
2.6.5 Conclusion
2.6.5.1 Development of theory
Theories often owe their origin to the creative discovery of one individual.
Development of theory can begin where there is a need for explaining or predicting
phenomena, for elaborating ideas or for disproving the findings of others. Often, these
findings are ‘spin-offs’ of search processes with other goals. Statements that are made
have the character of logical arguments, which may be more or less influenced by
intuition or opinion. The theory of learning and teaching multiplication shows what
might be called ‘signs of an evolution’ namely the growth of a collection of simple rules
and beliefs into a sophisticated system of concepts, suggestions and guidelines.
2.6.5.2 The relationship between theory and practice
We characterized the theory of learning and teaching multiplication as a practical theory,
on the basis of its practice oriented goals and the manner in which the developers founded
their theory and justified their views. What this means is that a reciprocal relationship
between theory and (teaching) practice is maintained. The history of the theory of learning
to multiply shows continuous development, the theory is never finished. Field and thought
experiments provide new concepts, principles and guidelines, from which a new version is
developed and tested, in a process that shows similarity to the empirical cycle as described
by Koningsveld (1992, p. 27). This is of course different from a pure, formal mathematical
theory. This is a closed system of concepts, relations, axioms and theorems. The
confirmation of hypotheses and the ‘truth’ of statements are derived from mathematical
proofs. In learning to multiply the theory is lent persuasiveness through theoretical
reflection on the outcome of experiments; the developers – at least those from later than
1970 – attempt to strengthen that persuasiveness even further by the continuous pursuit of
consensus between one’s own practical experience, the experience of professionals in the
field and existing theories, with crucial justification coming from the theory’s effects on
students’ learning processes. Each theory, to a certain point, arises from a practice
situation and maintains a reciprocal (reflexive) relationship with that practice. Theory
makes it simpler and more efficient to perform in practice, while practice in its turn, as an
application in reality, clarifies thought about the theory.
‘Production and use’ of theory (Fenstermacher, 1986) are not as strongly interwoven
with each other in every theory as they are in the (development of) theory of learning
and teaching multiplication, where the professional practice of teaching provides the
source for the development of theory and where – in reverse – theory provides direction
to practice. We see here a parallel between the development of curricula in primary
education and for training teachers in primary education (Goffree, 1979).
An important factor that determines differences in the relationship between theory and
practice is the way in which theory is used. Theory can be used for instance to test
47
practice (and the other way around) or to anticipate on practice; in the latter case, it is a
matter of ‘theory in action’ or ‘theory on action’ (Schön, 1983). If the practician
concludes a ‘transaction with the situation’ (Schön, 1983), it is a matter of working and
researching in practice as a ‘reflective practitioner’ with no division between knowing
and doing. Schön distinguishes that method of working from a technical-rational
approach, where activities take place on the basis of more external considerations that
have been derived from scientific study.
Other factors that determine the relationship between theory and practice are the extent
to which theory influences or even guides practice (Eraut, 1994b) and the extent to
which professional characteristics of the practician, such as knowledge, insights, skills,
attitude and beliefs (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Lampert, 2001; Thiessen, 2000; Verloop et
al., 2001) encourage or inhibit the integration of practice and theory.
2.6.5.3 Legitimizing theory
As well as by its relationship to practice, the character of a theory is determined by the
way in which statements are underpinned. That foundation in fact determines the
‘strictness’ of the theory. A (formal) mathematical theory is in that sense a strict theory
that all statements can be verified (proven) based on the given concepts, relations and
axioms. Statements in a purely empirical theory – for instance Gestalt theory – are often
founded on and tested through field experiments. The validity however is of a different
caliber than that of a formal theory, where statements can for instance be labeled with
one of two values: true or untrue. Statements in an empirical theory have a degree of
truth that can at best be expressed in a degree of probability (smaller than 1).
According to the empirical part of the theory of learning and teaching multiplication,
statements are mainly empirically justified by experiments and achieving consensus
within a paradigm, against the background of learning-teaching principles and goals.
Within such a practical theory ‘clarifying and predicting’ as well as ‘explaining and
understanding’ have therefore often the function of theoretical justification of practice-
oriented goals and activities. The yield for ‘users’ of the theory is high; teachers who
have such a theory, can ‘see’ more in similar teaching situations and can therefore think
and talk about them in a more differentiated manner (Tom & Valli, 1990;
Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993).
The consensus and validity together with the relationship to practice – especially the
relevant causality process (Maxwell, 2004) – , provide the scientific basis for the theory
of learning and teaching to multiply.
2.6.5.4 Revision of the working definition
In the introduction to this chapter (section 2.6.1.2) we formulated the definition of
theory as a collection of cohesive, descriptive concepts. Such a system of grounded
coherence can contain statements and argumentation, as well as explanations,
48
assumptions, conjectures, predictions and proofs. While this working definition contains
the main earlier-mentioned intrinsic characteristic (‘grounding’), it lacks – certainly as a
domain specific instruction theory – important elements such as the relationship to
practice, and characteristics we described as extrinsic. Also, in this definition the
concept of cohesion is linked to one-sided underpinning, which is a rather meager
interpretation of the concept of grounding as described earlier. In the case of the theory
of learning to multiply cohesion derives from the underlying concepts of the operation
multiplication and from consensus concerning the view on learning (to multiply). In our
view, which is colored by our affinity with teacher training, theory arises from
reflection on reality. That can be translated as reflection on practice, with reality being
seen as a ‘collection of practices.’ That reflection can represent itself in many ways and
on many levels, from a personal practical theory full of individual views, to a scientific
theory that can be expressed in theoretical concepts and laws.
In summary we can describe the revised definition of a domain-specific theory – which
will never be ‘definitive’ – as a collection of descriptive concepts that show cohesion,
with that cohesion being supported by reflection on ‘practice.’ The character of the
theory is determined by the extent to which intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics
manifest themselves.
2.6.5.5 Practice as a starting point, theory as the basis for orientation for reflection on that
practice
Personal experience (as teacher, teacher educator and researcher) teaches that,
particularly in the domain-specific instructional theory of multiplication, there is a
parallel between the activities of developers and users. Presumably, this is partly due to
the practice relevance and the phenomenological character of the theory, and the
specific approach of the developers’ activities. Possibly that parallel is a measure for the
practical value of an educational theory. It is a characteristic of activities that is to some
degree related to that of teacher educators in this specific professional field. In our view
on teacher training, practice is the starting point for the professional development of
students and the theory of realistic mathematics education is the basis for orientation for
reflection on that practice. Students create their own (practical) knowledge, that will
generally have a narrative character (Goffree & Dolk, 1995). The underlying thought is
that, through reflection on ‘theory-laden’ practical situations, students will integrate
theory into practical knowledge, and will so acquire ‘theory-enriched practical
knowledge’ (EPK; Oonk, Goffree & Verloop, 2004).
2.6.6 Perspective
For the study of the way in which students deal with theory, it is essential to probe the
characteristics of theory and their meaning for teacher training. For that reason, for the
theory of learning and teaching to multiply we have considered the characteristics we
49
found from the perspective of theory in training. We have not (yet) considered the
question of how teachers (in training) can deal with theory or theoretical knowledge. As a
prelude to that exploration, there are some suitable statements from Freudenthal, who was
not only a designer of groundwork for pure mathematics, but also a developer of didactics.
He tried to bring attention to essential elements of theory through the use of stories from
practice. He believed that you cannot comprehend theories from hypotheses and theorems,
but from concrete examples 21. He thought the selection of those examples was of eminent
significance, as can be seen from his statement: “It is much less difficult to overwhelm the
learner with a shower of countless examples, than to look for that one – paradigmatic –
example that works.” (Freudenthal, 1984b, p. 102). Those who want to familiarize
themselves with theory can learn from this in so far that practice itself, or typical stories
and other representations of practice, form a rich source and a useful starting point.
Translating this to teacher training, that starting point can be elaborated into an approach
in which students develop a repertoire of ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge.’
The focal points for the use of theory in training serve as benchmarks for designing and
improving the learning environment of the student teachers in the different stages of the
research process.
2.7 The learning environment
2.7.1 Orientations for designing learning environments

The concept of a learning environment can be interpreted differently, but is frequently
described as a context that has to yield, to guide, and to keep going learners’ required
learning processes in order to reach the desired learning results. A learning environment
is part of the curriculum (Lowyck & Terwel, 2003). Already at the beginning of the
previous century, scientists wrote about the context in which learning should take place.
For example, Dewey expounds in 1916 his ideas about the characteristics of an
educational (learning) environment. (Dewey, 1916; Hansen, 2002). Vergnaud (1983)
describes the context in which students learn in terms of ‘mastering situations’ and calls
a mastered collection of situations a ‘conceptual field.’ The learner (e.g., math student)
‘masters’ a conceptual field if he or she masters several concepts of a different nature.
The learner has to invent how different formulations and symbols should be used for
concepts and subjects that appear in different contexts. Lampert (2001) applies the idea
of ‘conceptual fields’ not just to learning but also to teaching. Other than in curricula
where concepts are offered linearly or spiral shaped, she considers her approach of
teaching as facing students with conceptual fields. In that way the frequently capricious
learners’ learning – and also student teachers’ learning, is given chances to develop by
using a conceptual field that anticipates on the learning process. The conceptual field as
such can be considered as a component of the learning environment.
50
In the Netherlands sometimes the word ‘learning landscape’ is used as a synonym for
learning environment. It is a concept that became fashionable at Pabos and elsewhere in
the 1990s; it means little more than a material interpretation of a part of the student
teachers’ learning environment. At some stage the word has been used as a substitute of
the term ‘werkplaats’ (workshop), a name for a study space where student teachers can
work freely with textbooks and teaching materials. Fosnot & Dolk (2001) give another
interpretation to the term learning landscape, one that shows affinity with the idea of
conceptual fields. They consider a learning landscape for primary mathematics
education as formed by big ideas, strategies and models; those can help teachers with
developing hypothetical learning trajectories. This idea was developed by Simon
(1995), who considers it as a ‘learning and teaching framework.’ The framework is
hypothetical, because you can never be sure about students’ doing or thinking.
Gradually, as a teacher you have to adapt to the learning trajectory that students show.
The big ideas, strategies and models give the teacher guidance in the landscape;
sometimes they become means to choose the environment or the context. For students
they provide another view and the progress in their mathematical development.
According to that view, the learning landscape for student teachers can be considered as
an ordered collection of important moments in the student teachers’ development. Thus,
at the level of teacher education, the concept of learning landscape can be seen – as in
primary education – as a learning and teaching model and so as a component of the
learning environment Pabo.
Verschaffel distinguishes five basic principles for designing powerful 22 learning
environments:
- many types of content matter, cognitive and meta-cognitive knowledge and skills
have to be acquired coherently, because they play a meaningful, complementary
role;
- acquiring knowledge and skills actively and constructive by the learners have to be
guided by adapted forms of aid or support by the educator;
- among other things, the idea that learning is embedded in a context implicates for
the development of the learning environment the need for a process of
decontextualizing;
- not only the role of the educator is of consequence for acquiring knowledge and
skills actively and constructive, but also the interaction and cooperation with
fellow-students;
- there should also be systematic attention on the dynamic-affective aspects of the
teaching-learning process (Verschaffel 1995, p. 181).
Lowyck & Terwel subscribe to Verschaffel’s view that designing learning environments
concerns not only content matter knowledge, but also strategic knowledge and meta-
51
cognitive knowledge. That can be achieved through orientation, through supporting the
construction of knowledge, through making the learner aware of the performed cognitive
activities and through further support on self-regulation (Lowyck & Terwel, 2003, p. 296).
The present study will take the aforementioned orientations into consideration, in
particular the intention to create a balance between:
- the individual and social aspects of knowledge and knowing (Tough, 1971; Kieran,
Forman & Sfard, 2001);
- subject content, pedagogical content, general content education and competences
(Klep & Paus, 2006);
- self-regulation by student teachers and aid and support from their teacher
educators (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999);
- the school practice of the prospective teachers and the desired professional practice
of the teacher training institutes (Richardson, 1992).
Thinking in terms of learning environments respects the individual student teachers’ own
identity and own development. According to this framework, we interpret the student
teachers’ learning as a cognitive process of individual construction in a social process of
participation in a group and of interaction with the learning environment. In section 2.3.1
we stated that the learning environment of (student) teachers will in any case need the
feeding – both implied and explicit – with a variety of theories and theory laden stories,
and furthermore also requires the guidance of an expert in order to level up the student
teachers’ ‘practical reasoning’ (Fenstermacher, 1986). Also, we mentioned the important
role of the expert, who has to be aware of the importance of learning through interaction
(Elbers, 1993) and of ‘constructive coaching’ (Bakker et al., 2008).
To move students to practical reasoning, it is important to look for content and ways of
working that naturally inspire them. These may be for example questions that are
confrontational or that evoke discussion, leading to ‘didactical conflicts’ that require
cognitive flexibility (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich & Anderson, 1988). A challenging or even
confusing situation may arise, leading to a natural need to find a solution, a phenomenon
that Piaget describes (1974, p. 264) as a process of reaching equilibration from
perturbation. According to Ruthven (2001, p. 167) an ‘ideal’ level of reasoning is reached
when students have achieved the ability of ‘practical theorising.’ In his description of that
ability he refers to Alexander (1984, p. 146) who believes that “students should be
encouraged to approach their own practice with the intention of testing hypothetical
principles drawn from the consideration of different types of knowledge.”
2.7.2 Design research

The described orientations in section 2.7.1 – combined with the other implications
mentioned in this chapter – served to inspire the design of the learning environment in
both the way it was shaped and its use by pre-service teachers. The learning environment
52
– necessary to develop in favor of elaborating and answering the research questions – was
gradually refined in accordance with the approach to developmental research or
educational design research (Gravemeijer, 1994; Cobb, 2000; Gravemeijer & Cobb,
2006). Educational design research is the systematic study of designing, developing and
evaluating educational programs, processes and products. The process can yield
considerable insight into how to optimize educational interventions and better understand
teaching and learning. In the whole development process of designing the learning
environment(s) – cyclic in nature – four stages are distinguished.
In the first stage of designing the learning environments for the series of the four research
projects in this study (‘The first exploratory research’; see section 3.5), the learning
environment of the student teachers was composed of ten lessons on CD-roms,
information about the lessons (Oonk, 1999) and the first version of a computer search
engine. The study was mainly focused on knowledge construction. The actors were two
student teachers and their participating teacher educator-researcher. The learning
environment in the second stage (‘The second exploratory research’; see section 3.8)
comprised the new MILE course ‘The Foundation’ for second year student teachers (Dolk,
Goffree, Den Hertog & Oonk, 2000). The teacher educator gave his students a list of 150
key theoretical concepts from previous courses, to serve as a theoretical framework to help
student teachers to value their theoretical knowledge. Ten two-hour meetings were held.
Following the method of triangulation (Maso & Smaling, 1998), four pairs of student
teachers within two classes of 25 student teachers were observed and interviewed, and a
participating study of the group work with two student teachers was conducted. The third
stage was the small scale research (see chapter 4). The learning environment for the 14
participating student teachers – a group of 6 respectively 8 – was composed of a variant of
MILE, including one CD-rom ‘The Guide’ (Goffree, Markusse, Munk & Olofsen, 2003;
see section 4.2.2.2). The improvement to the learning environment in comparison to the
previous one was first of all a change with respect to the student teachers’ possibilities to
relate theory to practice, a change to a ‘theory-enriched’ environment. The development of
this third stage of designing the learning environment was preceded by a try-out of
components, in fact an extra ‘cycle’ in terms of design research.
For the fourth and last stage of designing – conducting the large scale study (see chapter
5) – the learning environment was furthermore optimized to enable the research
concerning the refined search questions.
In each of the four stages one can recognize the three broad phases in the process of
conducting a design project, as described by Cobb & Gravemeijer (2008), namely:
preparing, experimenting in class or group, and conducting a retrospective analysis. For
example, components of preparing were: clarifying goals for student teachers and their
teacher educators, designing concepts lists and ‘initial assessments’ as an orientation
53
basis for both student teachers and teacher educators and not the least: deliberating on
and choosing the theoretical foundation of the related research. An example in the stage
of conducting a retrospective analysis is the development of a reflection-analysis tool to
analyze student teachers’ reflective notes.
This component of the cycles of design and analysis started with deliberating and
gathering notions of possibilities to gauge student teachers’ reflections in the
exploratory researches and, ended in the design of a reliable reflection-analysis tool.
The next chapters will provide more details of the process of designing the learning
environment.
54
3 The exploratory studies i
3.1 Introduction
The two exploratory studies, the first two links in the chain of four studies in this thesis,
were part of the national Multimedia Interactive Learning Environment (MILE) project
for primary mathematics teacher education in the Netherlands (Dolk, Faes, Goffree,
Hermsen & Oonk, 1996). Both studies are described below in the context of the
development of the MILE-project, with a focus on the two exploratory studies in
sections 3.5, 3.8 and 3.9.
When designing learning environments in primary teacher education, there is an attempt

to represent real teaching practice in an authentic and natural way to prospective teachers
(see sections 2.4 and 2.7). When constructing these environments, teacher educators have
to consider how to best motivate the student teacher, identifying the most relevant
practice-based principles and the ways in which the theory and practice can be bridged
(see the sections 2.4 up to 2.7). There are other considerations as well. For example, in the
Netherlands, as in some other countries, teacher education is changing drastically.
Controversial teacher education curricula, consisting of primary school subjects originated
after more than one hundred years of reflection on the subject matter of primary education
and the ways teachers have taught, have been replaced. The new curricula intend to
improve the general professionalization of the prospective teacher, for the most part
neglecting the school subjects (section 2.5). More specifically, the new objective is to
adequately prepare students to become competent beginning teachers.
In this chapter, we will describe how a learning environment focused on representing
various teaching practices to prospective teachers, known as the MILE project, was
inspired, designed, implemented, tested, and refined. Exploratory studies were
important in the support of these processes.
Before describing the making of MILE and presenting details about its pedagogy and
technology (section 3.3), we first provide some theoretical background on the
development of MILE in the context of the theory-practice discussion of primary
mathematics teacher education, following what has been argued in section 2.4 and 2.5.
i
This chapter has been published in adapted form as: Oonk, W., Goffree, F., & Verloop, N.
(2004). For the enrichment of practical knowledge. Good practice and useful theory for future
primary teachers. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using video in teacher education. Advances in Research on
teaching. Vol. 10 (pp. 131-168). New York: Elsevier Science.
55
The exploratory studies
MILE is rooted in the Standards for Primary Mathematics Teacher Education (Goffree
& Dolk, 1995). The process of developing these standards and subsequent discussions
provided the contributing teacher educators with opportunities to articulate pedagogical
ideas and expand their repertoire of theoretical orientations. Furthermore, these
developments appeared to provide new inspiration (Barnett, 1998; Goffree & Oonk,
1999, 2001; Herrington et al., 1998; Lampert & Loewenberg Ball, 1998; Mousley &
Sullivan, 1996), so the process was generative.
One of the areas that dominated team discussions was the concept of practical
knowledge (see section 2.3.4), used to indicate the network of knowledge and insights
that underlie teachers’ actions in practice (Elbaz, 1983; Fenstermacher, 1994; Verloop,
1992). Within this concept of practical knowledge, the concept of educative power, used
by Cooney (2001b) and Jaworski (2001), is particularly applicable. How to help
prospective teachers acquire educative power is an important question for educators.
The factors that motivate teachers often remain hidden as tacit knowledge (Elbaz,
1991), even if researchers ask about them, although sometimes they are revealed in
teachers’ talk about practice. Those who listen well to reflective practitioners describe
their teaching (see for example Lampert, 2001) will get a sense of (situated) practical
knowledge. Such practical knowledge can be considered as a “narrative way of
knowing” (Gudmundsdottir, 1995, 1996; Carter, 1993). The designers of MILE (Dolk et
al., 1996) adopted this idea, which would have consequences for the content and format
of MILE and also for the use of the learning environment by the student teachers.
Given the assumptions that practice plays a central role in teacher education curriculum
and that acquiring practical knowledge is the main learning goal, it follows that teacher
training colleges should incorporate useful representations of real teaching practice.
What real teaching practice means has been described in many ways (Lampert &
Loewenberg Ball, 1998; Masingila & Doerr, 2002; Herrington et al, 1998; Barnett,
1998), but in general, it means that all aspects of mathematics education in school are
present, including such things as the teacher’s preparation and reflections, students’
notes, and when possible, interviews with teachers and students regarding their
experiences of the lessons.
Many publications are available about representations of practice, recently in relation to
the use of cases in teacher education (Walen & Williams, 2000). Some authors
emphasize showing ‘good’ practice in these cases (Goffree, Oliveira, Serrazina &
Szendrei, 1999). This appears to force one to choose between ‘authentic’ and ‘good,’ a
dilemma that can be reconciled if authentic is considered as ‘full professional practice’
and good as ‘good for student teachers.’ Selecting practical situations evokes the
concept of situated cognition about knowledge within the situation and the idea of
situated learning about eliciting knowledge from practice (Brown et al., 1989; Borko &
56
Putnam, 1996; Herrington et al, 1998; Leinhardt, 1988; Tzur, 2001).

New technology creates possibilities for adding an extra dimension to narrative
representations of practice. Beyond written cases are multimedia narratives, in which
educational stories are told in sound and picture, sometimes connected with text. Student
teachers have opportunities to reflect on this recorded practice and to write their own
interpretations and analyses, eventually related to their own teaching practice (Pi-Jen Lin,
2002; Mason, 2002). How to make the learning environment of student teachers educative
(Lampert & Loewenberg Ball, 1998) has been discussed recently (Cohen 1998; Sullivan,
2002; Masingila & Doerr, 2002; Pi-Jen Lin, 2002). One strategy for making the
environment educative is to engage learners in investigations with the support of an on-
line tutor or expert. Following this initial process, student teachers have the opportunity to
constitute a community of prospective teachers in order to discuss their investigations of
their own classroom practice, which will provide motivation to learn from it (Brophy,
1988). Teacher educators and researchers assume that this process leads to reflective
practice (see section 2.2) as output (Beattie, 1997; Griffiths & Tann, 1992; Jaworski,
1998, 2001; Krainer, 2001; Schön, 1983). However, the process does not always produce
the intended results. For example, stories of other teachers’ practice often do not stimulate
meaningful discourse. Student teachers often believe that they can manage their
professional work as a matter of common sense (Lampert & Loewenberg Ball, 1998), so
they fail to appreciate the need to articulate a theory of practice.
Researchers (and educators) look for ways to put student teachers in touch with
relevant theory outside of practice (see chapter 2). For example, Donald Schön (1983;
1987) suggested linking theory to practice during ‘reflective conversations’ with
practical situations. Others have developed the concepts of ‘practical theorising’
(Alexander, 1984; Ruthven, 2001; see section 2.7.1) or ‘theoretically grounded
reasoning’ (McAninch in Masingila & Doerr, 2002, p. 241). Lampert (1998b) speaks
of ‘thinking practice’ (p. 53) that is ‘integrating reasoning and knowing with action’
(Loewenberg Ball, 2000, p. 246). Professionals cannot constrain themselves to telling
stories about practice using only the language of practice (Verloop, 2001). Theory
cannot be omitted (Cooney, 2001a). Teachers need flexible cognitive structures
(theory) to understand the information they derive from their complex and uncertain
teaching practice (Spiro et al., 1988).
The next question for the designers of MILE was which theoretical framework student
teachers needed to help them adopt a professional approach to practice. By starting
modestly and leaving higher levels of theory in action for later (Leinhardt et al., 1995;
Oonk, 1999), teacher educators can focus attention on a framework of theoretical
concepts to use for deriving meanings from practice (see also section 2.6). Student
teachers must be provided the opportunity to assimilate the theoretical framework into
57
their practical knowledge, so that practice and theory will be integrated naturally
(Dewey, 1933; Daniel, 1996; Leinhardt et al., 1995; Selter, 2001; Thiessen, 2000).
Having discussed the roots of MILE in research on cognitive structure and the
assimilation of a theoretical framework, we describe in the next sections our efforts to
make MILE’99 educative on the basis of continuing development, including exploratory
investigations. In the last section (3.9) we explain how theory completes thinking on
practical knowledge in the context of a new learning environment and the perspective of
new research.
3.2 Prior development and research
3.2.1 Developing good practice

We begin by providing some background on our view of good practice in mathematics
education.
The contents of good practice were developed as a response to reaction to the problems
with the world-wide New Math movement in the 1960s and inspired by Freudenthal’s
ideas (1978) about a new approach to mathematics education, embodied in what is now
called as Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) (Treffers & Goffree, 1985; Treffers,
1991; Streefland, 1993; Gravemeijer, 1994).
Three late twentieth-century developments provided the foundation for MILE:
- developmental research in the Wiskobas project;
- the formulation of national core objectives in the Netherlands;
- the discussions on a new publication about ‘a National Programme for
Mathematics Education on Elementary Schools.’
Developmental research
In the Wiskobas project (1970-1980; note 4), a new mathematics curriculum for primary
schools was developed with the support of Freudenthal. It resulted in a concrete realistic
program that describes a clear image of good practice in five learning-teaching (L-T)
principles (Treffers, 1991).
L.1 Construction. Learning mathematics is a constructive activity.
T.1 Concrete basis for orientation. Make mathematics concrete. Create recognizable
contexts to which children can assign their own meanings.
L.2 Raising the level. Learning mathematics takes place somewhere between the
informal mathematics of the children themselves (intuitive notions and self-
invented procedures) and the formal mathematics of adults.
T.2 Models. To be able to achieve the required raising in level during the teaching-
learning process, the pupils must have at their disposal the tools for bridging the
gap between informal and formal mathematics (Gravemeijer, 1994).
58
L.3 Reflection. Learning mathematics is stimulated by reflection. Reflection is, as it

were, the engine for raising the level (Freudenthal, 1991).
T.3 Reflective moments. The teacher finds the right times to bring reflective moments
into mathematics teaching. Good occasions for reflection include any cognitive
conflicts that might occur and anything the pupil may have thought of
independently (‘own productions’) (Streefland, 1991; Selter, 1993).
L.4 The social context. Children learn more often than not in the company of adults or
other children. This means that other actors in the learning environment can
provide the impulse for learning. As the different actors communicate with each
other about mathematical concepts and procedures, they argue about them and
come to insights collectively.
T.4 Interactive mathematics lessons. The teacher organizes mathematics education such
that interaction becomes a natural part of it. This, in turn, creates a pedagogical
climate in which all the pupils can take part in the interaction. The concept of a
classroom as a sort of ‘mathematical community’ gives it an extra dimension, as
does the Mathematical Conference in the class described by Selter (1993).
L.5 Structuring. If children construct their own meaningful mathematics, then new
knowledge and insights become incorporated in what they have already learned.
This means that the available mathematical knowledge (think, for example, of
cognitive structures) is subject to constant upgrading. The new knowledge is fitted
into the existing cognitive structure (assimilation) or the total structure is adjusted
to accommodate the new insights (accommodation). Also, one aspect of learning is
the task of bringing structure to what is being learned.
T.5 Interweaving the strands of learning. The teacher bases mathematics teaching on
real-world situations, both as sources of ideas and as places to apply them. The
first case would be an example of ‘horizontal mathematizing.’ Further, the
mathematical ideas being used can themselves form the subject matter (vertical
mathematizing). This brings connections with other mathematical ideas into the
picture, partly as a result of the concrete background.
At the very end of the century (Goffree & Frowijn, 2000) ‘good practice’ had to be
defined again, but this time with the intention to create an instrument for self-evaluation
in schools. For this goal the principles were elaborated into more refined statements,
called ‘indicators’ of realistic mathematics education, used to observe and analyze
mathematics teaching in classrooms.
- The teacher is teaching mathematics by problem solving.
- Problems are introduced in familiar contexts.
- A substantial part of the effective learning time is used to explore the context.
59
- While exploring the context of a problem the non-mathematical aspects mentioned

by students are also considered.
- The context gives meaning to the mathematical activities.
- Introduction, problem setting, problem solving, and subsequent discussion are
realized in interaction with the whole class.
- In order to stimulate mathematical activities in cooperative groups, the teacher
creates reasons for the students to discuss, to explain, to cooperate, to convince
each other, and to distribute tasks properly.
- Sufficient learning time is spent on the introduction and exploration of ‘models’.
- The use of concrete models (e.g., schemas such as number line, reckon rack, or
fraction strips) results in the use of mental models.
- The teacher continuously anticipates students’ reactions during interactive class
discussion.
- The pedagogical climate allows children to make mistakes and the teacher to
overtly discuss these errors and their possible causes.
- The teacher takes time for reflective moments during the mathematics class.
- Students are stimulated to create mathematical problems themselves (e.g., for
peers) and also to solve these problems reflectively.
- Teacher and students have an open mind for other people’s solutions.
- Frequently asked questions are “Why?” and “Are you sure?”.
The provoking character of ‘cognitive conflicts’ is used to challenge children’s thinking.
The formulation of national core objectives
Increasing attention to quality management in primary education is the second
development to consider. The National Institute for Curriculum Development in the
Netherlands (SLO) published, after a national debate in the different domains, a list of
core objectives for the school subjects (SLO, 1993; Treffers, De Moor & Feijs, 1989).
National Programme for Mathematics Education on Elementary Schools
A subsequent publication showed how to teach ‘in the spirit of Wiskobas’ in order to
realize the core objectives: Standards for primary mathematics education (Treffers et al.,
1989; Treffers & De Moor, 1990). These standards fueled a broad debate about
‘realistic mathematics education,’ that resulted in widely accepted and theoretically
founded views of ‘good practice in realistic mathematics education.’
3.2.2 Good practice for teacher education

During the Wiskobas project, teacher educators participated in the research and
development. Freudenthal supported these activities; he participated in field tests and
increasingly viewed student teachers’ learning processes as an emerging outcome of
60
mathematizing and didactisizing (Freudenthal, 1991). Thus in the years of Wiskobas a

new approach to primary mathematics teacher education was designed, in close
connection to the creation of realistic mathematics education (Goffree, 1979).
Following the Standards for primary mathematics education and the Standards for
mathematics evaluation and teaching (NCTM 1989, 1992), the Dutch Association of
Primary Mathematics Educators (NVORWO) submitted a request to the National
Institute of Curriculum Development (SLO) to draft a similar publication specifically
for Dutch teacher education. In 1990, a group comprising ten mathematics educators
started developing national standards and presented the results to colleagues as a
handbook for teacher educators (Goffree & Dolk, 1995).
The philosophy of teacher education elaborated in the handbook is founded on three
pillars: a teacher education adaptation of the socio-constructivist vision of knowledge
acquisition, reflection as the main driving force of the professionalization of teachers
(Schön, 1983, 1987) and the interpretation of practical knowledge as a way of narrative
knowing (Gudmundsdottir, 1995). The statement “Real teaching practice has to be the
starting point of teacher education” is emphasized. In the attempt to elaborate this
principle into concrete curriculum materials for student teachers, an essential question
still remained: How can curriculum designers give a learning environment a ‘natural’
aura? And next: what do we mean by ‘natural’? Student teachers’ fieldwork practice is
natural by definition, but when they discuss this practice, they often stick to a
superficial interchange of ideas and opinions (Verloop, 2001). Rarely do these
discussions reach a level of theoretical reflections.
Learning in practice is mostly a solo task because student teachers not often have the
opportunity to discuss common experiences and observations. Moreover, they usually
focus on fulfilling responsibilities and on survival issues, so talk about actions
dominates their reflections on the profession. As a result, they do not acquire practical
knowledge that can be generalized across situations or organize their narratives of
teaching into a broader framework.
The group of ten Dutch teacher educators got a new perspective on this problem when
they visited the School of Education of the University of Michigan. They were
introduced to the Student Learning Environment (SLE), created by Lampert &
Loewenberg Ball (1998), which became a source of inspiration for the making of MILE.
Using the records of real teaching practice the Michigan student teachers could access a
whole year of mathematics teaching, with options to observe teaching and learning from
different points of view (teacher, students, subject matter, curriculum, classroom
climate, et cetera.).
Although MILE would become a quite different learning environment than SLE was in
1995 (Goffree & Oonk, 2001), MILE is based on a similar philosophy about the
61
presentation of real teaching practice in teacher education: “good practice for student
teachers learning about teaching primary mathematics in the spirit of realistic
mathematics education.” Knowing this, it was important to make video recordings of
practice without losing quality.
3.3 The making of MILE
3.3.1 Introduction
We began with the intention to create a similar multimedia learning environment for
Dutch teacher education. The funds for a quick start were provided by the Dutch
Government, and a project team (four math teacher educators and two technicians) (Dolk
et al., 1996) worked on the first stage of the MILE project over the next 18 months.
The 40 Dutch Colleges of (Primary) Teacher Education were informed and invited to
participate 23. The majority expressed a desire to do so. In November, 1996 the first
mathematics lessons were recorded and the MILE team again visited Michigan, this
time to investigate the Student Learning Environment in action and to discuss the
theoretical background, the making of, and specifically the use of the Student Learning
Environment in the framework of ongoing methods courses at the university. Student
teachers there perform ‘open’ investigations based on personally formulated problems
to investigate and questions to answer. The tutor (a teacher educator or graduate
student) supervises these open investigations, and regularly annotates (via comments in
‘Word’) the reflective reports that the student teachers submit. Student teachers’
learning is optimal during these electronic discussions about observations and
interpretations (Lampert & Loewenberg Ball, 1998).
3.3.2 Preparing the recording of good practice

Before the first video could be recorded in the classroom, decisions had to be made
about subject matter (what is relevant?), the teacher (who is representative?), the school
(as typical as possible and within easy reach). We wanted the school, the teacher, and
the textbooks and manuals in use to reflect the situations student teachers ordinarily
meet in primary schools. Toward this end, we asked all mathematics teacher educators
in the Netherlands to answer three questions: (1) Describe the most appropriate practice
school for your student teachers learning to teach mathematics, (2) Sketch a profile of
the ideal primary school teacher to be a mentor (tutor), and (3) Consider the best
teaching-learning situations you like your student teachers to see, to experience, to
investigate, and to practice.
Responses to these questions suggested that good practice for student teachers should
present interactions between actors in the classroom, the teacher’s numeracy and
mathematical attitude, his/her pedagogical and didactical expertise, and the teacher’s
62
and students’ attitudes towards mathematics. There also were many ideas about the
supervision and coaching of student teachers during fieldwork. With the results of this
questionnaire in mind, the team members visited elementary schools, talked with
headmasters and teachers, and made additional observations in classrooms. In
discussions after each math class, specific attention was paid to the degree to which the
teachers were able to reflect on their actions and to put their thoughts into words.
An elementary school in Amsterdam, appeared to be a good location for the first five
weeks of shooting video in grade 2. Some time after the choice had been made, a lucky
incidental circumstance was recognised: two teachers in grade 2, sharing one job,
created a ‘natural’ setting for observing reflective practice (Jaworski, 1998, 2001;
Krainer, 2001). In order to keep continuity in students’ learning processes, they
discussed subject matter and the performances of children regularly.
Also, thanks to the headmaster’s efforts, the MILE project was adopted by all (41)
teachers of the school and members of the MILE team were accepted by the parents
(grade 2) as well. The wish to do something in return for the school and also the
intention to create a positive working climate for filmers, educators, teachers, and
students was realised by offering four workshops as part of an in-service course.
‘Enlarging your practical knowledge of realistic mathematics teaching’ was the
workshops’ focus. The teachers mentioned four themes: explaining, contexts, models,
and interaction in a math class. This focus on practical knowledge typified the MILE
team’s discussion and study. Practical knowledge is tacit knowledge; it becomes visible
only in the actions of the teacher and during rare moments when teachers are telling
stories of what happens in and around their classrooms. In the latter cases, the practical
knowledge is hidden (wrapped) in their personal narratives (stories). Our two grade 2
teachers, sharing one job, would be able to reveal much of the practical knowledge that
had been inspired by their transfer meetings.
The parents (grade 2) got serious attention from MILE. One parents’ evening was
recorded in its entirety and became an integral part of MILE. On that evening the
parents watched an earlier recorded grade 2 lesson. Then both teachers presented
themselves as reflective practitioners and explained what happened in the classroom,
told about underlying objectives, and invited the audience to ask questions about their
children, the teachers’ actions, and the subject matter.
The lessons to be recorded were prepared in general outline by teacher and project
director, not to model the ideal teacher, but to increase teachers’ self esteem. It is
comparable to the approach of Lampert and Loewenberg Ball (1998): they didn’t want
to be the model of a teacher to imitate, but indeed they want to be good teachers with
their own (personal) practical knowledge of which student teachers could learn from. So
the idea was that good practice for teacher education is not good practice to imitate.
63
The teachers agreed to follow the textbook and manual, but also add a ‘problem of the
week.’ Every Wednesday during the five weeks of recording, the teacher would present
an ‘open’ problem in order to stimulate interaction, problem setting, and problem
solving in whole-class discussions and in small cooperative groups.
3.3.3 The scenario

To prepare the real time recordings, a shooting script (scenario) was compiled
describing sequences of students’ and teacher’s actions during a lesson. The parents
gave permission to take videos of their children and a professional film institute with
experience in school classes was engaged.
The script appeared to be a useful advance organizer for all concerned, although once
the lessons began, it unfolded naturally and was taped without interruption or script
consultation. Scripting the scenario offered another advantage: becoming aware of the
different positions of the cameras, the use of zooming in and out, the need for a clear
lesson structure, the visibility of learning aids in the classroom, and the planning of
fixed time periods (linked to the video tape length).
Three professional filmers operated two mobile cameras, one fixed camera, and the
audio apparatus. One mobile camera just followed the teacher; the other focused on
individual students or small groups. The fixed camera continually recorded wide-angle
shots of the whole classroom. Because children in grade 2 do not speak ‘loud and clear,’
small microphones were set on the tables, hidden in small pots with plants.
The MILE educators planned with the filmers about how to capture the essentials of math
classes and accomplish the general goal of making records of good practice every day
during the next five weeks. The filmers had to be prepared to capture interesting events
such as: children handling manipulatives, the teacher using models on the blackboard,
subtle moments of help, interactions between people in the classroom, rising levels,
spontaneous expressions of pupils, et cetera. Special attention has been asked for the
narrative aspect of registrating, that means ‘thinking in stories’ while taping, i.e.
anticipating the narrative that might be developed later to weave together the segments
they were taping. Furthermore the ‘integrity of practice’ was a point of attention to the
preparation of the lessons; the filmers’ stance towards teacher and children was discussed:
they should find a balance between commitment (to taping children and their learning
processes) and distance (in order not to influence the events in the classroom). Keeping a
distance proved difficult, because the camera operators became popular guests. In no time
they learned the children’s names and personal characteristics.
The project team chose to compromise between ‘shooting a Hollywood movie’ and
simply recording everyday classroom interaction, searching to achieve a balance
between recording authentic practice and recording representations of practice that
would be optimal for use in educating student teachers.
64
3.3.4 The screen-test

One day was spent finding out the most appropriate camera positions, the audio
management, the director’s tasks, and rehearsing the recording of a math class. Teacher
and students in the try-out lesson rapidly got used to the presence of three cameras, an
audio installation and three filmers, but it is difficult to estimate how such
circumstances influence the daily routine. Children sometimes showed awareness of
being taped, even after weeks of daily recordings. Also, the teachers confessed to being
more careful during their interactions with children, particularly when disciplinary
measures had to be taken or when values and standards had to be discussed.
One day the teacher had to comment on the negative attitude of one of the students in a
small peer group. Afterwards she explained: “I do not like approaching Sandra in front
of the camera the way I do in ordinary circumstances. I do not want to hurt either
Sandra or myself.” Her colleague agreed: “You and I act less naturally in situations like
that. Usually I say, raising my voice, ‘Stop it now!’ In front of the camera I first count
to ten before speaking.” And, referring to a recent experience celebrating Santa Claus in
the classroom, she said: “I usually act the fool with the children, but this time I found
myself rather reserved.” In his report, the director reflected on these confessions: “It
appears that the recording violates the intimacy of the classroom atmosphere. Keeping
the situation natural requires specific preparation and coaching of the teachers
involved.” (Oonk, 1997).
The rehearsal was very helpful in organizing the communication between the director
outside and the filmers inside the classroom. Three purviews on classroom teaching had
to be considered: the teacher’s point of view, looking over a student’s shoulder, or
watching as an outside researcher does. Because our focus was on researching good
practice for future teachers, the teacher’s viewpoint was considered to be the most
relevant. In zooming in and out of the scenes, we used overall shots, half-total shots,
and close ups. The half-totals usually were the most informative, such as a half-total
shot of a small group at work or the teacher questioning one or two students. Close ups
clearly show non-verbal expressions or the details of students’ seatwork. Overall shots
were used afterwards, when editing the tapes to show transitions between activities or
when inappropriate half-totals or close ups had to be replaced.
3.3.5 Recording and editing

Creating a representation of real teaching practice, such as the Student Learning
Environment in Michigan required recording more than the math classes themselves:
the teacher before beginning the lesson telling what has been prepared; the ‘transfer’
discussions between the two job-sharing teachers; individual students practising basic
facts in the workstation with a computer; interviews with students immediately after
finishing a class, reflecting upon the lesson; a parent talking with the teacher about a
65
child; a teacher discussing a low achiever with the remedial teacher; a team discussion
about interaction as a means to discuss good practice of realistic mathematics education;
celebrating Santa Claus at school, et cetera.
Sitting in a corner in the corridor, specially equipped with headphones, a microphone,
and three monitors, the project director coached the filmers in the classroom. As a
didactic expert, former teacher, and teacher educator, this director/researcher was
focused on capturing the children’s learning processes, with an eye toward using the
video with future student teachers. In contrast, the filmers were concerned mostly about
the quality of the pictures.
After directing the recording of the math class and the attached activities to complete
real time teaching, the director wrote notations into a reflective report, describing the
events and adding ideas about how the tape might be used with student teachers. In
other words, he already was thinking about making MILE educative, drawing
inspiration from reflecting on recently directed recording. His report also was helpful
for the editorial work. Three videotapes, recording the same events but from different
points of view, had to be merged into one record of (good) practice; to maintain three
different ‘streams’ as an alternative for the student teachers’ learning environment was
too complicated as a representation of real practice. The report provided guidance for
making the right choices and not missing any essentials. The director’s report kept focus
on the narrative character of the practical knowledge perspective. A classroom plan and
photographs of the pupils were necessary to keep orientation while editing. The
reflections on recording and editing recorded in the director’s report were published
(Oonk, 1997) 24.
3.3.6 Making the records of real teaching practice accessible

After editing, the videotapes had to be digitized so that the benefits of IT-technology could
be used. Then an essential problem had to be dealt with: how to make this voluminous and
still growing video material transparent and accessible for students in teacher education
(Hermsen, Goffree & Stolting, 1997). IT-technology solved the problem by offering a
search function capable of full text retrieval. Also, much time had to be spent writing texts
close to the existing visual material, and IT-technology once again was of great help. The
technicians in the team designed software to divide the videos into short sections (video
fragments). The events in these sections could be described (in what formerly were called
‘titles’) as mini-stories, making use of keywords that could guide student teachers to these
sections later. The desired length of the video fragments and linked mini-stories was
considered in the context of facilitating the development of practical knowledge. The
minimal size of a section was called ‘a narrative unit’ and the rule of thumb became
‘complete meaningful mini-story (narrative) with size between one and three minutes,’ as
small as possible to create the possibility for a subtle search, but not so small that the
66
fragments would lose their meaning. Experience using the search engine indicated that
students typically began with one mini-story and then wanted to view video fragments that
came immediately before or after the mini-story just viewed. Consequently, the system
was improved to make it easier for students to shift from the segment just played to
adjacent segments of the same lesson.
An example: In one mini-story, grade 2 student Chantal is called on to draw the position
of the number 45 between 40 and 50 on the number line. The mini-story says: “Chantal
is measuring to find the position of 45 on the number line. She first estimates the middle
between 40 and 50 to be sure. Minke gives praise and asks the other students to look
carefully to the jump of ten.”
Student teachers, making their investigations in MILE, can watch the previous and next
within a sequence of mini-stories that together represent a substantive part of the math
class. It is also possible to combine stories from different places to create whole cases.
Thus the search function can be used in two different ways. The first brings the MILE
investigator to the archive, in which dated lessons divided into sections (and other data)
are organized chronologically. One can browse through the mini-stories and, if one
seems interesting, click to the linked video fragment. It is also possible to find a
fragment by typing a keyword (all mini-stories containing this word are shown). Each
mini-story in this list is linked with the archive again, so it is possible to see the whole
lesson in which it was embedded.
Making the records of real teaching searchable in this way converts ‘good practice’ into
‘good practice for use in teacher education.’ It also connects ‘good practice’ to
‘practical knowledge’ as a way of narrative knowing (Gudmundsdottir, 1995). In the
next section, MILE is discussed in terms of good practice, as a starting point for
exploring and thinking about making MILE educative.
3.4 MILE, a digitalized teaching practice

The heart of MILE can be considered as a digitalized ‘representation of full practice’
that provides examples of ‘good practice’ for use in teacher education. Looking back on
the process of development we notice some characteristics of good practice.
Showing authenticity with real practice in schools. MILE deals with daily life in
classrooms with ‘ordinary’ teachers, teaching in a realistic mathematics education vein,
confronted with problems and dilemmas (Lampert, 1985), and with pupils both doing
good things and making mistakes. It shows authentic practice, comparable with the
practice that student teachers will experience.
Representing the complexity of real teaching practice. The ‘full practice’ represented in
MILE reflects the complex reality of teaching (Lampert, 2001; Uhlenbeck, 2002).
67
Nearly all of the components that Lampert mentioned in her extended model of the
didactic triangle (2001, chapter 14) are included, and there was an attempt to represent
all areas of subject matter as well. The same attention to completeness applies to general
pedagogic issues and the mathematical learning processes of pupils. Teachers reflect on
their practice and pupils react during classroom discussions and in small group work.
Textbooks and teachers’ guides are available and in relevant situations one can meet
other teachers of the school team, the headmaster, the counselor, or parents.
In the vein of realistic mathematics education. The five previously mentioned learning-
teaching principles and the indicators of realistic mathematics education (section 3.2.1)
continually played a part in preparing, recording and making MILE accessible.
Exemplary for the program of primary education. The digitized primary mathematics
education that has been stored in MILE has been characterized as a representation of
‘real teaching practice’. However, because it is not possible to capture the full range of
practice in tapes taken during limited periods in different grades, the representation of
the subject matter in MILE has to be considered as exemplary for the primary school.
What is meant by ‘exemplary’ is illustrated in the next examples. MILE contains:
- Recordings of a learning strand for percentage in grades 5 and 6, with special
attention to going through a learning strand, the procedure of problem-oriented
education, the evaluation of certain subject matter, and differences between children.
- A theme (the restaurant) in grades K-1, with special attention on teaching young
children, the development of number sense, learning in context, and interaction in
classroom discussion.
- Mathematic activities in daily life, ‘the problem of the week’ in grades 2, 4 and 6.
- Practicing the multiplication tables and a clinical interview with two pupils of
grade 2 who differ in insight and attitude about the tables.
- A pupil explaining a mathematical production.
- A pupil taking over the leadership of a group.
Through outlines. MILE offers two kinds of outlines. The first are concerned with
learning strands such as multiplication tables or percentages. The second follow
individuals’ learning of mathematics, especially in the recordings of grades 2, 4 and 6,
where the same children are shown at intervals two years apart. One can observe the
children during classroom interaction, individual activities, group work, and interviews.
Reflective practice. MILE includes recording of the professional talks between the two
job-sharing teachers about the progress of mathematics education in their grade 2 class.
Much of the (tacit) practical knowledge of these teachers became explicit as they
reflected on their practice before and after the lessons.
68
Theoretical charge. Without violating the authenticity of the digitized practice, the
director emphasized certain situations during recording; hence sometimes there was
exclusive attention to the teacher or to a pupil. For instance, the director could decide to
tape one child for a longer time, to capture interesting elements such as the specific
effect of a context or a clever or invalid use of a model by a pupil trying out a strategy.
Next, we describe what investigations of good practice, characterized in the previous
section, brought to student teachers during their first expeditions in MILE.
3.5 The first exploratory researchii
3.5.1 Research question

To get insight into the (optimal) possibilities of MILE as good practice for teacher
education, exploratory research was carried out using ten lessons on CD-roms and the
first version of the search engine (Oonk, 1999). The study was focused on knowledge
construction, but also with an attempt to provide insight into the investigation process
experienced by two student teachers and the benefits of their related discourse and
collaboration.
The research question was: What is the character of the investigation process of student
teachers in MILE and what is the output of their learning process in terms of knowledge
construction?
A total of 15 meetings, eight of which were two-hour sessions with the researcher, were
audio recorded.
3.5.2 Learning by investigating the recorded teaching practice

Our approach resembled that used in the Student Learning Environment approach
developed at Michigan rather than the more academic approach of Mousley and
Sullivan (1996). But in contrast to the Student Learning Environment approach, student
teachers could investigate the digitized practice of MILE by means of keywords derived
from their own research questions. There was little steering: the student teachers could
formulate, reformulate, and revise their own questions. The rationale for this approach
was that investigating practice by focusing on one’s own pedagogical problems,
especially in tandem with the coupled reflective activities, will contribute to self-
regulated professional development (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001).
ii
This section is based on: Oonk, W. (1999). Pioniers in MILE. Een exploratief onderzoek
[Pioneers in MILE. An exploratory study]. MILE-reeks nr. 9. [MILE series nr. 9] Utrecht:
Freudenthal Instituut.
69
3.5.3 The process

In this section we describe an overview of the investigation process of two excellent
student teachers of the primary teacher training college at Amsterdam (Hogeschool van
Amsterdam) and their highly motivated coach/researcher.
The fifteen meetings developed through three stages, which naturally flowed from the
process of the student teachers’ investigation. The first was orientating to MILE by
getting acquainted with the teachers Minke and Willie of grade 2, the pupils, the subject
matter, and the techniques for searching in the learning environment. The student
teachers Dieneke and Hayet had at their disposal a computer, ten lessons of grade 2 on
CD-rom, the ‘Telling stories of grade 2’ (Oonk, 1997), the pupils’ textbooks, and the
teachers’ guide for the mathematics textbook series ‘De wereld in Getallen’ [The World
in numbers] 25. The first meeting started with a short discussion about the goal and the
schedule of the learning project and continued with an orientation to the technique and
content of MILE. The following quotes from the student teachers give a representative
idea of their reactions to the first meeting:
Beautiful, such a transfer you never can see in your school practice, that happens
mostly by phone.
Children can suddenly have an ‘aha’ experience, as in an active moment after a
passive period of language acquisition.
In this first period, student teachers got used to the styles and personalities of the MILE
teachers. Their comments gradually shifted from impulsive perceptual reactions to
reflective discussions. Often a remark led to (sometimes heavy) discussions, which
frequently led to re-viewing of the video.
The second stage was learning to investigate. The publication ‘Telling stories of grade 2’
(Oonk, 1997) offered the student teachers a point of departure for searching and
studying video fragments. However, this was not sufficient, and the students soon
reverted to trial and error. This led Hayet to create a step-by-step plan for searching and
observing the ideas and for formulating (new) questions.
The third stage was directed research. It began when the student teachers decided to
make a video to orient imaginary peers to MILE. They thought that this would allow
them to show their own learning, make available an ‘orienting adventure in MILE’ for
young future teachers, and inject an element of originality to their report and
presentation. By this time, Dieneke and Hayet had acquired experience in using MILE
and investigating their own learning questions.
The culmination of the investigation consisted of an oral exam, a written report, and a
presentation. Audio recordings during the discourse, e-mail communications, and
written reflections document the collaboration and the individuals’ learning and
thinking processes.
70
3.5.4 Incentives in the learning environment

We next discuss what the first, simple version of MILE offered the two student teachers
and their coach/researcher, and focus on the question: What makes MILE educative?
We probe to answer that question by elaborating main incentives in the learning
environment.
Search words, search questions, and learning and investigation questions.
In their investigations in MILE, the two student teachers were limited by the simple
search engine and their own search questions. In the first stage they often used ‘Telling
stories of grade 2’ (Oonk, 1997) as a source for finding search words (e.g., mental
action, ‘playing Dumb August’ 26, ‘egg box’ 27). To some extent the ‘The World in
numbers’ textbook and the teacher’s guide served the same function. To prepare for
meetings, they used the textbook to plan the same lesson as the lesson taught by the
MILE teacher, and then observed that lesson. This made the subsequent discussion
more reflective than it had been previously. They raised questions such as: Did I devote
sufficient time in my lesson to dividing numbers? Did I leave too much to the children?
Can they actually estimate prices?
After seeing how the video teacher approached the lesson, they would draw
comparisons and perhaps revise their own lesson plans.
Revealing practical knowledge. The student teachers were impressed by what they saw
in MILE. The discourse often ended in personal analyses from different points of view.
They called upon mathematics aspects but also took pedagogical and content
pedagogical positions. From the beginning they were convinced that they could learn a
lot from MILE teachers. Dieneke explained: “What are the ‘good questions’ that Minke
asks? I noted how well she formulated an exercise: ‘If you have thought and drawn one
way, try to think of another one.’ I would not mind hearing this remark a thousand times
so I can imprint it in my mind. Instead of a compulsory exercise such as ‘Give at least 3
solutions,’ Minke shows she appreciates one solution and she encourages the pupils to
think further. In my opinion, her choice of words is a clear example of good teaching.”
However, Dieneke did not accept Minke’s practical knowledge unquestioningly. She
analyzed, interpreted, and put forward arguments to substantiate what she believed she had
observed. In doing so, she touched on the practical knowledge that appeared to guide
Minke’s actions (in effect, unpacking this practical knowledge). In addition, she recognized
‘usable material’ even in the routines of the daily classroom activities. For example, Dieneke
learned that Willie – Minke’s peer teacher – could quickly quiet the children and get their
attention by remarking: “Everyone turn the calculator in your head on.”
From the beginning Hayet philosophised about the additional value of MILE as
compared with teaching practice or lectures, and she also recognized the practical
71
knowledge of the expert teachers in MILE. She was especially impressed by the
interviews, in which the teachers told about their plans for the next lesson: “Of the three
types of video (transfer, interview, lesson), the interview made the most impression on
me. It was like looking into the head of the teacher and finding out secret information.
Going through a lesson step-by-step in this way is very practical and concrete. None of
my tutors ever did this for me.”
Theory from practice. Searching for a direction to their investigation, Dieneke and
Hayet got the idea to design a video for their peer first year student teachers, inspired by
a lesson in which teacher Willie introduced the five times table. They became interested
in the ways that Willie translated concrete material to the children, the children worked
with that material, and the material precipitated mental action. By connecting to relevant
theory, Dieneke and Hayet would make a statement about encouraging the rise from
material to mental level in children’s learning. They formulated questions, made notes,
then started theorizing: “We have made the following statement based on this video: ‘If
the transition from concrete to mental action does not take place in sufficiently small
and logical steps, the (material and mental) actions will remain separated from each
other. The main objective is to couple these actions together (…).’ ”
Theory of practice. After the above mentioned discussion, the teacher educator wrote an
extensive (electronic) annotation to make the student teachers aware of the distinction
between a mechanistic ‘step-by-step’ approach and realistic didactics in which properly
conceived ‘learning’ jumps in teaching are encouraged. He also focused on theoretical
views on different levels of subject matter and learning processes applied to the structure
of mathematics courses. The student teachers became very interested as they addressed
these problems. Dieneke recognized the danger of misunderstanding rules from her own
past education. In the next meeting, she revised a previous statement about a video
fragment in which a pupil shows that thinking of egg boxes helps her interpret 43 as 40
(four egg boxes) + 3 (separate eggs): “This statement applies to small logical steps, raising
pupils’ levels, and direct support. Support and raising pupils’ levels are similar concepts.
The material is first used as a support. When pupils no longer need it and begin to
construct mentally, their level of competence rises. Materials always help and support,
provided you introduce them properly. If you do not do this, they are only extra ballast
and lead to confusion. The fragment ‘Think of egg boxes’ is a good example of this since
Minke had not referred to them before and ‘suddenly’ introduced them without moving
through a sequence of small logical step towards them (…).”
The practical meaning of theory. The discussion about how to raise levels of thinking
required student teachers to find relevant theoretical knowledge. They questioned the
teacher educator and studied relevant articles and textbooks. They realized that MILE
72
contains information (practical knowledge) that cannot be found in textbooks or teachers’

guides and compared the theory taught in lessons at college with the observed theory
linked to the real-life situations in MILE. For example, by relating theory to practice,
Hayet became aware that the terms concrete, abstract, mental, and formal initially put
her on the wrong track: “In my opinion, ‘the abstract level’ means formal mathematics.
‘Mental actions with material’ contains the word mental, but does not belong on that
abstract level. It should be placed on the concrete/material level. Actions with material
are performed ‘in your head’ (it is not a physical action), but they are concrete, or in
other words, conceivable and meaningful (…).”
The discourse as driving the learning process. The discourse about the practice in
MILE was elaborated in corridor chats and e-mail communications. The student
teachers were aware of the influence of the discourse on their cooperation and their
learning processes. As Hayet put it: “I find it rather comical. If I had watched the video
on my own, I would probably have missed the whole scene. The discussion that was
brought about by that ‘small interesting incident’ is for me just like the didactics
involved the most instructive part of the whole meeting. Another good thing about the
discussions is that we start with critically thinking about what Minke does and why she
does it. Is it part of her conscious strategy? And then the emphasis shifts to our own
experiences and didactic considerations.”
One’s own practice as reflective. The practice in MILE engendered student teachers’
linkages to their own teaching practice. This happened in a natural way as they analyzed
and compared the actions of the MILE teacher to their own experiences or anticipated
future practice. Hayet compared her failed experience with ‘Playing Dumb August’ of
her pupil Keltoum to the successful experience of MILE teacher Minke. Placing the
‘Dumb August’ approach in a wider perspective, she started formulating questions and
hypotheses. She wondered about the relationship between one’s approach to ‘Dumb
August’ and learners’ attitudes about making mistakes: “When you want to teach
children to investigate mathematics (i.e., try out more than one strategy), it is important
that you see making mistakes as part of the process. If you do not, you go straight back
to mechanistic viewpoints: there is one way to solve a problem – the right way,
mistakes are bad, and children who make mistakes are stupid. This MILE episode made
me realize the strength, but also the possible dangers of the ‘Dumb August’ method.”
Final presentation. Both student teachers tell a lot of stories about their pioneering in
MILE (Blikslager & De Bont, 1997; Oonk, 1999). In the closing presentation of their
assignment, Hayet explained how her investigation in MILE had made her aware of what
is behind theory in the lectures she hears in teacher education courses. She believes that
MILE stories will help her keep in mind the connection between theory and practice.
73
3.5.5 The main findings of pioneering

The pioneers’ experiences during their investigations of the first version of MILE can
be interpreted from four points of view.
The investigating process. In the course of the exploratory research, the investigating
process was portrayed as the vehicle of the student teachers’ learning process. In other
words, carrying out investigations kept the learning process in motion. The investigating
process in MILE is a cyclical process of planning, searching, observing, reflecting, and
evaluating. Its relationship to action research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Jaworski, 1998) is
obvious, although there are differences in reasons, goals, and content.
The discourse. The discourse that was put together during the meetings can be seen as the
driving force behind the learning process. The discourse can provide opportunities for the
emergence of new insights, incentives for searching further, and impetus for choosing a
theoretical line of approach or developing one’s own theorizing. The discussions observed
during the investigations of Dieneke and Hayet have the characteristics of ‘reflective
discourse’ (Cobb, McClain, & Whitenack, 1997), which we treat as a socio-constructive
adaptation of Schön’s reflective conversation (Schön, 1983).
Levels of knowledge construction. The analysis of Dieneke and Hayet’s investigation

process has provided insight into knowledge construction at four levels. These levels are
observable particularly in the discussions and the reflective notes.
Firstly, knowledge can be ‘taken over’ from the teachers in MILE; student teachers
expand their own didactic repertoires through assimilation of the practice knowledge
contained in MILE. Assimilation occurs if the student teacher indicates that he or she
would like to implement the knowledge of the MILE teacher (as observed, without
adaptation to his or her own purposes).
Secondly, adaptation and accommodation of practice knowledge is a second level of
knowledge construction. Users of MILE can modify the repertoires of the MILE teacher
to suit their own purposes; they expand their own repertoires by modifying the MILE
teacher’s repertoire. Knowledge construction at this second level can have a greater
impact on the student, especially if the student has to adjust his or her personal beliefs.
In this case, something changes in the cognitive or affective structure that we call
practice knowledge. For this reason, this is called accommodation. It also has some of
the characteristics of what Perry calls relativism. Knowledge on the first level that is
constructed on the authority of the ‘model teacher’ has more of the characteristics of
Perry’s ‘dualism’ (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997).
Thirdly, the student teachers display an even higher level of knowledge construction
when they establish (new) links between the events in MILE and events from their own
trainee practice and related theory. This is the level of ‘integrating theory,’ in which
74
they might (re)consider didactic insights and points of view. They ask themselves
questions about the situation observed in MILE and make links with what they find in
the literature. The teacher educator has a task in this respect, namely to respond
effectively to the questions posed by the student teachers. Using theoretical reflections –
as annotations – about given real practice situations that intertwine the investigation of
practice with the examination and development of theory, the teacher educator puts
students on the track of explanatory theory. The theory is understood and remembered
in the context of a scene in MILE, usually in the form of a story of the events that
occurred in MILE.
The fourth and highest level of knowledge construction – the level of theorizing –
manifests itself when the investigators in MILE design their own local theories. They
build up ideas about causes and consequences through the observation and
interpretation of fragments they find themselves. The ensuing discourse can have a
specific theoretical orientation and provide motivation for follow-up investigations.
3.6 Larger scale field tests

Since the seventies, Dutch primary teacher training colleges have created a strong
infrastructure for mathematics education, in which teacher educators and curriculum
designers collaborate in a Mathematics and Didactics program for future teachers. The
teacher educators meet annually at conferences. This infrastructure was used to
introduce MILE and invite math teacher educators to use and assess it. From the
beginning more then twenty educators were participating in the workshops, discussing
the state of the art of MILE, and anticipating its future use in their own colleges.
Shortly after the first exploratory research at the primary teacher training college in
Amsterdam (section 3.5), five pilot studies were started at fourteen other Colleges
(Goffree, 1998). In these pilots, three aspects of MILE were field tested: using MILE
within the local curriculum, the optimal use of MILE by student teachers, and the
relationship between teaching practice in schools (fieldwork) and MILE. All pilots
addressed the issue of MILE’s position between theory and practice in teacher
education. In the meantime the basic MILE program had been increased to 30 gigabytes
consisting of 23 lessons of grade 2 and five lessons of grade 5 (percentages) at a
different elementary school. Student teachers could use the search engine and the
archive now, without having to change disks.
Although approaches to MILE varied at the different locations (size of groups, the scale
of the research, the amount of face-to-face instruction, collaboration, coaching,
assignments, and reports), the common output provided a lot of reflection on the
creation of a learning environment for future teachers. Studying the output, an obvious
question arose: What should be added to MILE in order to help student teachers to
75
enlarge and deepen their practical knowledge? Assignments and reports provided
vehicles for addressing this question.
The outcome of the analysis yielded answers to main questions according to the desired
improvement of MILE.
What practical knowledge do student teachers have available at the start of their
investigation? Like the pioneers (Dieneke and Hayet), the participants of the pilot
projects were (mainly) last year students. Their practical knowledge became apparent
during observations of lessons when they were asked to question MILE. For instance:
Would the teacher indeed be able to teach this subject matter interactively?
How does the teacher deal with low achievers?
Does the teacher focus students’ attention on different strategies?
These student teachers apparently know a lot about math teaching; now they want to see
concrete examples in practice. Sometimes their practical knowledge seemed to hold
theoretical elements.
How was MILE experienced as a learning environment?

Their subsequent statements indicated that the student teachers in the pilots experienced
MILE as:
- A reservoir of instructive events.
- Storage of all sorts of aids to use in math classes.
- A place to work for teachers and pupils.
- Practice in which ‘the theory’ becomes apparent.
- A set of opportunities to show one’s professionalism.
- ‘Something else’ rather than teaching practice.
Which self formulated learning questions initiated student teachers’ investigations?

In most pilots, the teacher educators presented good reasons to start an investigation. A
successful reason was created by having student teachers prepare a lesson that would be
observed subsequently in MILE. Other reasons were found in fieldwork, in lectures, in
the storybook (Oonk, 1997), or in the theory. An example of such a learning question,
which subsequently led to investigation questions and searching words, was “What is
the nature of collaboration between a gifted student and the other students in a small
cooperative group?” Other learning questions addressed using the blackboard, the
teacher’s behavior, the learning process of one selected pupil, classroom interaction,
group work, mental arithmetic, and estimation.
What did the video-pictures of MILE evoke in student teachers?
MILE sought to represent practice, so it is interesting to know which aspects of practice
student teachers attend to in MILE. The reports mention a number of favorite fragments,
76
both from student teachers during their first exploration and from teacher educators who
wanted to illustrate practice using MILE.
What did the student teachers say they had learned from MILE?
The student teachers’ statements about what they had learned from their investigations in
MILE were fairly vague. Second-year student teachers believed that learning from the
MILE teacher is the same as imitating the MILE teacher. Older year student teachers
pointed to the transfer talks between the job-sharing MILE teachers and to the number line
used as a model during instruction. More profound was the reaction of a fourth-year
student teacher who wrote: “I learned that during a math lesson more happens than you
could imagine in advance—much more than the teacher can see. Because of MILE you
become aware how children think, more so than you do from just reading theory books.”
The learning attributed to MILE varied with the context in which the question was asked,
the nature of the studied fragments, and the student teachers’ reflective abilities. Just as in
the exploratory research on the pioneers, the pilot projects suggest that methods for
learning about practice need to be learned along with practice itself. Both projects
underscore the value of discourse for the learning process. Furthermore, having some
basic practical knowledge at one’s disposal, taking initiative, posing one’s own learning
questions, considering one’s own past in math education, and moving beyond an initial
critical attitude towards the MILE teacher benefits learning by investigating MILE.
In order to transfer MILE into ‘good practice for future teachers,’ it appeared to be
necessary to supply MILE with ‘reasons’ to start investigations, to help student teachers
to engage in the desired activities and reflections. Actually from this moment the need
for structuring the learning environment became more and more manifest.
3.7 Making MILE educative

In section 3.5.4 we discussed the question: ‘what makes MILE educative?’ by
elaborating the main incentives in the learning environment. The analyses of the
research results as described in section 3.5.5 and 3.6, led to refining of the answers to
that question. We defined therefore ‘educative’ as enabling future teachers to acquire
practical knowledge, and investigated the conditions, circumstances, and means needed
to accomplish that goal. The following inventory shows the main part of the
observerved conditions and means.
Initial achievement level of the student teachers:
- It appeared that student teachers learned something more than imitating in MILE if
they already had a basic practical knowledge; obviously, student teachers cannot
start investigations without at least some reflected experience in classrooms.
77
- Searching in MILE has to take place in an investigation context, preferably on the

basis of searching words that arise out of a learning question.
- Various reasons to start an investigation can be constructed by tutor or tutee in
order to formulate learning questions.
- Formulating personal learning questions needs directed support by a coach who is
familiar with the contents of MILE.
- Student teachers who want to start an investigation in MILE should first have
practiced learning by investigating and observing and interpreting MILE fragments.
- New student teachers begin with a personal belief about good practice.
Acquiring practical knowledge as narrative knowing:
- The meaning of practical knowledge can be clarified by discussing and analyzing
the transfer talks between the two MILE teachers at grade 2.
- The preliminary talks (interviews) with the teachers, when they put into words
what they intend to do during the next lesson, provide attention points for
observing.
- The book ‘Telling stories of grade 2’ (Oonk, 1997) can be utilized as a source
book for investigating MILE.
- The investigating process is the vehicle for the student teachers’ learning.
- The discourse about the practice drives student teachers’ investigating process.
- Meaningful assignments are needed to support student teachers’ progress with
MILE.
- Teaching stories about the events in MILE can be best written by the student
teachers as case studies.
- Studying pedagogical and didactical actions of the teacher in MILE motivates
student teachers to compare MILE with their own fieldwork.
- Surprising moments of pupils’ learning might help student teachers to connect
with their own primary school experiences.
- To stimulate narrative knowing, student teachers may collect favorite narratives
linked to MILE videos.
- Input from the MILE tutor usually deepens student teachers’ learning.
- Student teachers have to learn to participate in reflective discourse.
- Collaborating generally stimulates the continuity and profundity of an
investigation.
- Developing ‘didactical productions’ creates an appropriate context for
investigating in a narrative, constructive, and reflective way.
- Preparing a MILE lesson before observing it helps students to make sense of the
discourse.
78
- Student teachers report valuable experiences when theoretical concepts or

reasoning are actualized through observation of practice, as when the MILE
teacher organizes a classroom discussion about pupils’ mistakes or when the
student teachers recognize differences between children.
Limitations and bottlenecks.
In this period the MILE team tried to adapt the idea of a Knowledge Forum (Bereiter &
Scadamalia, 1997) in order to improve the discourse of the student teachers, using its
functions such as special interest groups and e-mail. The Knowledge Forum provides a
structure for knowledge construction by remote cooperating students. However, this
attempt had to be dropped because of technical problems and the problem of the
narrative organization of practical knowledge.
The research revealed some important bottlenecks in the way to enable future teachers
to acquire practical knowledge:
- Although the MILE team supported the open approach of the student teachers’
environment, the field tests pointed towards the need for more structuring and
scaffolding of the student teachers’ learning by investigating.
- Student teachers usually require support in learning to relate theoretical knowledge
to the practice in MILE.
- Student teachers do not realize immediately that theoretical knowledge is a
valuable addition to practical knowledge.
Research and development of the educative component of MILE had to be continued,
because the program did not yet enable student teachers to carry on reflective
conversations with practice (as mentioned by Schön, 1983) or relate known theory to
observed practice. The dangers of superficial reflection on practice are pointed out by
Verloop: “It is worthwhile to reflect on one’s teaching, but at some stage questions
should be asked about the quality of that reflection. For example, to what extent does
the reflection take relevant external knowledge into account, what exactly does
reflection improve in the actual teaching process, and to what extent is the reflection
open to external scrutiny and critique?” (Verloop, 2001, p. 436).
The next section will describe the research that goes into the question of whether
student teachers indeed use theory when studying practice.
79
3.8 The second exploratory research iii
3.8.1 Research question and method

The second exploratory study was designed to explore the nature of relating theory to
practice. The research question in this context was: Which signals of utilizing theory do
student teachers show in their reflections on studied practices of MILE?
MILE has been expanded with video records of mathematics activities in Kindergarten,
group discussions in grade 1, and interviews and mathematics lessons in grades 2, 4 and
6, to an amount of 70 gigabytes.
Research at the teacher training college at Helmond was designed to find out how
prospective teachers make connections between theory and practice in MILE. This
research involved two classes, each with 25 student teachers. The teacher educator gave
his students a list of 150 key theoretical concepts from previous courses, to serve as a
theoretical framework to help student teachers to value their previous theoretical
knowledge when they start the new MILE course (‘The Foundation’) for second year
student teachers (Dolk et al., 2000). Ten two-hour meetings were held. Following the
method of triangulation (Maso & Smaling, 1998), four pairs of student teachers were
observed and interviewed, and a participating study of the group work with two student
teachers was conducted.
3.8.2 Identifying theory in action

Schön (1983) has demonstrated that theory in action is primarily implicit, so the
researchers generated a list of possible signals of theory in action to support the
observations of student teachers at work (see appendix 1). Following are some
examples, in which each signal is coupled with a representative case of theory in action
and references to its sources:
- While observing practical situations, student teachers can refer to the theory that
comes to mind. Example: student teacher points to a teacher who interprets the
product of 2 x 5 and, in doing so, employs the rectangle model (Treffers & De
Moor, 1990, p. 75).
- Theory is used to explain (as a means to understand) what occurred in the
practical situation observed. Example: student teacher explains the method
employed by the pupil who is using MAB (base ten) material as a working model
(Gravemeijer, 1994, p. 57).
iii
This section has been published in adapted form as: Oonk, W. (2001). Putting theory into
practice: Growth of appreciating theory by student teachers. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education 4 (pp. 17-24).
80
- The student interprets the intention of the teacher or pupil(s) with the help of
theory. Example: student teacher points out the ‘mirroring technique’ applied by
the teacher as a means to help the pupil reflect his own actions (Van Eerde, 1996,
p. 143).
- The theory generates new practical questions. Example: student teacher wonders at
which level (stage) of learning multiplication the pupils are (Goffree, 1994, p. 280).
3.8.3 Theory in action. An example

Student teachers indeed showed certain predicted signals of utilizing theory (Oonk,
2001). However, these signals were generally rather weak and ambiguous to localize,
and it was hard to determine how and when utilized theoretical knowledge had been
acquired.
We will portray the essentials of the research in three steps: the characterization of a
fragment in MILE, the theory the researcher/teacher educator linked to that practice, and
what student teachers had to say about the fragment.
- The MILE fragment shows a pupil, Fadoua, and her teacher, Minke, sitting at the
instruction table during an independent working session in grade 2. Using a
diagnostic interview, Minke seeks to identify the thinking behind Fadoua’s
mistake (18 - 6 = 11) in her seatwork. It appears that Fadoua counts backwards
starting from 18 and in the process also skips two numbers (12 and 14).
- The theory that makes this practical situation more comprehensible is a result of
research into subtraction strategies employed by young children, in particular the
method of counting backwards. Initial errors, counting mistakes, and counting too
far are well-known problem areas. To avoid problems in the transition from
manipulative to mental calculations when learning to shorten procedures,
structural models based on visualising ‘fives structures’ can be employed to learn
to subtract numbers to twenty (Gravemeijer, 1994; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, et
al., 1998).
- After watching and analysing the video, the student teachers Denise and Marieke
discuss the most appropriate way to assist Fadoua. Denise initially suggests
solving the problem using 18 blocks (units). Marieke rejects this idea however,
because she believes that it doesn’t solve Fadoua’s counting problem. She also
rejects a second suggestion – using the number line – for the same reasons.
Marieke ultimately agrees with Denise and suggests using the reckon rack.
Denise’s foremost argument is that the fives structure of the reckon rack can help
Fadoua to address the problem by directly subtracting 6. “And that doesn’t involve
counting anymore,” she says.
81
In this discussion between the student teachers Denise and Marieke we see theory in
action. They compare, face, and consider, on the basis of theoretical perspectives, which
material or model is (or is not) appropriate and why. A similar process occurs when they
design an explanatory approach for pupil Fadoua, partially on the basis of theoretical
considerations (the reckon rack teaching method).
3.8.4 Some results

The results of this study revealed that student teachers used theory as a means to
understand and explain practical situations. The frame of reference of second-year
student teachers appeared somewhat diffuse and fragmented. It remained difficult to
separate practical wisdom from pedagogical theorizing (cf. Shulman, 1987; Sockett,
1989; Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993; Pendlebury, 1995). The ability to articulate
observations of and reflections on practical situations in theoretical terms remained
largely undeveloped. The culture of teacher training colleges also seemed to hamper this
development. As a result, there is a real danger that student teachers will hang on to
their personal (subjective) theories instead of learning to integrate theory and practice to
attain Theory-Enriched Practical Knowledge (EPK). To improve the educative character
of MILE it was concluded that accommodations in two directions were necessary. On
the one hand, theory should be stated more explicitly in the learning environment. On
the other hand, in mathematics teacher training more time should be spent on discourse
and tutoring, less at the level of ‘coaching at a distance.’
In the next section we will go into the intended accomodation of the learning
environment for the following research.
3.9 Practice based professionalization and enriched practical knowledge
3.9.1 The necessity of enriching practical knowledge theoretically

In the previous sections involving activities with student teachers, we investigated real
teaching practice in MILE, to explore how and what student teachers learned using
MILE as well as how they acquired different levels of practical knowledge. The results
of our first exploratory research and the pilot projects provided us with a clearer
understanding of how student teachers can construct practical knowledge, the value of
discourse, and the nature of the investigation process. The second exploratory research
provided some evidence of student teachers making use of theory when studying real
teaching practice using MILE.
The research evoked questions about the quality and depth of students’ learning from
practice. Theory seemed to be missing in some observations. It was clear that when a
tutor/expert was included in the discussion and when common observations ended in a
reflective conversation, the use of relevant theory (in action) was guaranteed. In the
82
absence of an expert, the use of theory in action appears to be more difficult. Reflecting
on real teaching practice does not ensure theoretical thinking or practical reasoning.
Student teachers’ learning processes easily remain on a superficial level and rarely
move beyond basic common sense. Although the use of common sense is necessary, it
is insufficient for a teaching professional.
Similar considerations apply to the practice events offered to student teachers: good
practice judged as such by a school inspector is not necessarily good practice for use in
teacher education courses. The latter should give student teachers the opportunity to
make connections between their theoretical frame of reference acquired in earlier
courses and the (new) teaching practice observed in the study. Student teachers can
organize practical knowledge narratively in a natural way, but this knowledge only
contributes to professionalization if it is activated in appropriate situations along with
connected theory. Research on teacher education has begun to pay a lot more attention
to the need to combine theory with practical reasoning (Loewenberg Ball, 2000;
Lampert, 1998a; McAninch in Masingila & Doerr, 2002, p. 241; Verloop, 2001).
Being a reflective practitioner, the teacher educator plays an important role when
student teachers’ practical knowledge has to be enriched theoretically. In doing so, he
deploys the instrument of reflective conversations, applying it during discourse,
supervision, and coaching. But if necessary (when experts are not available), reflective
conversations also may be an important element of the learning environment, in written
form or otherwise.
The exploratory investigations showed student teachers gradually applying theoretical
considerations to commonly studied teaching practice. But it also became clear that
connecting theory to practice seldom appeared spontaneously, without a tutor giving
support. Reflective conversations help to avoid the learning paradox as stated by
Bereiter (1985), which in the context of learning from practice says: Who does not
know much, does not see much.
3.9.2 The learning environment for the next research

A tentative conclusion may be drawn: it is evident that theoretical enrichment is
necessary for the intended learning of student teachers in our digitalized learning
environment. We have been studying the possibilities of theoretical enrichment and also
the conditions of an appropriate learning environment for acquiring practice-based
professionalism. One study that has yielded focal points for theory in teacher education
originated from an analysis of the characteristics of theory (section 2.6). The
characteristics were helpful to develop a new learning environment for the next
research. Furthermore, part of that environment is the so called ‘Guide’ for learning to
teach multiplication in grade 2 (Goffree et al., 2003). The Guide is a CD-rom and can be
considered as an adapted version of MILE, following our ideas about making the
83
program educative and emphasizing the theory-to-practice connection (see section

4.2.2.2).
It is assumed that the new learning environment will prompt student teachers to engage
in practical reasoning (Fenstermacher, 1986; Pendlebury, 1995) to a greater degree than
the earlier versions of MILE. Oral and written, videotaped expressions in student
teachers’ interviews, reports, assignments, and presentations can reveal theory-enriched
practical knowledge (EPK).
84
4 The small scale study
4.1 Introduction
On the one hand the small scale study of fourteen third-year students of the fulltime
primary teacher education described in this chapter was a logical continuation of the
two preceding exploratory studies, and on the other hand the study prepared for the
large scale study that would follow it.
The main goal of the small scale study was to map the possible variation and depth of
the student teachers theory use in a theory-enriched learning environment.
The intention was to further optimize and chart the theory use of students, and generate
an optimal collection of data, both in this study and the large scale study. A connected
goal was to develop a suitable reflection-analysis instrument, if possible on the basis of
the fifteen ‘signals of theory use’ that had been formulated in the second exploratory
study.
What follows explains the way the study has been set up and conducted. Central to that
description is the case study of the student teacher Anne, who represents the variations
among the student teachers in reasoning and depth of theory use.
The preceding exploratory studies provided a first insight into the use of theory by
students. The first exploratory study (section 3.5) identified student teachers’ levels of
knowledge construction and their investigating process in the learning environment
MILE. Especially at the so-called third and fourth level of knowledge construction, the
‘integration of theory and practice’ occurred when students asked themselves questions
about situations they observed, when they made a connection with the literature or when
they formulated their own ‘local theory.’ In the second exploratory study, the MILE-
learning environment had been extended with lessons from various grades to an amount
of 70 gigabytes and an advanced search engine to enable the students to search the
lessons and additional materials. Furthermore, the students had at their disposal a list of
theoretical concepts to serve as a theoretical framework to help them to value their
theoretical knowledge, and a textbook with learning and investigations assignments. It
turned out that the students were only able to rise above the level of reacting in terms of
‘practical wisdom’ in situations where the teacher educator participated. Analysis of the
results based on fifteen ‘signals of theory use’ (section 3.8; appendix 1), showed the
need for a more structured and ‘theory-enriched’ learning environment (section 3.9).
Based on that conclusion the learning environment was adapted in service of the small
scale study. The assumption was that a more structured and enriched learning
environment would lead to stronger use of theory in both a qualitative and quantitative
sense.
85
The small scale study
The research question for the small scale study was:

In what way and to what extent do student teachers use theoretical knowledge when
they describe practical situations after spending a period in a learning environment that
A sub-question to this question in the small scale study was:
To what extent is there a relationship between student teachers’ use of theory and their
level of numeracy?
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Context and participants

Fourteen third-year students were involved in the small scale study, six from IPabo in
Amsterdam and eight from IPabo in Alkmaar. All fourteen students were female and
aged between eighteen and twenty. Previous education varied between mbo-level
(senior secondary vocational education) to vwo-level (pre-university education). They
were part of a larger group of twenty-two students in Amsterdam (twenty-one women
and one man) and twenty-five students in Alkmaar (twenty-four women and one man)
who had chosen the special subject ‘The young child,’ one of the special subjects they
could select in the third year of the four-year, full-time teacher training college they
were following. This special subject targets the education of children between the ages
of four and eight, and involved kindergarten and grade 1 and 2 in primary education.
One of the subjects the students took for this special subject was mathematics
education; the formal study load for that area was 80 hours of study with 18 hours
contact time for meetings led by the teacher educator (6 x 3 hours).
After four meetings in four consecutive weeks, all students entered a period in which
the emphasis was on independent study, orientation on teaching practice, and planning
and design for the three weeks of teaching practice to follow. During that period the
students received individual guidance and were stimulated to work in groups. After the
period of teaching practice there was to be one more meeting for (theoretical) reflection,
aimed at linking the student teachers’ experiences from teaching practice and their
achievements from the course at the training college. The course was closed with a
presentation and a final reflective note from each student.
The course in both programs has – from March to June 2003 – been given by two
experienced teacher educators, both authors for ‘The Guide’ (see section 4.2.2.2), part
of the learning environment for the student teachers.
The fourteen students volunteered to take part in the study, after being informed by their
teacher educator and the researcher. That choice was partly determined by their
preference for teaching children between the ages of six and eight, the age group the
course was targeting. The five meetings that were part of the study each consisted of a
86
one hour lecture for the whole group of third-year students, followed by separate ninety-
minute meetings for the students in the study-group and the other students.
4.2.2 The learning environment

4.2.2.1 The design of the learning environment (see also section 2.7)
The meetings for the students in the study group were prepared by the researcher in
close cooperation with both teacher educators. There was advance consultation on the
global set-up of the course for the students. In a try-out with four groups of students (63
student teachers), four components of the learning environment for the course were
tested; those were the ‘list of concepts’ (appendix 2A and 2B), ‘The Theorem’
(appendix 3A and 3B), ‘The Guide’ (section 4.2.2.2) and the numeracy test (appendix
18). Afterwards, the researcher developed a first version of the course. There was a
debriefing after each meeting and the researcher did suggestions for the continuation of
the course. Elements were added to the learning environment with the intention of
challenging students to ‘practical reasoning’ (section 2.3.1 and 2.7.1) to make the
theory-loaded practical knowledge present in the multimedia learning environment
explicit and to analyze it, in order to allow construction of ‘theory-enriched practical
knowledge’ (EPK; section 2.6.5.5). Examples of such elements were: practical
narratives with theoretical reflections and literature, a multifunctional list of defined
concepts, discussions based on propositions that had been formulated in group sessions,
a ‘game of concepts’ 28, research in one’s own field placement and writing ‘annotated
stories’ and reflective notes. A general characteristic of the curriculum development was
the multiple embedding of theory (intrinsic, extrinsic; section 2.6.4.) and the attempt to
achieve a balance between content components (Klep & Paus, 2006), between self-
guidance and guidance by the teacher educator (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999) and
between ‘school practice’ and professional practice (Richardson, 1992) (see also section
2.7.1). These characteristics became visible in the discourse under the direction of the
teacher educator, when cooperating in small groups 29 and in working under guidance on
the basis of a personal learning question and independent study. The students’ learning
environment – this is the course including ‘The Guide’ – had the character of a ‘learning
landscape’ (Vergnaud, 1983; Lampert, 2001; Fosnot & Dolk, 2001). In that learning
environment practical knowledge of experienced teachers was made visible. Directed by
the teacher educator practical knowledge was made explicit and enriched with
theoretical notions in cycles of observation, analysis and reflection. Next, a global
overview of the students’ activities during the course is given.
87
Programme of the Course

Meeting 1. Course introduction
- Introduction to the programme.
- Filling in list of concepts (individual, 30 min.).
- Numeracy test (one hour; individual, supervised).
- Independent study: self-assessment (‘work concept’).
Meeting 2. Introduction of ‘The Guide’ and the personal learning question

- Introduction of ‘The Guide’ (CD-rom); discussion under the direction of the
teacher educator.
- Thinking up and formulating a personal learning question: introduction by teacher
educator; plenary discussion.
- Independent study: study with the aid of ‘The Guide’ and writing a commentary on
a personally selected teaching narrative (initial assessment); elaborating the
personal learning question.
Meeting 3. Presentation and discussion

- Students present and defend their comments on the selected practical situation
from ‘The Guide.’
- Reflection on the situation based on a comment selected by the teacher educator.
- Assignment for the practice environment: introduction and discussion.
- Independent study: with the aid of ‘The Guide’; continuing to work individually
and in small groups on the personal learning question and prepare for the teaching
practice.
Meeting 4. Game of concepts and concept map

- Game of concepts: introduction and discussion directed by the teacher educator.
- Defend or refute a ‘theorem.’
- Learning strand of teaching multiplication: theoretical reflection by teacher
educator.
- Concept mapping.
- Independent study: work on the personal learning question; preparing a study of a
student’s table network.
Meeting 5. Final assessment (supervised)

- Filling in list of concepts (concepts that have received meaning, including teaching
narratives for two of these concepts).
- Writing a reflective note for an (unknown) MILE-situation.
- Questionnaire (anonymous): filling in questionnaire.
- Hand in final assessment and report of teaching practice.
88
4.2.2.2 ‘The Guide’

The Guide for mathematics in grade 2 (Goffree et al., 2003), a CD-rom and main part of
the learning environment during the course for the student teachers, can be considered
as an adapted version of MILE, in the sense that the educative component has been
extended twice. ‘The practice’ is available in a website structure in three layers. In the
first (narrative) layer, twenty-five narratives (stories of real teaching practice, in texts
and videos) are linked to twenty-five matched reflective conversations in the reflective
layer. It is possible, starting from either layer, to find explanations and working
definitions of the keywords used, using links to a dictionary consisting of 59 key
concepts from the theory of learning and teaching multiplication. It is intended that
these key concepts, which have been given meaning through the reflected narratives,
become part of the student teachers’ theoretical frame of reference. The CD-rom also
contains pages from students’ textbooks and teachers’ manuals, relevant articles from
professional journals, and other texts, pictures, and videos of interest. Student teachers
can navigate (surf) through this ‘workplace’ as they would do on the internet.
The starting page of the CD-rom shows six main entries:
- an instruction, containing suggestions for working with the CD-rom;
- an ‘introduction,’ containing subject-specific content information about the work
of the teacher in grade 2 of primary school;
- an ‘archive,’ containing the 59 elaborated key concepts mentioned before;
- ‘teaching narratives,’ containing twenty-five narratives from practice in text and
video;
- ‘reflective notes,’ containing theoretical reflections on each of the twenty-five
narratives and the integral use of the theoretical concepts in these notes;
- a ‘thematic entrance.’ This gives students the chance to approach the work of the
teacher in grade 2 from both a pedagogical content perspective and from a more
general methodical one; there are twelve themes to choose from.
4.2.2.3 The substrate for ‘the use’ of theory in the learning environment
The inviting character of the learning environment regarding the use of theory has been
realized by operationalizing the theory in several ways:
- as a written list of concepts with general methodical and pedagogical content
concepts, offered to the students as a frame of reference at the start of the course
(appendix 2A,B). The list served as an advance organizer for the students and was
available to them during the course in digital form as well. During the course the
list provided support and insight into progress;
- as an index of elaborated defined theoretical concepts on the CD-rom, but also
incorporated in the twenty-five reflective notes in The Guide;
- by ‘feeding’ the process of reflection with theoretical information (Verloop, 2003)
by the teacher educator and by (fellow) students: during discussions, through
89
introductions, through annotations in students’ work, through email or informal

contacts. This feeding – especially on the part of the teacher educator – was
accompanied by focusing and filtering; i.e. focusing on desirable learning
processes and learning questions, both for individuals and for groups of students,
and filtering, by redirecting inadequate ideas towards contents that did offer a
perspective.
The addition of reflections from a theory-based educational, psychological, or
pedagogical point of view, enriched the work of the student teachers. In this way, the
student teachers became involved in the creation of theory-enriched practical
knowledge.
4.2.3 The instruments

4.2.3.1 Initial and final assessment
The first part of the initial assessment consisted of completing the ‘list of concepts.’ The
list had been tested earlier in an extensive try-out in four groups with a total of 63
students (appendix 2B). The students were asked to indicate for each concept whether
they knew what the concept meant, whether they could tell a teaching narrative that
contained that concept and from which categories (own teaching practice, video/film,
literature, lectures/workshops) the narrative was taken. During the course the list
provided guidance and insight into progress. At the end the students were asked which
concepts had gained meaning for them and for which they could provide a fitting
‘narrative.’ For the teacher educator the yield of the list of concepts at the start of the
course was an indication which concepts would need more attention. The yield for the
researcher was extra information about the theoretical knowledge the students assumed
(un)familiar for themselves at the start and at the end of the course.
The second part of the initial assessment was meant to see at the start of the course
meetings how students described practical situations and to what degree they used
theory. For this purpose, after a first introduction of The Guide, the students were given
the assignment to write a reflective note of one typed page for one of the twenty-five
narratives in The Guide, with the narrative to be chosen freely. Further data were taken
from video observation of the group of students during the discussion based on these
reflective notes. This part of the initial assessment yielded two types of data. In the first
place the number of theoretical concepts and theoretical notions each student used in
doing the assignments, and secondly statements from students using theoretical
concepts or notions of theoretical concepts.
The final assessment consisted of three parts, namely filling in the ‘list of concepts,’
writing two teaching narratives for two (newly) familiar concepts (e.g., appendix 5), and
writing a reflective note on a teaching situation in MILE that had not been used in that
90
course (e.g., appendix 6). This final reflective note had an essential function in the study
for comparing the use of theory by the students.
The list of concepts in the final assessment differed from that in the initial one in the
sense that students were now asked to indicate which concepts had become familiar
(appendix 2A,B).
The two teaching narratives gave information to the researcher on how the students
gave meaning to the two theoretical concepts. The narratives also indicated whether the
student made a connection with other theoretical concepts.
The reflective note provided information on the nature of using theory by the student
teachers (factual description, interpretation, explanation or responding) and the level of
use of theory (number of concepts; number of units with meaningful relationships
between concepts) (see section 4.3.9).
4. 2.3.2 Observation
All meetings were recorded on video tape. The video material was used to analyze the
discussion for the use of theory by students, to make an inventory of interventions by
the teacher educators and to obtain other important data on the use of theory and for
setting up the learning environment for the large scale study. Transcripts of the video
recordings were made.
4.2.3.3 Video stimulated recall
This study used a variant of the stimulated recall procedure. During a stimulated recall
interview (Krause, 1986; Verloop, 1989) the students made explicit their thinking in
reaction to watching video sequences of the discussion in which they participated. In the
penultimate lesson, during the so-called ‘game of concepts’ (section 4.2.2.1), students,
directed by the teacher educator, discussed whether there was a demonstrable
connection between given theoretical concepts and four practical situations. The video
recordings of these discussions were used for stimulated recall sessions with individual
students after that meeting. The students were given some general instructions before
the interview 30.
The approach of the stimulated recall procedure in this study differs slightly from the
standard procedure; this concerns the time interval (max. 4 days) between video recording
and interview, as it was not always possible to have the interview immediately following
the recording.
4.2.3.4 Concept mapping
This study used the technique of concept mapping (Novak, 1990; Morine-Dershimer,
1993; Zanting, Verloop & Vermunt, 2003) to verify to what degree students were able
by the end of the course to make connections between ten theoretical concepts that had
come up in the course 31. To this purpose the teacher educator asked them to each
individually order the ten cards with each one theoretical concept, according to their
91
own insight. The assignment was: “Order the cards according to your own insights and
glue them on the large sheet of paper; draw lines between cards when you think the
concepts are related and add short explanations if you think it is necessary. This is not
about doing something right or wrong, but to gain insight into the connections you see
between the concepts that have been discussed in this course.”
4.2.3.5 Questionnaire
The questionnaire that had been developed for this study was also used in this small
scale study to allow adding, removing or adapting questions for the large scale study.
For the design of the (anonymous) questionnaire, the list of ‘constructs and their
contrasting poles’ from the study by Verloop (1989, p. 188) was used as a source.
Furthermore, the categories found by Holligan (1997), in student responses in a similar
study of appreciation of theory, have also been taken into consideration. The fourteen
questions relate to the evaluation of the course, and especially to student appreciation of
theory as it is expressed in the course (appendix 13). The written response to the
questionnaire was set before the interview, to achieve as clear an impression of the
students’ opinions as possible. Descriptive statistics of the data (mean and std.
deviation; appendix 13) have been determined using the computer software SPSS,
version 15.0.
4.2.3.6 Final interview
After the course ended, the students were interviewed individually. This was a semi-
structured interview (Kagan, 1990; Fontana & Frey, 2000). The researcher targeted five
topics (the lists of concepts, concept mapping, the reflective note, the numeracy test and
the questionnaire) and accompanying key questions (see appendix 8). The intention was
to gain extra information about the students’ theory use, particularly the character and
size of the network of theoretical concepts the students had available. Posing additional
questions was determined by the student’s responses; criterion for such use of new
questions was the expectation that there was a chance to gain a deeper insight into the
meaning the student gave to the concepts and into the quality of the relationships the
student made between concepts.
4.2.3.7 Numeracy test
The students did – outside the framework of the course on offer – a numeracy test
(appendix 18); the students own numeracy serves as an independent control variable in
the study marked by the research questions. A positive correlation is suspected between
the ability of the students to solve mathematical problems and their level of use of
pedagogical (content) theory. Students who have a high level of skill in solving
mathematical problems are functioning at a high cognitive level. That quality is likely
also important for using pedagogical content theory at a high level, not least because
being able to solve problems in mathematics teaching is a basis condition for one’s
92
functioning in relation to the pedagogics of content. The parallel between the level of
one’s numeracy and that of the use of pedagogical theory is likely to be even more
prominent in older students than in younger ones, as a result of the growth in experience
for older students, particularly where the pedagogical use of theory is involved. The
written test contained ten problems and was derived from tests for the subject of
mathematics, which were in common use at many Pabos (Teacher training colleges) in
the Netherlands at the time (2003) of the numeracy test (Faes, Olofsen & Van den
Bergh, 1992; Goffree & Oonk, 2004; Oonk, Van Zanten & Keijzer, 2007). The standard
for the test (0-100) was established for the whole group in consultation between the
teacher educators and the researcher.
4.2.4 Procedure
In the first meeting of the course the initial assessment and the written numeracy test
were taken. The numeracy test was made by all forty-seven students in the third-year
group to be able to compare the results of the study group to those of the group as a
whole.
All meetings were videotaped by the researcher. If invited to do so by the teacher
educator or the students, the researcher would participate in discussions. He would
sometimes also intervene with a question if he wanted to provoke an (additional)
opportunity for the use of theory (section 4.2.2.3).
A forty-five minute stimulated recall interview was held with each student after the
third meeting (section 4.2.3.3).
In the penultimate meeting the teacher educator instructed the students about the
concept map and let them do the accompanying assignment (section 4.2.3.4).
The final meeting involved the final assessment, ending on the (anonymous)
questionnaire (section 4.2.3.5).
Soon after the course the final interview was held with each of the students (section
4.2.3.6).
4.2.5 Data collection and triangulation

In this study a choice has been made for a multi-methodical design for collecting data,
not only because that allows triangulation of data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Maso &
Smaling, 1998; Black & Halliwell, 2000), but also because that allows for better
expressing the complex and varied aspects of learning to teach, and because it allows
for continued refining of data (Baxter & Lederman, 1999).
The data, student expressions in which they used theory or notions of theory and
obtained from observations, concept mapping, stimulated recall interviews, reflective
notes, the final interviews and the numeracy test have been collected per student. The
data were structured into meaningful units, i.e. ‘thought units’ in the form of a
93
paragraph on a subject or theme (Bales, 1951, Krippendorf, 1980; Rourke, Anderson,

Garrison & Archer, 2001). In this study thought units were ordered on the basis of the
theoretical concepts.
The filled in forms of the anonymous questionnaire were collected per group.
The data for the whole group of fourteen students form the source material for the
coherent description of the case of student teacher Anne 32, as an illustration of the way
the study has been set up and conducted, and as an inventory of the variations in student
teachers’ reasoning and differences in the depth of theory use. Moreover, these data
were necessary for the large scale study to get an optimal picture of all possibilities for
enriching the learning environment and for acquiring the varieties of theory use.
The choice for student teacher Anne was based on three criteria, which have been
inspired by the wish to have an optimal data yield for the researcher. The preference
was for a student:
- who made a relatively large contribution during the course meetings and who
performed the assigned tasks with dedication;
- whose thought and reasoning processes gave an optimal insight into the use of
theory in practice situation;
- who was sensitive to interventions – from the teacher educator or from fellow
students – that intended to enrich either discourse or practice.
The assumption was that analysis of the data so obtained would produce the maximum
amount of information across the whole bandwidth of theory use and all facets of the
learning environment that played a part in that. The collection ‘signals of theory use’
(appendix 1) was used as an analysis instrument and could possibly be used as well for
the comparison of theory use between all fourteen students. During the study, however,
the instrument turned out to be unsuitable for that purpose and a new reflection analysis
instrument was developed (section 4.3.9). Data analyses of the reflective notes of the
final assessment were used to compare the theory use of all fourteen students (table 4.2
and 4.3). The output of these data analyses and that of the case together provided an
insight into what was still missing from the learning environment and the reflection
analysis instrument to be able to achieve a maximum yield in the large scale study.
4.3 Anne’s use of theory: a case study
4.3.1 Anne’s work plan

Introduction
As part of the preparation for her special topic, Anne, like all third-year Pabo students,
has made a work plan, based on self assessment. This is done on the basis of a number
of questions and assignments and should give insight into the knowledge, skills, insights
and attitude that have been acquired over the preceding years. For this, a distinction into
94
three areas is made, these areas being domain knowledge, practical skills and
educational vision. The intended goal is acquiring an overview of the effort still
required within the chosen subject to gain starting level skills as a primary school
teacher. The results must lead to a targeted choice for spending the time that is available
for study, teaching practice and guidance for – in this case – the specialisation in
mathematics.
Domain knowledge
Anne herself says she did not experience primary school arithmetic as particularly
difficult. After her secondary school (vwo met wiskunde A; pre-university education
with mathematics A), she did find at the start of her Pabo education that much of her
primary school arithmetic knowledge was no longer readily at hand. She is now aware
that her domain knowledge at that point was mainly formal and that a teacher’s
professional domain knowledge also contains students’ informal strategies.
After my VWO (with mathematics A) I did feel far removed from primary school
arithmetic. Particularly fractions had faded very badly. I used a lot of formal
calculation methods. At Pabo I gradually returned to informal methods. You need
them to explain certain calculations to the children. I have regained a lot of my
primary school arithmetic.
She points at gaps in her knowledge and puts this self-knowledge into words using
appropriate wording:
I am not good at real mental arithmetic. I always need to use paper, to formulate the
various steps. Many answers I do not have readily at hand. You could say that I
have not yet achieved memorisation.
She uses examples of mental arithmetic strategies to clarify what she thinks is important
domain knowledge, and she connects that with the importance of domain-specific
pedagogical knowledge in the area of learning trajectories for mental calculation.
Where the pedagogics of fractions is concerned, Anne lacks key concepts such as
measuring strip and mediating quantity. For example, she cannot immediately give an
adequate response to the question regarding a suitable context and model for the
problem 23 + 1 14 =. At the same time she has apparently enough pedagogical feeling and
know-how that she can didacticize a reasonable solution on the spot.
2
When you place 3 pizza on top of the pizza that has been divided into twelve slices,
2 8 1
you can see that 3 is the same as 12 . You can do the same for 4 . Once the students
2 1
understand this, you can determine how many twelfth parts 3 + 1 4 are together.
Now that I think about it longer, chocolate bars may be even clearer, since they are
already divided into 12 parts.
95
Practical experience
Anne has gained a variety of practical experience in the two previous years of study.
She speaks of diagnostic interviews with students who have problems with arithmetic,
of research into calculation strategies, of series of lessons, designing themes and more.
Anne is positive about the role played by her mentors. Among other things, she gives
examples of ideas and educational strategies she has copied from them. That does not
mean that she is not critical about her mentors’ action. If she disagrees with her mentor
about a problem, she will not refrain from offering her view as an alternative, as for
instance in the case of a student in grade 1, who persistently clings to a counting
approach for adding and subtracting.
My mentor suggested speed assessment. The child will discover that its method is too
slow, and will have to use a faster strategy. I am not too certain that this is the right
solution. I think it is too negative an approach. I would like to help him get rid of his
counting approach by doing flash games with him. The flashed images of egg boxes,
fingers or reckon rack contain the five structure that makes it easy to quickly recognize
numbers. By playing these games with him, he can practice counting in groups (...).
View on education
She also shows herself to be a student who can justify her own opinions where her views
on education are involved in terms of educational activities and underlying theory.
(...) There was very little room for other strategies. The result was that all children
used the strategy that was offered and they were not motivated to find their own
solution. The children were also unfamiliar with the various names of the strategies
(friends of ten, doubling, etc.). This is where I reach the point where I would act
differently from my mentors. I want to give much more room to different strategies.
I also want to use the names of the various strategies within teaching.
Anne believes that the realistic approach to mathematics teaching (see section 3.2) fits
in her view on education. She finds the attention to meaningful context and the
opportunities students get for their own solutions of essential importance. Her
experience is that it is not always easy to fit these ideas into existing mathematics
education. She is aware that she has a long way to go, but is motivated to take that road.
I still have a lot to learn about planning my time. I often plan too much for one
lesson. I do find that it works better when I am teaching a series of lessons. I have
only worked with older textbook series myself (Wereld in getallen and Pluspunt). I
think the structure of Pluspunt is good. I would like some experience with newer
methods. Perhaps realistic mathematics can be included better there. In my next
work practice I will come into contact with ‘Wis en Reken.’ I am curious if this
method suits my preferences more.
All in all the image appears of a motivated student, who is aware of the development
she has undergone in the two preceding years of study as a teacher in training. She is
96
capable of naming knowledge, insights and skills regardless of whether she has gained
them and shows the attitude and opinions that are needed to further work on her
professional development. She looks upon the continuation of the course as a challenge.
Motivation for the research project
Anne is one of the group of eight students from the IPabo in Alkmaar who are
voluntarily taking part in the research project, after they were informed by their teacher
educator and the researcher. As well as by her preference for teaching children between
the ages of 6 and 8, the group targeted by the course, Anne’s decision is determined by
three opportunities the course can offer her. First is the opportunity to learn more about
differences between children, a topic that will at a later stage be a key part of her
learning question. Second, she sees it as an opportunity to study the developments that
can be seen in children of grade 1 as a prelude to the concept of multiplication, which
she refers to as ‘awakening multiplication.’ Third, the approach of the course appeals to
her: the mixture of cooperative learning and individual study on a specific theme, in this
case learning to teach the tables of multiplication. Further, she ‘just wants to learn a lot.’
I also look really forward to working in the classroom, but I feel that I still have a
lot to learn. I will just go to work, it is fun to collect all the knowledge that is
offered to you.
4.3.2 The initial assessment

Inventarisation of (un)familiar concepts
On the list of theoretical concepts (appendix 2A,B) Anne indicates at the start of the
course that she knows 38 of the 59 concepts. For 27 of these 38 concepts she indicates
that she knows a ‘story’ from her own practice and from lectures and workshops at
Pabo, and for 5 of those 27 a story from MILE. For six concepts she (also) knows a
story from literature. It can be deduced which concepts have become (more) familiar for
her during the course from the list she completed at the end of the course (section 4.3.6).
First assignment: reflective note
All students in Anne’s group are given – after some general information about the goals
and the approach of the course – the assignment to write a personal commentary
(reflective note) on one of the twenty-five available teaching narratives from ‘The Guide.’
Anne selects – based on her interests – a story from the series in the theme ‘What children
may differ in.’ The story, entitled ‘Swinging Marella playbacks’ (‘Swinging Marella playt
back’), is about a student in grade 2, who swings along with the rhythm of practicing the
two-times table, but of whom it is suspected that the yield for her is minimal.
97
Knowledge and views

In her commentary on Marella’s story Anne shows that she grasps the practical
situation. She sees what the teacher intends and how she tries to achieve her goals.
As a result of the questions she [the teacher; w.o.] asks, the children are continually
approaching the multiplication problems from this table in a different way. The
attention to different strategies also contributes to more understanding of the
problems. The table does not turn into a rhyme to be recited, and where you have to
start at the beginning. Work occured on the ability to solve the problems
independently of each other.
Her view on mathematics teaching is expressed in the final sentence of the previous
quotation. With ‘independently of each other’ she means flexible strategy-based
solutions, rather than ‘reciting a rhyme.’
Anne also shows that she already has a repertoire of pedagogical (content) knowledge at
her disposal at this stage, as is seen among other things in adequate use of concepts such
as teaching methods of multiplication tables, active learning, handy counting with two
at a time, ways, strategies, understanding, doubling and memorizing. Of the 292 words
in her reflection 23 are theoretical concepts that have been used in a meaningful way, 4
of which are pedagogical content concepts. This is the highest score for her class. Anne
assesses the teacher’s actions against her own views on good mathematics teaching,
particularly where interaction and reflection are involved.
Once the series up to ten has been completed twice, she [the teacher; w.o.] looks
together with the children again at everything that can be seen on the edge of the
blackboard. She asks questions so that the children think along actively.
Constructive criticism
Anne critically follows the teacher, but never without motivating her opinion.
Sometimes she adds an observation as ‘proof’ of her ‘hypothesis.’
It is not fully clear to me why she finishes by saying the table one more time. When
I look at her goals for this lesson, it was unnecessary. It is mentioned in the
narrative [‘The Guide] that not all the children are actively taking part yet, but they
also do not do so in the recital. Just look at Marella. She cannot give the answers
herself and moves her mouth almost for ‘show.’
She also takes advantage of situations by providing alternative solutions.
But I do not want to imply that reciting a rhyme is not useful. I do in fact think that
as a part of the complete learning process it can have some point. Hearing it again
and repeating it oneself may help with internalizing. Reciting in smaller groups,
without support from the teacher, may work better. There will be less opportunity
for a child to submerge itself in the group and playback. As well as reciting a
rhyme, other ways to automate and memorize the tables must be used. This teacher
does do that. One approach suits better than the other. By using a large diversity of
98
approaches there is more opportunity to allow for a individual child’s style of

learning.
Another remarkable thing is the originality of Anne’s reflective note. It is a personal, critical
reaction on the teaching situation. Of course there are some similarities between her reaction
and the expert reflection, such as for instance ‘giving meaning to multiplication by making it
concrete,’ but Anne is not tempted into ‘copying.’ Of the 23 theoretical concepts she uses,
only three also appear in the expert reflection on this narrative.
The causal arguments in the final four quotations are examples of Anne’s focus on
explanatory descriptions which she often ends with a suggestion for a possible alternative
or a continuation of the situation. She occasionally shows a tendency to think and reason
hypothetically. When she does so, she makes adequate use of theoretical knowledge.
4.3.3 Anne’s use of theory in class

Varied theory input
It can already be seen in the first meeting with the group of eight students that Anne
gives much input in the discourse within the group. In the three discourses that are led
by the teacher educator and that are most important for the study, she gives an oral
response to the teacher educator or her fellow students 99 times, twenty-one of which in
a narrative of more than five sentences. Her input has several forms. The most frequent
ones are content-related or are responses that have to do with the planning and
organisation of her own work.
We can describe her use of theory during these meetings with a number of ‘signals of
theory use’ as formulated in the second exploratory study (see section 3.8 and appendix
1). We will give some examples. In the following text the signals from appendix 1 that
manifest most clearly will be italicised and marked with the corresponding signal
number. The italic text is sometimes a paraphrasing of the text in the appendix.
In the first two meetings for the course the students are mainly orienting themselves on
the learning environment and they try to find out what they want to emphasize in their
studies and what learning question they intend to formulate. Anne is doing teaching
practice in grade 1; learning the tables of multiplication will not yet come up there.
Even so, from the start she takes initiatives to make a connection between theory and
practice (nr. 10) in stories and literature from ‘The Guide’ and her own practice. She
expects that the theory will help her to create clarity (nr. 5) on the preparatory skills that
students in grade 1 already develop for multiplication.
Can the CD-rom perhaps also explain what skills the children in grade 1 must
already have before they go to grade 2? We [doing teaching practice in grade 1;
w.o.] have to deal with the question of what students in grade 1 have to do once they
are ready to start learning the tables of multiplication, so to say preparatory
multiplication or awakening multiplication.
99
Anne formulates several learning questions and in the end chooses: “What connection is
there between the strategies being offered and the strategies used by the children?” She
works on that learning question by studying the stories and literature in ‘The Guide’ and
by discussions with her fellow students and the teacher educator. For the study of
student multiplication strategies and their teacher’s opinion about these approaches, she
interviews eight students and the teacher of grade 2 at her practice school.
Anne’s views on theory
During the third meeting the students present and defend their commentary on the
practical situations they selected from ‘The Guide.’ One of the items being discussed is
the reflection provided by their student peer Susanne. The reactions to Susanne’s note
are positive. The students are of the opinion that it is a clear, well-considered response,
in which, moreover, Susanne clearly gives her own opinion. When the teacher educator
asks whether the piece can be seen as a theoretical reflection, author Suzanne is the first
to respond: “I don’t think so, especially because I included my own opinion and because
I didn’t really involve the theory, theoretical facts, certain views. I’m not certain if this
is correct.” The teacher educator intervenes with a question about accounting for one’s
own approach. At that point Anne comes up with a reaction to Susanne.
This is I think also what you [Susanne; w.o.] mean with theory; that you don’t give
arguments for why you think it’s a good approach. You are missing some theory,
and with theory you mean arguments from views, from all kinds of things to
underpin them.
And a bit later:
Attractive [material; w.o.] it’s fantastic and it must be, but just attractive is of course
not good, it also has to be suitable for the nine-times table. When you say ‘well-
chosen,’ why is it? It is attractive, but it is also very suitable because it contains the
structure of nine (...). This is really about what conditions the material and the
context for times problems have to meet.
Here, Anne implicitly indicates that theory can provide the tools to underpin and so
justify ideas and choices for content and design of teaching (nr. 9).
In the penultimate (fourth) meeting, theory has a double function when the students
hold a discussion led by the teacher educator about the question of whether there is a
demonstrable relationship between six given theoretical concepts (context, informal
procedure, mental model, anchor point, structure and strategy) and four practical
situations (the ‘concept game’; section 4.2.2.1). These functions are ‘connecting theory
and practice’ (all signals) and ‘making meaningful mutual connections between
theoretical concepts’ (all signals, particularly 15). One of the situations is about Werner
who has difficulties with the five-time table and who is given extra help by his teacher
at the instruction table while the rest of the group (grade 2) is working independently.
100
One thing Werner has to do is the multiplication 4x5 and put it into words with the aid
of materials (4 jars with each 5 pencils; later on also ‘tiles’) and then has to do the
problem 5 x 5 using materials.
The first student teacher who responds doubts between the concepts context and
structure, but cannot offer convincing arguments to defend either of the two concepts.
The second student considers the concepts mental model and anchor point and chooses
the latter, based on the argument that she thinks student Werner knows the problem 4 x
5 = 20 by heart and can determine 5 x 5 from that.
Anne responds to the last-mentioned student and doubts her conclusions by setting her
own conclusions against them based on theoretical considerations (nrs. 1-3; 11). Here
too the hypothetical character of her reasoning is remarkable.
Student teacher 1:
It’s about the structure, they’re in fact groups of five each time.
But there’s also context. Umm, I don’t know.
Student teacher 2:
I’m doubting between mental model and anchor point. I really want to know how he
is doing his calculating, what does he see in the four and what does he see in the
five. How does he calculate that there is one time [five; w.o.] more. That brings you
to a different point: he knows the four times five, he calculates on from there. Then
you could say about that very well that his anchor point is four times five. He knows
that and goes on from there.
Anne:
Does he really know it? He sees it in front of him, but he doesn’t immediately say:
‘Oh, that is twenty.’ He first settles down for it, then he counts. I do get what you
refer to. Four times five does seem to be his anchor point, but is it really an anchor
point for him? I don’t think so (...). I think she [the teacher; w.o.] is working on
having him internalize the model: they are groups of five, you have four groups of
five, so if you now have one more group of five, you make a jump of five. So she is
trying to have him internalize the step he has to make in his head, say the model. So
I would choose mental model.
Defending or refuting a ‘theorem’: connecting one’s own practical experience with theory
During another activity in the same meeting – defending or refuting a ‘theorem’
(appendix 3A,B) – Anne offers arguments that are based on her own practical
experiences and the theory related to them. The teacher educator puts forward the
following ‘theorem’: “There is no point in lumbering a student who already knows the
tables with all kinds of multiplication strategies that occur in the textbook.” The group
of eight students is divided into two groups of four, one group being given the role of
opponent and one group in favour of the ‘theorem.’ Anne is one of the members of the
group that has to try to refute the ‘theorem.’
101
Anne: When a student knows the tables, it usually means they can recite them. But
ummm..., there is still the question of whether the child understands them. I have a
good example from my practice. A child had no problem at all reciting the tables of
one, five and ten. She had learned them, and she knew them. But when I asked a
question from a different table, she didn’t know it. Why not, because she did not
know the strategies of halving, doubling, and all those other strategies. That’s why I
think, okay, they know them [the tables; w.o.], but it’s still limited. For example, if
you have to calculate 50 x 42, you have never learned the 42 times table. But if you
have learned those strategies, you can also learn these other problems. So just
knowing the tables isn’t enough to really be able to multiply.
Here, Anne uses convincing arguments based on an example from her own training
practice (nrs. 7, 9) at an appropriate moment. After some discussion, the ‘theorem’ is
rephrased with some more nuance: “There is no point in lumbering a student who
already knows the tables from 1 to 10 and can apply them in various mathematical
situations, with all kinds of multiplication strategies that occur in the textboek.”
However, Anne still hangs on to her position and implicitly brings up the meaning of
the concept ‘apply.’
(...) Okay, he knows the tables from 1 to 10 and can apply them in various
situations. But my question was, can he use them to also calculate 50x42? Because
they will have to learn to do that at some point as well, so to say, to get beyond that
ten.
Reaction at meta level

Anne also gives input at meta level. That can be seen for instance in the rounding off of
the discussion about the ‘theorem.’ Two of the students make it clear that they do not
see much sense in taking a position they cannot support. The teacher educator points out
that it is good to realize that outsiders, such as parents, will often have a negative view
of the didactical approach with strategies, they believe ‘drilling’ the tables is a better
approach. Anne gives a general reaction to her two student peers:
You do need it [defending points of view you don’t support yourself; w.o.], you
have to know what the counter arguments are, because you have to have another
argument for them in return.
It is a line of thought that Nelissen (1987, p. 160) would characterize as the description of
an internalised dialogue. You try to position yourself in the ideas and arguments of your
dialogue partner or ‘opponent’ and on the basis of that you construct a (counter) reaction.
4.3.4 Video stimulated interview

Anne’s first reaction in the video stimulated interview is about students’ knowledge and
understanding. In the video fragment she states that as a teacher you should not just pay
attention to whether students know the answer, but that you should also verify whether
102
they understand it. Next, she watches as she herself reacts negatively to a fellow student
who feels that in the lesson about the boxes with 3 x 3 brownies – the topic under
discussion – the teacher should, for the sake of variety, also be able to ask questions
about different material shapes (boxes), for instance about rectangular boxes of two by
five. Anne feels that different boxes would distract from the goal – achieving insight in
the structure – and discusses the structure of the material in relation to the rectangular
model and the learning of multiplication strategies. In the recall interview Anne goes on
about this and is looking for an example of a situation to interpret students
‘understanding’ (nrs. 2, 3). Furthermore, she underpins an assumption (nr. 4) about
student Bastiaan’s notion (3 rows of 6 instead of 2 groups of 9) that she had as a result
of an earlier observation.
I don’t know where my thoughts were exactly then, but umm, the way I see it now,
if you work on that, there 3 and there 3, then you are in fact working with umm…,
the tables, but not just the nine-times table (...). Then you get for instance 2 x 5, a
row and another row, together 10 (...). So you can use that structure to go on with
those tables, only you have a different goal, not just the nine-times table. 1 x 9 is a
box, 2 x 9 is two boxes, but you don’t do that, you are heading more in the direction
of tile squares [as a notion of the rectangular model; w.o.]
Now that I’m listening on, I think this is what I meant, that they [the students; w.o.]
will see the logic of 3 x 3 = 9 and that they will see that as a tile square [notion of
rectangular model; w.o.], other than just a box of brownies. That has at the moment
[for them; w.o.] nothing to do with the nine-times table. So I think it is correct what
I just said. This is what I meant before, that he [student Bastiaan; w.o.] sees three
rows of 6, instead of these [two; w.o.] boxes of 9. He sees the boxes next to each
other and 3 rows of 6 (...). This is correct, but then you no longer are working with
boxes, but with tile squares. I think...
Constructive criticism of the teacher in terms of an alternative approach

The following is Anne’s response to a video fragment of the discourse with the
statement from student peer Susanne who thought that student Bastiaan did not see the
box of 3 x 3 brownies as a whole (1 x 9) because the teacher emphasised the 3 by 3
structure (A = Anne; O = researcher).
O: You seem to agree with that [argument of student peer Susanne; w.o.].
A: Yes, I’m also thinking now, that start went a bit wrong because she [the teacher;
w.o.] involved the three-times table when she wanted to discuss the nine-times
tables. Because she in fact... what Susanne said just now... 3 x 3 is apparently what
Bastiaan is stuck on. While this isn’t important, the 3 x 3, because she wants to
know 1 x 9. I think. But what is an advantage with those rows, is that you can
realize that 2 x 9 is the same as 6 x 3 or 3 x 6, so this is very good, but I think that
it’s a bit too complicated still for Bastiaan. Or the teacher should have picked up on
it better. I think. Because he can explain and point out 6 x 3 very clearly. I think she
103
should just have asked how do you get that problem. And indicate it, what does the
6 mean, what does the 3 mean. I think he would have worked it out and that
Bastiaan isn’t really as dumb as he appears here.
In her reaction to the fragment, Anne speaks in defence of student Bastiaan and
provides an alternative for the teacher’s approach (nrs. 8, 12). She mathematises (you
can see 6 x 3 = 2 x 9 through the structure of the rows) and didacticizes (thinks of
different questions using the material). She continues this in a subsequent reaction to the
same video fragment, where it can be seen that the teacher educator wants to close the
discussion about student Bastiaan, and Anne rushes to make one final remark about
Bastiaan’s teacher: “You can also say she [the teacher; w.o.] gives a support problem
[anchor point, already known table product; w.o.], because three times six is the same as
two times nine. Or am I saying it wrong?” In her recall response to that last statement,
Anne uses the concepts ‘support problem’ (anchor point) and ‘doubling’ in
underpinning her (changed) opinion (nr. 11).
A: You see, ummm, that you can use a different problem to calculate it, he does
know 6 x 3, he already has the answer, and because you have the boxes, he can also
calculate 2 x 9. Because he already knows how many brownies there are. It isn’t as
clear a support problem if you have for example 2 x 9 = 18 and then double that 4 x
9. This here isn’t that clear, because you really must have the boxes of brownies in
front of you to see it. This isn’t a very clear support problem. I think this is what I
meant, that because he does see 6 x 3, that he will find it easier later to get that 2 x
9, I think.
Reasoning about relationships in the personal concept network

In the following video fragment from the discourse during the ‘concept game’
Bastiaan’s story is referred to again at the moment where Anne considers whether the
concept context or structure best fits the story. She says: “I was also... yes, context, this
is a concept that is in nearly every story, here too. Only I thought like..., yes, why is she
using that context. I thought that she wanted to show the structure clearly of the nine-
times table. It [the structure; w.o.] is more the goal, the context is more the means.
That’s why I chose structure.”
In her recall reaction to the video fragment Anne now looks closer at her earlier
statements (nrs. 6, 11) about context as means or goal (A = Anne; O = researcher).
A: I think it’s umm..., she [the teacher; w.o.] uses the umm..., brownies, the boxes
as a means to a goal. The goal is understanding of ummm..., of what 1 x 9 is, so to
really get an image for that problem. You can also provide a context, umm..., yes,
how do I say it..., complicated, I thought the brownies, the brownies had umm...., a
subordinate role. It was like using a reckon rack 33. Or an...., umm blocks, to quickly
calculate a problem, I think yes, a goal, context as goal.
O: Subordinate role you say, for the brownies...
104
A: Yes, I think that, how can I put it, maybe if a context plays a big part, you will
have more that children... yes, how do I say it, I’m not really sure. I think more of a
larger story, that you can take more problems from and where children can make
their own stories... that you’re working more with the context. Here, I have more of
an idea that, yes, there is a context there as such, but I would have seen it more as
material, the box of brownies, more than a real context that makes it clear what kind
of problem it is. I think that’s it. You cannot really take a problem, ummm.... a
strategy from the box. If you have a question like ummm..., a bag of marbles costs
€ 2,50 and I buy four bags how much do I have. I think you are referring more to
strategy. You are using the money to make it easy to calculate. If you set a problem:
‘how much is 4 x 2,5...’ many of the children will take that as ‘how do I calculate
that.’ But if you say: “Use euros,” they can combine it much easier, you first do 4 x
2 euro, and then you have 50 eurocent and that times two, is a euro together. I think
you have the context as a goal more than with the boxes of brownies. I think this is
what I meant (...). I look at it more like an aid, an ummm...., small part of the bigger
whole.
Anne differentiates between the use of a context and of a material, particularly the
structure of the material. She looks on the box of brownies mostly as a material and less
as a context. She gives the example of a money context to clarify the difference. The
‘money context’ evokes a strategy, and according to her the box of brownies does that
less clearly. To Anne, the concepts of context, story, material, structure and strategy
form a relational network. The objects take their meaning from the situation in which
they are used, but also from the network that Anne has apparently created. She in fact
reflects at a higher level than that of the network by reasoning about the relations
within the network (nr. 15).
In the next reaction, Anne goes into the question of a possible relation between structure
and context.
O: What other concepts did you think of for this situation, there were more: context,
informal procedure, mental model, anchor point, structure and strategy.
A: Ummm..., I don’t quite remember, but I do know that I thought this was one of
the most difficult ones to decide what it was. I think I would have picked structure,
because it, yes..., you can really see the shapes, also because Bastiaan says 3 x 6.
You do have the structure of the brownies in the box, which is how you get those
problems. If it hadn’t had a structure, they [the students; w.o.] couldn’t have made
times problems with it, I think.
O: Do you think there is a relationship between context and structure? You
considered both.
A: Yes, of course. From the context...at least... you need it. You need the context of
the brownies to get the structure. So you cannot really see it separately. Only if you
just looked at it as blocks you put in place. Then it doesn’t really have a context.
105
Further underpinning earlier conclusions (nrs. 9, 11)

The following recall shows what Anne adds to her own statements in the discussion
about student Werner who is given extra instruction about the five-times table. The
student teachers are asked which theoretical concept best suits that narrative. Anne
examines her choice for the concept ‘mental model’ and rejects the concept ‘anchor
point,’ mentioned by her student peer.
A: I hesitated about that because ummm..., he doesn’t mention it even once, he only
knows once the jars are already there. Then I think, in my opinion it isn’t an anchor
point, because I think he doesn’t know it yet. I hesitated about what Marlon said
[about anchor points; w.o.]. See, they do use it later to calculate 5 x 5. But it isn’t an
anchor point yet for him. For the teacher, yes, but not for him.
O: Do you feel that or see it? Is it your intuition or do you say: I can see it in this
and in this.
A: I ummm..., I believe she [the teacher; w.o.] asks to..., here she asks... you are
good at times problems, write down 4 x 5. If that was an anchor point for him, he
would already have said 4 x 5 = 20. Because you know it and if you know it, you
will say it. Werner does know the teacher want to know the answer to 4 x 5, or he
wouldn’t have to write it down, at least like that. Or he would have to be so shy and
quiet that he wouldn’t dare to say it. But I don’t think so. So this is why I don’t
think it’s an anchor point. For him.
Revision of an earlier conclusion (nrs. 9, 11)

In the same discussion a student peer defends the concept ‘strategy’ for Werner’s story.
She says: “It is a strategy. He was asked: ‘How do you do it.’ Then she [the teacher;
w.o.] made him take another step ahead.” Anne tries to discover the student peer’s
thoughts in the video fragment.
A: I think that she [the student peer; w.o.] means that it shows that they are working
on strategies, that the word that she ought to select for this story is ‘strategy.’ I think
this is what she means. The teacher is trying, based on the jars, to first do 4 x 5, and
then 5 x 5, this is ‘one time more.’ I think the teacher’s goal is to explain that
strategy to Werner. I think this is what she meant with what she said.
After that statement by the student peer in the discussion about Werner, the teacher
educator/chair of the discussion reacts to Anne with the comment: “So in the end you
chose mental model.” Anne says: “Of course, they are also using that strategy, but I’m
more like: she is working on having him internalize that model, they are groups of five
so if you have one group of five more then you make a jump of five. That’s why I have
mental model. So she is trying that, the steps he has to make in his head, that model so
to say, to have that internalised.” In a reaction to the video fragment Anne changes her
position:
106
A: Sounds logical, but now I would say strategy. The longer I think about it, the
more I don’t think that was her intention... I think her intention was indeed to go one
further from 4 x 5 [Anne means the strategy ‘one time more’; w.o.]. Of course she’s
also using groups and forming the understanding that you have it as a model in your
head. But yes, I think that in that mental model... it contains strategy. I think. So
yes, it is connected with each other... But now I would have said ‘strategy.’
O: How did you see that mental model, what gave you the idea?
A: Yes, I had chosen the word mental model, because I see that as a picture in your
head, which helps to solve the problem so to say, thinking in groups. The groups are
a mental model to umm... calculate it so to say. I think this is why I chose mental
model. I think mental model is a very broad term, I think there’s a lot that can be
included in it.
In this final fragment, Anne conveys the core of the concept mental model, namely that
it gives a (mental) representation of a mathematical action. Furthermore, she shows she
has awareness of the overarching function of mental models (nr. 15).
4.3.5 Anne’s concept map

Anne uses the ten concept cards (fig. 4.1; see also section 4.2.3.4) to make the following
concept map. The italic text is the explanation she herself wrote.
figure 4.1 Anne’s concept map
At the request of her teacher educator she provides an oral explanation for her scheme.
I really like step-by-step plans, so that’s why I made it as one. I first examined like,
hey, what can I combine. We just talked about levels. I didn’t call it that for myself,
but I did in fact lay out in a kind of levels. You start with the realistic method, that’s
107
the starting point so to say, that’s what the four parts are: structure, context,
concretize and informal procedure [step 1; w.o.]. Because I looked at informal
procedure as a strategy of the children themselves. And this is very important in a
realistic method, that you let the children find out things for themselves. From these
activities, the stories in context, so to say from the structures, you get a mental
model, a strategy and an anchor point. This is step two. And these together form
step three, the cognitive network. Together with the children, you construct that in
their heads. And if you use the cognitive network often, it is used often enough that
it is memorised. This is the final step. This is how I did it.
She is able to put her choice, the (logical) ordering of her map, into words clearly. Later,
in the final interview with the researcher, she briefly returns to the ordering in the
concept map.
I think yes, with this [step 1; w.o.] structure, context and concretize I’d say, this is
what the teacher contributes and informal procedure is I think more what the child
itself contributes, at least... contribution is perhaps not the right word... the things
the children themselves know already. Step 2 is more analyzing what is on offer.
What stands out here is the difference she makes between activities by the teacher and
the student.
She considers the activities according to structuring, use of context, concretizing and
informal procedures as a start of the realistic method, and ‘what is on offer.’ These
activities may lead to a cognitive network in students in which mental models, strategies
and anchor points play a crucial role. Intense use of that network leads to memorizing
knowledge of the tables of multiplication.
In the same interview the researcher asks her to apply the ten concepts for a teaching
situation from the course. In the following quotation she holds forth on the concepts
structure and strategy.
I was just watching structure and strategy (...). You can find a strategy through the
structure in the concrete material. But in the strategy, if you start looking from that
position, you can also see a certain structure, perhaps they are very close together. In
the ummm.... strategy of repetitive adding there is a structure of these groups of 5.
Here, Anne makes meaningful use of the concepts structure and strategy and connects
the concepts (nrs. 2, 4, 15; cf. figure 4.1, table 4.1 and appendix 7).
4.3.6 The final assessment

The list of concepts at the end
In the final version of the list of 59 concepts Anne indicates for six of the concepts that
they were unknown to her at the start of the course (anchor point, cognitive network, own
construction, informal procedures, narrative to a problem, time table method), but that she
can now – at the end of the course – tell a teaching narrative in which that concept has
108
meaning. These narratives are for the most part derived from all four categories (own
practice, ‘The Guide,’ literature or the introductions and discussions during meetings at
the Pabo). In addition, she indicates for three other concepts that they have been further
broadened during the course (structured material, strategy, multiplication). This is the case
particularly for ‘multiplication’ in general. ‘Proofs’ for these concepts having made a
lasting impression on Anne come from the triangulation of data as described in the
previous sections, but also from reporting on activities in her teaching practice and during
individual study. For instance, she reports comprehensively on a study of eight students in
grade 2, where she maps the cognitive (times-table) network of the children (appendix 4),
describes the learning trajectory for multiplication in the mathematics textbook series ‘Wis
en Reken’ and interviews the teacher on learning and teaching the tables. All activities are
related to the learning question she chose: “What is the connection between strategies that
are offered and strategies used by the children?” In the analyses and reflections she makes
meaningful use of theoretical concepts and makes connections between concepts.
Narratives for selected concepts, the practical study and the personal learning question
The two stories she has to write within the framework of the final assessment for two
concepts (appendix 5) are yet another proof of her competence to meaningfully clarify
concepts from her own practical experiences (nrs. 1-3, 10). Anne chooses the concepts
‘anchor point’ and ‘strategy.’ In both cases she provides a clear argument, successfully
integrating eight concepts into each of them.
In addition, Anne performs an extensive study in her practice school about the
knowledge children have of tables.
As is the case with the two narratives of practice, these activities are placed in the context
of her own learning question. She supports her findings with the examples, schematic
representations of the children’s table networks (appendix 4) and theory-laden notes. Even
in the summary of her findings (see below) she uses many theoretical concepts.
My findings. There are several things I noticed during the interviews.
- The strategy the children add to the table is counting with jumps.
- The supporting problem [anchor point; w.o.] and counting with jumps are used
often by these children. These strategies may be useful as well for solving
other problems, but can also be hard to use.
- Some of the children knew they had to make jumps, but were uncertain about
how to determine the size of the jumps.
- An incorrect supporting problem was used a number of times.
- I also found that several strategies were used in one problem.
- Children do have a preference, which differs per child.
- Doubling and halving are not used much.
- A number of children have automated the problems that were looked at, others
find it difficult to apply the strategies.
109
In the reflection on an interview with the teacher of the class where she conducted the
above-mentioned study, she considers the teacher’s actions while using theory
meaningfully and in mutual connection (nrs. 3, 15).
As a result of her study in the framework of her teaching question she examines in detail
the character of the connection between the strategies on offer and their use by the
children.
(...) Particularly the supporting problem [anchor point; w.o.] and the reversing
[commutative; w.o.] strategy are important, in addition this class uses counting with
jumps (repeated addition) to ultimately reach the answer. Though the teacher
follows the teachers’ manual, she does place her own accents. The children follow
the teacher, but also use their own ways and names. The various strategies do turn
out to be somewhat complicated for some children. They find it difficult to choose
the right supporting problem or the right size of the problem (…). Strategies are
needed to automate and memorize the problems. You can also reverse this. That
memorised problems are needed for the strategies. Think of the supporting
problems. They can calculate new problems through problems they already know.
Strategies, automating and memorizing are inextricably linked. The use of strategies
is not limited to multiplication, but occurs in all other areas of mathematics
education. Another reason to offer strategies is the opportunity for checks. In
practice you encounter children who have memorised problems wrong. By
calculating problems using the strategies you can check the answers. Provided the
strategies are used correctly, which is sometimes difficult for the weaker students.
In her final conclusion Anne emphasises the importance of developing strategies in
students, but she also asks to what extent weaker students will profit from being offered
a variety of strategies if that offer is not accompanied by sufficient individual attention.
Here, Anne shows that she possesses a network of meaningful relations between
theoretical concepts (nr. 15).
Reflective note for the multimedia teaching situation (the ‘suitcase full of balls’)
Anne writes – as do her student peers – a reflective note (A4) to finish the course. Her
note (appendix 6) consists of 628 words and seven meaningful units (section 4.2.5; table
4.2). It turns out that Anne use more than one theoretical concept in six units and also
meaningfully connects these concepts. She also touches upon explanatory reasonings of
what happens in the situation in all units. Nowhere does she limit herself to factual
describing of occurrences or interpreting the situation without providing some founding
for her opinion. In three units she goes beyond explaining or clarifying what happens
and she in fact responds to the situation by reflecting on the teacher’s actions and by
considering alternatives for the approach she observes. This happens for example in unit
6 (see the quote below), where she differentiates between shortened counting as an
activity and as a strategy. This is an increase in level in her thinking and reasoning
about the situation.
110
(...) Afterwards they count together in the same way that the class started.
You might ask whether this is the correct approach. If you want to work from the
children’s view, it’s good to first follow the children, the problem can be stated
afterwards. The emphasis will be only on shortened counting as an activity, not as a
strategy.
If you want to offer shortened counting as a strategy for multiplication, you must
start with the times problem. Then you can use shortened counting to solve it, with
jumps of 5. I think this was her [the teacher’s; w.o.] goal, and she achieved it. It’s
good she offers this for large numbers. You avoid that children know the answer
immediately. Then the strategy wouldn’t come across so well.
She starts from the actual, observed situation, and questions (nr. 6) what the
consequences of different approaches might be. Yet she still tries to think along with the
goal that the teacher presumably (nr. 4) has in mind. She reaches a concluding
consideration through if-then and cause-effect reasoning.
4.3.7 The final interview

In the interview that was held after the course meetings, five topics and the
corresponding questions were highlighted (appendix 8). The data relating to the lists of
concepts, the concept map, the final assessment and the numeracy test have been
included in the descriptions of the preceding sections; this is not the case for the data
relating to the written questionnaire. Anne – like her student peers – filled in the
questionnaire (appendix 13) anonymously. The researcher asked her several questions
about the difficulty of the course as she had experienced it and her views on (the use of)
theory. Anne said the level of difficulty of the course was neutral for her (score 3). She
supported that judgement with the argument that while she could understand the
content, she found the working method rather difficult. That last point gave rise to some
doubts about the yield for herself (A = Anne; O = researcher).
O: Did you find the course easy or hard or somewhere in the middle? Do you still
recall where you set the mark [on the five point scale; w.o.]?
A: I think it was in the middle [neutral; w.o.]. It was a bit hard and it was a bit easy…
What you had to do exactly, more the way of working, I found hard. The content I
found easy to understand. Okay, new things are mentioned, but not so that you had to
use a dictionary. Too easy, no, I don’t think so. There were concepts you had to think
about longer, like the cognitive network and that type of words. The working method I
did find difficult; how it worked, how I had to approach it, what the intention was.
O: Was it useful to do?
A: Yes, it was for me. I did hear other reactions, and I started to doubt myself and I
asked myself: did I get enough from it. I now find in this kind of interview, that I
can explain things and put things into words that I have an image of, something that
I never used to think about. I think that’s very important, like the structure of
111
multiplication, the approach, the materials, I know more about them, I think that’s
useful, yes. I also find it enjoyable to talk about it like this, to explain it, to order
things for myself. I already found that out in secondary school. It’s also, yes… one
of my ways of learning, it’s really part of me. It’s important to know that in
teaching, so that you can also use other styles of teaching.
Her answer to the question what she thought of for the word ‘theory’ was:
The first thing I think of is a piece of text, books, the literature so to say, that’s what
I think of. Then, I also think of umm…, yes, like what kinds of strategies there are.
For example, you have a series [of strategies; ed.] that you list, and working them
out is then the practice. How the children use them, is practice. The series of
strategies, these and these strategies exist, this is the theory.
She felt that theory was mainly ‘covert’ in the course. Theory, with the concept of
strategy as its representation, she considers as a means of supporting her own learning
and her own practice.
A: (...) it was more covert also, for example in the teaching narratives. Through the
reflective notes and the umm… wordlists [concept list; w.o.], you could look up the
theory, but initially it was covered up in the teaching narratives about practical
situations. And umm… theory was discussed during the lectures. But… we often
started with practice and then took things from that.
O: What did you find a remarkable example of theory, something of which you can
say, this to me was a real example of the theory of learning to multiply that was
discussed in the course.
A: Umm…, the example of the strategies, which strategies there are, and ummm…
all the strategies that were mentioned, and the explanations. I thought that was
theory, because, well, you don’t use those concepts in the classroom, it’s more
background. For myself as well, my own learning question, the structure, yes…, the
structure of a learning trajectory, this is theory too.
Anne appears aware of the function of theory (nr. 14).
Working on the basis of a personal learning question was experienced as rather difficult
by Anne (and most of her student peers). Though there was a reasonable amount of
guidance, perhaps lack of experience in setting a learning path fuelled this uncertainty.
Perhaps the information about formulating and elaborating the personal learning
question was not fully adequate yet. Apart from that, Anne did understand soon that she
should not be too hasty in devising the learning question:
I think that when you are writing down a learning question, you should think: “How
am I going to approach this and do I have enough sources and things like that (…).”
Your question shouldn’t be too general or too vague. You must be specific and write
down exactly what you are looking for, or else your research will be very difficult.
She showed herself aware of the importance of literature as a source for (reflection on)
her investigations (nr. 14).
112
4.3.8 The numeracy test

Anne scored 88 out of a possible 100 on the numeracy test, the highest score in her
group. The average score for her group of eight students was 65. She missed a problem
where she had to multiply algorithmically and divide by decimal numbers. In the final
interview she commented that multiplication and division with numbers which contain
zeroes and decimals is a gap in her knowledge and skills.
For Anne there clearly is a positive correlation between the ability to solve
mathematical problems and her level of (content-related) pedagogical use of theory (see
table 4.2).
4.3.9 Data analysis and results of Anne’s use of theory

First analysis with the signals
In this study qualitative analysis of the data was initially done using the signals of
theory in actions as developed in the second exploratory study (section 3.8 and
appendix 1) and as described in the italic text in Anne’s case study. The quality of the
arguments was specifically analyzed for the type of reasoning and for whether there was
meaningful use of theoretical concepts. Furthermore, the number of theoretical concepts
used in the reflective note of the final assessment was scored. The concept map
provided information about the cognitive network of theoretical concepts. Data
triangulation was based on data sources that had been collected from reports and
transcripts using the instruments described before (list of concepts; reflective note;
video observation; video stimulated recall; concept map).
In Anne’s oral and written expression 13 of the 15 signals of theory use (appendix 1)
were demonstrable. The most frequent signal displayed by Anne was ‘(re)considering
opinions and action on the basis of theory’ (signal nr. 11; e.g., section 4.3.4).
Although the 15 signals allowed a nuanced consideration and discussion of the use of
theory, it became gradually clear that the instrument was hardly efficient as a means of
comparing expressions of theory use (section 4.2.5) to raise understanding of that use.
There was overlap and not enough coherence in the collection of signals. Differences in
the level of theory use could not be unambiguously defined. Partly with the large scale
study in mind, the decision was made to develop a new instrument for a comparative
analysis of student statements.
Towards a new reflection-analysis instrument: nature and level of use of theory
The reflective note in the final assessment – produced by all students at the end of the
course and under the same conditions – functioned as a data source. Data analysis of the
case study and earlier studies (Oonk, Keijzer, Olofsen, De Vet, Tjon Soei Sjoe, Blom,
Ale & Markusse, 1994) on ‘The Framework for Reflective Pedagogical Thinking’ from
the study by Sparks-Langer, Colton, Pasch, Simmons & Starko (1990, p. 27), inspired
113
the formulation of initially five, but finally four categories to describe the nature of
theory use, namely factual description, interpretation, explanation and ‘responding to’
situations 34. The categories show similarities with levels 2 to 6 of the seven descriptions
given by Sparks-Langer et al. The four categories A, B, C and D form an inclusive
relationship (B contains A, C contains B, et cetera.) and have the following
characteristics:
A: Factual description: the student teacher describes factual occurrences.
B: Interpretation: the student teacher relates what he or she thinks
happens, without any foundation (I think…, in my opinion…).
C: Explanation: the student teacher relates/describes why the
teacher/student acts in a particular manner.
D: Responding to situations: the student teacher relates or describes – for
example in a design/preparation/evaluation – what could be done or
thought (differently), what actions he or she as stand-in for a virtual
teacher would (want to) take (I expect, predict, I would do, I make, I
intend to, with the intention of…).
Using this scheme, the descriptions and reasonings, except for one or two exceptions,
could be named unequivocally (see examples in section 5.3.6.4, table 5.3). The
descriptions mainly had the character of ‘explaining’ situations (category C) and
‘responding to’ situations (category D). A number of meaningful units of Anne’s
reflective note in the final assessment (appendix 6) showed an A-C-D structure. This is
a description starting with a factual description, followed by a reflection in which she
for example asks a question about the teacher’s approach. Subsequently an alternative is
provided and the consequences of that other approach are weighed. Such a unit is
mainly characterised by reasoning relationships (arguing and explaining; Pander Maat,
2002). The ‘response’ often takes place by describing alternative approaches or by
responding to the observed learning and teaching trajectory with suggestions for the
continuation of the actions of teacher or students.
Of the seven units in the reflective note in her final assessment Anne scored four times
in category C and three in category D (see table 4.2, student 1). Nowhere did Anne limit
herself to merely factual description or interpretation (without founding) of an observed
situation. In some cases (e.g., section 4.3.2 and 4.3.3) Anne showed a tendency to
thinking and reasoning hypothetically (section 2.7.1).
The level of theory use
As far as the number of theoretical concepts used in the reflective note of the final
assessment, Anne scored the highest in her group. Furthermore she used two or more
theoretical concepts in a mutual, meaningful relationship in six of the seven units of the
note (table 4.2). So she used the theoretical concepts at a different level.
114
Anne’s concept map (section 4.3.5) gives an overview of the relationships Anne made
between ten theoretical concepts. The difference with her student peers lies mainly in
her underpinning her (logical) ordering in the map (appendix 7). She has used all key
concepts meaningfully at least once, or more. At a higher level she used 13 meaningful
relations between concepts. The table 4.1 below gives an overview of these ‘proven’
meaningful relations between concepts.
Table 4.1 Meaningful relations between ten
key concepts on the basis of concept mapping.
1. Realistic method
2. Context 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. Concretizing 1
4. Structure 2 R
5. Informal procedure 3 R
6. Mental model
4 R R
7. Anchor point
8. Strategy 5 R
9. Memorizing 6
10. Cognitive times-table network 7
8 R R R R R R
9
10 R R
R = (meaningful) relationship
Taking into account Anne’s intentions in formulating her learning questions, the
relatively high frequency of the concept ‘strategy’ (nr. 8) is understandable. Anne made
meaningful connections between that concept and seven of the other nine. While she did
use ‘memorizing’ meaningfully, Anne did not relate that concept to any of the others in
the concept maps. Triangulation using the data collection from the observation, the
interviews and the reflective notes does however show that Anne did at least connect the
concept of memorizing to the concepts anchor point, strategy and automating. Apart
from that, the network would be more extended if the analysis had also taken notions of
theoretical concepts into consideration. Looking at ‘memorizing’ that would have been
the case if ‘remembering’ and ‘know quickly’ could have been scored.
In some cases level increases were observed in Anne, for example in the video
stimulated interview (section 4.3.4) where she reacted to the discussion in the meeting
surrounding the concept game. The concepts context, narrative, material, structure and
strategy turned out to form a relation network for her. The relations between the objects
(concepts) took their meaning from the situation in which they occurred, but also from
the network that Anne had acquired. She was in fact reflecting on a higher level than
that of the network, by reasoning about the relationships in the network. The relations
between concepts in the relation network became subject of reflection at a higher level.
115
4.4 Results and conclusion of the small scale study
4.4.1 Results
The research question for the small scale study was: In what way and to what extent do
student teachers use theoretical knowledge when they describe practical situations after
spending a period in a learning environment that invites the use of theory? A sub-
question to this question in the small scale study was: To what extent is there a
relationship between student teachers’ use of theory and their level of numeracy?
The hypothesis was formulated that the adapted learning environment would allow the
student teachers to apply varied reasoning to practical situations and that there would be
demonstrable differences in the depth of theory use. The goal of the study was to map
that variation and depth.
The considerations at the base of the hypothesis had been inspired by reflection on the
results of the exploratory studies (section 3.9) and the turn of thought on the character of
the new learning environment resulting from that (section 4.2.2). That character was
mainly determined by three characteristics that were intended to motivate the students to
use the learning environment and that could evoke the use of theory by them.
First, one of the most important characteristics in that context was the practical
orientation of the learning environment in combination with the theoretical import of the
available practical situations. Second, the structured yet open character of the learning
environment allowed a variety of working methods. The third characteristic, the theory-
focused interventions by the teacher educator, was intended to optimize both the
‘practical reasoning’ (Fenstermacher, 1986; Pendlebury, 1995) and the ‘feeding’ with
theory (section 4.2.2.3).
The hypothesis in the sub-question was that students who use a relatively large amount
of theory would score higher on the numeracy test than students who use little theory.
The assumption was that students who use a lot of theory will more often reason at a
higher level (function at a higher cognitive level) and should therefore do better on the
numeracy test (section 4.2.3.7 and 4.3.8).
Table 4.2 below gives an overview of the use of theory by Anne (student 1) and the
student teacher peers from the group at the end of the course. The table contains
comparable data from the reflective note from the final assessment, a text with (on
average) seven meaningful units. There are relatively large differences between
students.
116
Table 4.2 Theory use by Anne and her seven student teacher peers in
the reflective note from the final assessment (IPabo-Alkmaar)
Anne St St St St St St St Mean
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. N (meaningful units) 7 8 7 8 8 9 6 6 7,4
2. N (theoretical concepts) 26 21 21 20 15 6 5 16 16,3
3. N (units of factual description);
0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0,5
(Cat. A)
4. N (units of interpreting);
0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0,6
(Cat. B)
5. N (units of explaining);
4 5 3 2 3 2 2 6 3,4
(Cat. C)
6. N (units of responding/gearing
3 3 4 6 5 0 2 0 2,9
to situations); (Cat. D)
7. N (units with meaningful
6 5 3 5 1 0 0 3 2,9
relations between concepts)
8. Percentage of units with
meaningful relations between 86 63 43 63 13 0 0 50 39,8
concepts
9. Score numeracy test 88 52 49 84 59 55 51 78 64,5
Table 4.3 Theory use by the group of six student teachers in the reflective
note from the final assessment (IPabo-Amsterdam)
St St St St St St Mean
9 10* 11 12* 13 14
1. N (meaningful units) 10 - 7 8 8 7 8,0
2. N (theoretical concepts) 16 - 6 10 18 21 14,2
3. N (units of factual description); (Cat. A) 0 - 2 2 0 2 1,2
4. N (units of interpreting); (Cat. B) 0 - 3 1 0 0 0,8
5. N (units of explaining); (Cat. C) 1 - 1 1 2 2 1,4
6. N (units of responding/gearing to
9 - 1 4 6 3 4,6
situations); (Cat. D)
7. N (units with meaningful relations
3 - 0 1 4 3 2,2
between concepts)
8. Percentage of units with meaningful
30 - 0 13 50 43 27,2
relations between concepts
9. Score numeracy test 66 45 38 51 74 58 55,3
(*) Students 10 and 12 did not make a concept map and student 10 missed also the final
assessment.
117
The first row gives, per student, the number of meaningful units the researcher has split
the note into. To allow for a good, unequivocal comparison of data, four ways in which
student teachers used theory in describing situations were formulated during the study.
Rows three to six of the table contain the number of units scored for those four
categories for the nature of the theory use: factual description (A), interpreting (B),
explaining (C) and responding to situations (D). Analysis of the reflective note from the
final assessment showed that most meaningful units were scored as category C
(explaining) or D (‘responding’), usually preceded within the unit by text with an A or
B signature.
The second row contains the number of theoretical concepts used in the note.
Row seven gives the absolute number of units that has been scored as ‘unit with
meaningful relations between concepts,’ row eight registers the percentages of units
with meaningful relationships.
Anne did not score factual descriptions (A) or interpretations (B). It is remarkable that
the three weakest students (st. 6, st. 7 and st. 11) only or mostly score units in ‘factual
description’ and ‘interpreting.’
Furthermore, table 4.2 shows that Anne also distinguishes herself from her student
teacher peers where the level of theory use is involved. She uses more concepts than the
other students and scores the most units with meaningful relations between two or more
theoretical concepts, both in absolute numbers (6) and relatively (86%). On average 16
theoretical concepts were used in her group, a minimum of 5 and maximum 26 (row 2:
median 18; std. deviation 7.4). There were also large differences (range 86%) between
the number of ‘units with meaningful relations between concepts’ in the students’
reflective notes (row 7 and 8).
A number of units show a rise in level. Statements are made in the first or second
sentence containing a theoretical concept, while the following sentences contain
different concepts which have a meaningful relationship with the previous concept.
Sometimes a transition to a higher level occurred in the thus created network of
relationships, when there was reasoning about the relationships of that network (e.g.,
section 4.3.4 and 4.3.9). In the meeting level increases mainly occurred in the discourse
led by the teacher educator.
The research data according to the sub-question in this study, about the student teachers’
use of theory and their level of numeracy (section 4.2.3.7 and 4.3.8), support the
hypothesis of a connection between these two variables. Regression analysis points to a
significant positive correlation (beta 0,730; sig. 0,005).
Regarding the data from the questionnaire for the fourteen students from Amsterdam and
Alkmaar (appendix 13), it can be concluded from questions 10 to 14 that the students
appreciated the theory on offer, integrated into practical situations, mainly as a support for
118
their practice. The score for question 14 (‘theory and practice are far apart/are integrated’)
is remarkable, with the highest average score of the 14 questions (3,92). The difference
between the result for question 7 (‘the course is boring/challenging’; average 3,08) and
question 8 (‘the course is vague/concrete’; average 2,15) can perhaps be explained from
the fact that some students had problems with the individual study based on a personal
learning question. The relatively large standard deviation in the output from question 8
supports that explanation.
4.4.2 Conclusion and discussion

The first conclusion from the study was that all students used theory in both their oral
and written reactions to practical situations. The differences in both the nature of the
theory use and the level of using theory were relatively high.
The nature of using theory can be distinguished in four categories (A to D; section
4.3.9).
The difference in level of the student teachers’ theory use in their reflection on practical
situations, can be characterised as follows, based on the data (table 4.2 and 4.3) from the
final assessment. Primarily there were differences in the total amount of theoretical
concepts the students used in their reflective notes. Secondly, the on average eight
meaningfull units per student teacher, consisted partly of units which did not contain
theoretical concepts. Thirdly, there were units with at most two theoretical concepts and
with no mutual relationship. Finally, there were units in which theoretical concepts
were meaningfully connected to each other (table 4.2 and 4.3, row 7 and 8). Three of the
thirteen students who did the reflective note of the final assessment did not reach the
last mentioned level in any of their described units.
Anne had the highest score in her group on all counts. She used theory in nearly all her
arguments. In comparison to her student peers, Anne uses the most theoretical concepts
in the reflective note of the final assessment (appendix 6; table 4.2). She showed
teaching sensibility (Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992), an obviousness of practical
reasoning (Fenstermacher, 1986) and reflecting (Freudenthal, 1991) and an appreciation
of the situations (Pendlebury, 1995). She familiarised herself with the situation by
explaining it, followed by responding to it with her own considerations. Theory helped
her to formulate pro and counter arguments. Sometimes she showed a tendency to
hypothetical thinking and reasoning, similar to what Ruthven (2001) labelled as
‘practical theorizing’ (section 2.7.1).
In a number of cases Anne took a step back from the situation to give a more general
conclusion. The level increase she experienced in that case – from reasoning about the
concepts in a network to reasoning about the connections between these concepts –
seems related to the type of level increase Van Hiele (1973) describes in his theory
about levels in mathematical thinking. This level theory has had a strong influence on
119
other scientists in the Netherlands in their development of theory about mathematical

learning processes in students (Gravemeijer, 2007) and teachers in training (Lagerwerf
& Korthagen, 1993; Korthagen & Lagerwerf, 1995). Gravemeijer for instance describes
level increase in the framework of the design heuristic of emergent modelling as the
development of a network of mathematical relations. In that sense he sees abstracting as
a form of constructing (Gravemeijer, 2007). And this is what Anne does: she in fact
constructs abstraction by reflecting on the relations she has distinguished. Analogous to
vertical mathematizing (Treffers, 1978, 1987), the increase in level that Anne makes
(e.g., sections 4.3.4 and 4.3.6) can be interpreted as vertical didacticizing (Freudenthal,
1991).
Other indications of an increase in level concerned integrating theory and practice were
– for Anne’s student teacher peers as well – visible in the reflections on the study in
their teaching practice. A number of students experienced a kind of Aha-Erlebnis
(Bühler, 1916) in their discovery of the multiplication strategies used by the children.
This led to a reflection on that success experience (Janssen et al., 2008) in which their
argument gradually shifted from a discourse about the strategies to underpinning it with
other theoretical concepts which were related to multiplication strategies. The
previously described experiences with ‘level increases’ were reason to consider that
phenomenon as a focal point for the large scale study (see the final point of attention in
the examples of implications in the next section).
The hypothesis posed in this study according to the sub-question is plausible. The large
scale study will show if there is a significant positive correlation there too between the
student teachers’ use of theory and their level of numeracy.
Appendix 13, finally, contains the output of the questionnaire. It can be interpreted as an
appreciation of theory by students and of the integrated approach in the offer of theory
and practice in the small scale study.
4.5 Implications of the small scale study for the large scale study
The previous section 4.4 gave a description of the findings regarding the answers to the
research questions of the small scale study. Below the most important implications of
the small scale study for the large scale study will be described. As mentioned in section
4.3.9 and 4.4, the small scale study provided a new insight into the character of the use
of theory by students. Two dimensions were distinguished, namely nature and level of
theory use (section 4.3.9). On the one hand the use of theory appears to manifest in the
way students describe situations with the help of theory; this we refer to as the nature of
theory use. This can take place by factual description, interpreting or explaining a
situation, and by responding to a situation. On the other hand the use of theory can be
expressed in the presence or absence of a meaningful connection between the theoretical
120
concepts used by students, the level of theory use. These new insights were reason to
focus the research questions for the large scale study on nature and level of theory use
and on the connection between these two dimensions. A related implication was that the
reflection-analysis tool had to be developed further and tested on validity and reliability.
We assumed that the learning environment of the small scale research would prompt
student teachers to engage in practical reasoning to a greater degree than the earlier
versions of the learning environment. That hypothesis appeared to be confirmed by the
small scale study. The results showed a large variety in theory use, though the
conjecture arose that theory use was insufficiently evoked in some of the students. The
study gave indications for a further optimisation of the learning environment. The ideas
arose from the analysis of the experiences, based on focal points described in the
theoretical framework, particularly in sections 2.6, 2.7 en 3.9. Below we will briefly
describe five of the desired changes. Each will mention the most important motivation
for the proposed change, followed by the desired design activity and (between brackets)
the relevant focal point for theory use (see section 2.6.4).
- Some of the students felt uncertain about the tasks they were set, and the
requirements attached to them, particularly the ones relating to independent study.
Design activity: designing a detailed manual for teacher educators, with hints and
tools for both students and teacher educators, such as criteria for good learning
questions with examples and guidelines for support from teacher educators (focal
point for theory use: finding confidence).
- After two meetings the researcher and the teacher educators felt the need to make
student teachers even more explicitly aware of their own learning, respectively
learning yield. Design activity: designing a ‘logbook activity’ called ‘What (else)
was learned in this meeting?’ (focal point for theory use: gaining awareness of
one’s own views and develop sensitivity towards theory use).
- Within the time available for the course, a choice had to be made from several
student activities that had taken place within this study, but also in some cases in
the preceding try-out. Regarding the use of theory, more was expected of the
concept game than from the activities relating to ‘the theorem.’ Design activity:
decision to further work out the ‘concept game’ to the detriment of ‘the theorem’
(focal point for theory use: underpinning opinions).
- The output of the questionnaire and statements by students during meetings and
interviews showed that the students appreciated the lists of concepts. Some of the
students did however report that they could not indicate in the list that a concept
had gained more meaning as a result of the course. Others thought at first that they
did know a concept and could give meaning to it in a narrative of practice, but
became aware during the course that their earlier interpretation had been incorrect
121
(appendix 2A,B). These experiences implied that it would be necessary in the large
scale study to change the text in the list of concepts for the final assessment. The
experience with the second part of the initial assessment, the reflective note for a
narrative from ‘The Guide,’ led to another idea for changing the assessment.
Students were in the opportunity to choose the narrative themselves, which was
intended to give them a motivating first orientation on the learning environment.
This approach would be inefficient for the large scale study, though, and endanger
unambiguousness within the data. Design activity: adapting the lists of concepts
and designing a new assessment (focal point for theory use: from subjective
concepts to general applicability).
- In this study, the interventions by the teacher educator turned out to be of crucial
importance for stimulating the use of theory by students, particularly in relation to
raising the level of that theory use. Design activity: organize a one-day training for
teacher educators and write a teacher educators’ manual containing detailed
guidelines for the treatment, containing examples of key insights, key questions
and pitfalls (focal points for theory use: e.g., particularly ‘developing sensitivity
for the use of theory’ and ‘the function of persuasiveness, justifiability and
usefulness of theory’).
The assumption was that the proposed changes would optimize the use of theory by
students, and that their ‘enriched practical knowledge’ could be mapped and analyzed
systematically.
122
5 The large scale study
5.1 Introduction
The large scale study of the question to what level primary school teachers in training
are able to make connections between theory and practice that is described here, is a
continuation of the two exploratory studies (chapter 3) and the small scale study
(chapter 4). The latter study mainly served as a preparation for this large scale study.
The small scale study showed a large variety in use of theory by students. There was,
however, a suspicion that not all students were encouraged to optimally use theory. It
therefore seemed advisable to adapt the learning environment and a part of the research
instruments for the large scale study. Furthermore the small scale study provided a new
view of theory use by students, which led to the development of an instrument to
analyze the research data on the basis of these new insights.
This study focuses on accurately charting the way that students use theory, after a period
in which they are confronted with theory-laden practical situations in a multimedia
interactive learning environment. The conjecture is that at the end of that period the
students will show signs of ‘Theory-Enriched Practical Knowledge’ (section 2.6.5.5 and
3.9). This large scale study – in contrast to the small scale study – is quantitative in
character and aims at making visible patterns in the use of theory by student teachers.
5.2 Research questions

Chapter 2 explained the considerations that led to the central problem definition and the
research questions. The main goal of this study can be broadly described as gaining an
insight into the phenomenon of ‘theory use’ by students in primary teacher education. The
previous research led, among other things, to an interpretation of the use of theory in two
dimension, namely nature and level of theory use (e.g., see section 4.3.9). The nature of
the use of theory manifests in the way in which students use theory in describing
situations. This can for example occur through factual description or by explaining a
situation; in this case, theoretical concepts will strengthen the factual description of a
situation or the explanation of what is happening. The three levels of theory use are
expressed by the degree to which students use the theoretical concepts meaningfully.
The study targets gaining an insight into the nature and the level of theory use (see the
explanation below, as well as the examples in table 5.3). Therefore the learning
environment is set up to optimize conditions for theory use, partly through ‘feeding’ the
process of reflection with theoretical information (see also section 5.3.2).
One part of this large scale study is the refining and testing for reliability of the
instrument used to analyze nature and level of theory use. The first version of that
123
The large scale study
instrument was designed during the small scale study (section 4.3.9). The large scale
study aims at three main questions, with the third question split into two sub-questions.
The first research question focuses on the nature of use of theory:

In what way do student teachers use theoretical knowledge when they describe practical
situations after spending a period in a learning environment that invites the use of theory?
Rationale and explanation for question 1.

During the five meetings in the course (see section 5.3.2) the students are given the
opportunity in various forms and in several locations (Pabo, practice school, individual
study, et cetera) to gain – notions of – theory. To that purpose, they are ‘fed’ through an
amalgam of interventions by the teacher educator, reactions from student peers and the
material on offer in the learning environment. One of the things asked of the students in
the final meeting is to write a reflective note on a practical situation that was not a part
of the learning environment in the previous meetings. These notes are the most
important research data for the first research question. The assumption is that all student
utterances (descriptions) can be interpreted using four different types of theory use,
namely factual description, interpretation or explaining practical situations or
responding to practical situations (see also section 5.3.6.3). These four types represent
the nature of the use of theory; the relation between the four types is seen as an
inclusive relationship, meaning that the next type includes the preceding type. The
‘using theoretical knowledge in describing practical situations’ meant in this research
question, can also refer to the gradual development of new theory or theoretical notions
or the further development of already existing ones.
The division into the four types of theory use mentioned here, is partly inspired by the
work of Sparks-Langer et al. (1990) and is created as a result of the experiences in both
the exploratory studies and the small scale study (section 4.3.9). The expectation is that
every statement (reflection) by students can be categorised as one of the four types of
theory use and that analysis of data can lead into insight into the nature of theory use
and into the differences that distinguish students from each other when using theory.
Three hypotheses have been formulated for this research question. Section 5.4.2
provides an extended description of the considerations according to hypothesis 1.1, 1.2
and 1.3. Data are obtained from the final written assessment in the last meeting (see
section 5.3.4.1). In aid of the analysis of the data the first version of the reflection
analysis instrument from the small scale study (section 4.3.9) is refined, validated and
tested for reliability (section 5.3.6).
The second research question focuses on the level of use of theory:

What is the theoretical quality of statements made by the student teachers when they
describe practical situations?
124
Rationale and explanation for question 2.

In the introduction the two dimensions that interpret the use of theory were referred to
the nature and the level of theory use. This research question is aimed at the second
dimension, the level of theory use. One of the studies that preceded this study, the
second exploratory study (section 3.8), led to the formulation of ‘signals for theory use.’
Although the signals allowed a nuanced consideration and discussion of the use of
theory, differences in the level of theory use by student teachers could not be
unambiguously defined (section 4.3.9 and 4.4).
In this study the levels of theory use are expressed by the degree to which the students
use the theoretical concepts meaningfully (see also section 5.3.6.2 and 5.3.6.4). That
thought was partly inspired by the ideas of Van Hiele (1973) and Freudenthal (1978,
1991) on levels of mathematics learning processes 35. Furthermore, the number of
theoretical concepts occurring in a statement is also considered, with a distinction being
made between general pedagogical and pedagogical content concepts.
The small scale study revealed that students can construct a network of theoretical
concepts and that rises in level do occur, for example if student teachers make a transition
to a higher level in a created network of relations, when they reason about the
relationships of that network (section 4.4.1). This second research question of the large
scale study mainly investigates the degree to which students differ in their levels of theory
use and to what degree variables such as prior education and study year correlate with
those levels. Two hypotheses (2.1 and 2.2) have been formulated. Section 5.4.3 provides
an extended description of the considerations according to hypothesis 2.1 and 2.2.
Data are obtained from the reflective notes of the initial and final assessments, which
were held in the first, respectively last, meeting within the framework of the course (see
section 5.3.4.1). To aid the analysis of data the previously mentioned reflection analysis
instrument is used (section 5.3.6).
The third research question focuses on the coherence between the nature and the level
of use of theory, and zooms in on the relationship between the use of theory and the
level of numeracy:
3a. Is there a meaningful relationship between the nature and the level of theory use? If
so, how is that relationship expressed in the various components of theory use and in
various groups of students?
3b. To what extent is there a relationship between the nature or the level of the student
teachers’ use of theory and their level of numeracy?
Rationale and explanation for question 3a.

This third research question is aimed at the dual dimensions of theory use, and
particularly at the question of to what extent and in what way there is a connection
125
between nature and level of theory use. Both nature and level of theory use are
structured hierarchically (see section 5.3.6).
The expectation is that there is a relationship between the dimensions of nature and
level of theory use and that variables such as prior education and the students’ study
year will give an insight into that relationship. Other variables that may do so, are the
total number of concepts and the number of different concepts (see hypothesis 3.1,
section 5.4.4). The small scale study has already shown that some students use a
relatively small number of concepts more often, while other students used more
concepts once. The question is whether these differences – and the relations between
them – correlate with differences in nature or level. Another focal point is the difference
between the use of general pedagogical and pedagogical content concepts. While the
general pedagogical concepts are used within a pedagogical content context, they have
different or multiple meanings. Students have often developed them from multiple
domains (compare for instance general concepts such as learning-teaching trajectories,
practice or pedagogical climate with pedagogical content concepts such as shortened
counting, number line, or the pedagogy of learning to multiply). The question is
whether the students who use comparatively more pedagogical content concepts than
general ones show a different nature or level of theory use compared to students for
whom this is not the case (see also hypothesis 3.1). Section 5.4.4 provides an extended
description of the considerations according to hypothesis 3.1.
To aid the analysis of data, the reflection analysis instrument that was referred to in the
first and second research question, is used (section 5.3.6).
Rationale and explanation for question 3b.

The development of numeracy is placed in a pedagogical perspective in the training of
their prospective primary school teachers (Goffree & Dolk, 1995). The growth of the
development of numeracy can be seen as an amalgam of four components (Oonk, Van
Zanten & Keijzer, 2007), where along the way mathematizing is intertwined with
didacticizing. It is therefore likely that the content and pedagogical content components
of numeracy will be more developed in later year students, which is a reason to expect a
positive correlation between the degree of numeracy, the nature and level of theory use
and the variable ‘study year.’ More generally, someone who has a high level of
numeracy is likely to function at a relatively high level of reasoning and arguing. In
view of the nature and level of theory use, for that reason a positive relation can be
expected between explaining and numeracy and between the level of theory use and
numeracy (hypothesis 3.2). Section 5.4.4 provides an extended description of the
considerations according to hypothesis 3.2.
To aid the analysis of data a suitable instrument is being developed and tested for this
research question (section 5.3.6 and appendix 20 and 21).
126
5.3 Method
5.3.1 The context and the participants

Eleven Pabos, with a total of 269 students in groups of at least 10, participated in the
large scale study. This involved first, second and third year groups from the full-time
and part-time courses, the dual course and the so-called shortened course (table 5.1).
The students were offered a course, in which ‘The Guide’ (see section 4.2.2.2) was an
important component of the learning environment. The Guide is a CD-rom for
mathematics in grade 2 (Goffree et al., 2003) on which ‘the practice’ of mathematics
teaching is available in a website structure.
The five one and a half hour course meetings were directed by the teacher educator. The
next section shows an overview of the course. Part of the first meeting was used for an
initial assessment; the fifth and final meeting contained a final assessment, which
required an hour and a half extra. In total, the course consisted of forty study hours, nine
of which were contact hours with the teacher educator. Less than two weeks after the
final meeting the students took the numeracy test, which took one hour.
The group of 269 students that was part of the study consisted of 249 women and 20
men between 18 and 20 years of age (table 5.1). The spread for gender, prior education
and type of course (full-time, part-time, dual, shortened) is comparable for that of the
national population of Pabo students 36.
The students’ prior education varied from mbo level (senior secondary vocational
education) to vwo level (pre-university education) and higher education. The groups
were taking the course that was offered in the framework of the study as a part of the
regular programme. The students were informed in advance of their participation in the
national research project ‘Theorie in Praktijk’ (TIP – Theory in Practice). One Pabo
group offered the course as an optional course, giving the students the choice of whether
or not to follow the course, in other groups the teacher educator determined, in
consultation with the researcher, in what group and at which time the course would best
fit into the curriculum.
The teachers teaching the course were experienced teacher educators in at least the
subject area Mathematics & Pedagogics; they had taken part in the training course
(section 5.3.3) that was developed within the framework of this study and taught by the
researcher. The study occurred in the school year 2003-2004, with an extension in the
autumn of 2004.
127
Table 5.1 Complete overview of the population of the eleven Pabos

PABO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
total Number of students per study year
Year 1 42 24 18
Year 2 79 12 19 9 39
Year 3 148 27 49 36 28 8
Total 269
PABO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
total Number of students per type of course
Full-time 146 49 36 28 9 24
Part-time 54 27 8 19
Three yr, dual 15 15
Three yr. shortened 12 12
Three yr. vwo 42 24 18
Total 269
PABO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
total Number of students per prior education
Mbo without maths 62 8 20 10 1 7 1 1 5 9
Mbo with maths 17 3 3 2 2 3 2 2
Havo without maths 31 4 4 6 1 5 1 4 1 5
Havo with maths 96 9 20 15 6 12 9 3 1 6 15
Vwo without maths 5 2 2 1
Vwo with maths 51 1 1 3 4 2 14 3 15 3 5
Higher ed. 2 1 1
Other 5 2 1 1 1
Total 269
5.3.2 Design of the learning environment

The learning environment for the students who participated in this large scale study was
largely similar to that in the small scale study, and was based on the same theoretical
principles (section 2.6, 2.7 and 3.9). The most important components of the content
were – as in the small scale study – the Guide (section 4.2.2.2) with stories from
practice, along with theoretical reflections and literature, a multifunctional list of
concepts, discussions framed by a so-called ‘game of concepts,’ research within one’s
own practice school and writing ‘annotated stories’ and reflective notes. The character
of the learning environment was mainly determined by characteristics that were
intended to motivate the students to work within the learning environment and which
could evoke the use of theory. The most important characteristics were the learning
environment’s focus on practice in combination with the theoretical load of the practical
situations that were available, the environment’s structured, yet open character, and the
128
teacher educator’s interventions aimed at the use of theory. These interventions were
intended to optimize ‘practical reasoning’ (Fenstermacher, 1986; Pendlebury, 1995) and
‘feeding’ with theory.
A few components of the learning environment were adapted or added based on the
experiences from the small scale study (section 4.5). This involved for example the list
of concepts (appendix 2A,B), the initial assessment (section 5.3.4.1) and the numeracy
test (appendix 19). In addition, a ‘logbook activity’ – called ‘What (else) did you learn
in this meeting?’ – was designed with the goal of making students even more
emphatically aware of their own learning or increase in learning (appendix 9). The
teacher educators were provided with a detailed manual and were given a day of
training (appendix 22). The assumption was, that with these adaptations and additions to
the learning environment as used in the small scale study, the students’ use of theory
could be optimized and their ‘Theory-Enriched Practical Knowledge’ (EPK)
systematically mapped and analyzed.
Next a short overview is given of the programme of the course for the students taking
part. The teacher educators’ manual (appendix 22) contains a detailed version of the
programme.
129
Overview of the five meetings in the course

Meeting 1. Initial assessment (supervised)
- Filling in list of concepts (individual, 30 min.).
- Initial assessment ‘reacting to practice situations’ (assignments for four MILE
situations on CD-rom, individual, one hour).
- Individual study: becoming familiar with the Guide (CD-rom).
Meeting 2. Introduction of the Guide and the personal learning question
- Introduction CD-rom (‘the Guide’); discussion directed by the teacher educator.
- Individual notes: ‘What did you learn?’
- From learning question to study assignment: thinking about and formulating a
personal learning question.
- Individual study: study of CD-rom and formulating personal learning question;
making a note for a teaching story selected from the CD-rom.
Meeting 3. Network for tables of multiplication and learning trajectory (cooperative lecture).
- Interview of two primary school students, Paul and Necmiye (CD-rom): analysis
and discussion about the students knowledge of the tables of multiplication.
- Preparatory instruction for individual research by student teachers into primary
school students’ network of tables of multiplication.
- The teacher educator gives an overview of the four stages of the learning trajectory
for multiplication as a theoretical reflection on the practical situations on the CD-
rom.
- Individual study: working on the individual learning question. Preparing and
elaborating the individual research into students’ table network.
Meeting 4. Game of concepts
- The game of concepts: looking together for identifiable connections between given
theoretical concepts and four practice situations (group discussion led by the
teacher educator).
- Individual study: working on the individual learning question.
Meeting 5. Final assessment (supervised)
- Filling in the list of concepts (the concepts that have gained meaning, including
teaching narratives for two of those concepts).
- Writing a reflective note for (an unfamiliar) MILE situation.
- Questionnaire (anonymous): filling in the questionnaire.
As soon as possible after the final meeting:
- Numeracy test (individual, supervised).
130
5.3.3 Training the teacher educators

5.3.3.1 Introduction
The researcher presented his research plan in front of an audience of over a hundred
mathematics teacher educators, representatives of the 39 training colleges for primary
school teachers, at the annual conference of the network of experts involved in primary
mathematics teaching in the Netherlands. In addition to information about the content of
the research, information was given about the conditions for participation in the study,
being: the mandatory and conscientious use of the course materials offered, including the
course in the regular curriculum, mandatory training for teacher educators, certification,
and at least two years of experience as a mathematics teacher educator, the size of student
groups, the number of meetings, the number of contact hours and the participation of the
teacher educator in a closing interview. These conditions were mentioned again in the
flyer that was handed out as well as distributed electronically over the national network.
At first, seventeen Pabos responded to the invitation for participation. In the end, twelve
met the conditions for participation. The Pabos that participated showed a geographic
spread across the Netherlands: they were located in Amsterdam, Breda, ‘s-Hertogenbosch,
Eindhoven, Gouda, Hengelo, Leeuwarden, Meppel, Rotterdam and Zwolle. One Pabo
dropped out during the study due to organisational problems.
5.3.3.2 Training
A (mandatory) day of training in advance of the study for the teacher educator was
organised under supervision of the researcher. The goal of the training was optimizing
the analogy in working with students by the various teacher educators. Results from the
foregoing development and research were used to inform teacher educators about how
to introduce the Guide as a tool for the discourse and for the student teachers’ self-
regulated learning, as well as to create an appropriate investigation context for student
teachers, help them find reasons to get a successful start, formulate inspiring learning
questions, et cetera. The information was described in a teacher educator’s manual
(Oonk, 2003; appendix 22). The quotations, given below, from the manual (p. 12) are
examples of a general guideline.
General
In the interest of the study it is necessary that the general and specific guidelines are
followed. The material offered must be as ‘natural’ as possible for all student
teachers, while at the same time it must vary as little as possible between the various
locations (...).
The students’ logbook
The term ‘logbook’ is interpreted in a diversity of ways at the Pabos. Therefore this
course doesn’t use the term for student teachers. For the purpose of the discussions
in meeting 2, 3 and 4, the students’ reflections are aimed at ‘What did you learn?’
(see appendix 5 of the manual).
131
The students’ individual learning question

It is the intention that all coursework is guided by the students’ individual learning
question, which runs through the course like a guideline. The reflective notes from
the research into the network for the tables of multiplication and the final
assessment are both assumed to be guided by the individual learning question (...).
The manual contains detailed guidelines for each meeting. These guidelines concern the
goals of the meeting, the organisation, the subject-specific and course-pedagogical
content, suggestions for the students and aspects that are vital for obtaining valid
research data, such as the exact instruction for filling in the lists of concepts and
handing out the assignments for the assessments. The following quotation from the
manual is an example of an instruction for the teacher educators (manual, p. 28;
appendix 22).
Instruction final assessment, unit 3
Writing a reflective note for a situation from MILE (‘The suitcase full of balls’). See
appendix 9 from the manual.
It was shown in the small scale study that the students, even if they did not yet know
MILE, could easily find the fragment in question. Only help the students, if needed,
with the procedure, that is to say: if they don’t understand or can’t find the fragment
concerned. Do not offer the fragment in a whole-class setting, as students have the
understandable tendency to react to the content of the images when viewed in a
plenary session. Furthermore, the assignment contains a subtle impulse to stimulate
searching at the end – in the italic text; the intention is to find out to what extent
students show searching behaviour, partly on the basis of that impulse, and will for
instance look to see if there is relevant information to be found before or after the
selected video fragments. To remind the students of the focus on their own learning
question and to inform the teacher educator, the individual learning questions are
noted at the top of the reflective note (see appendix 11, p. 61 in the manual).
The prescribed teaching material has been planned chronologically and in detail in
terms of activities for teacher educator and students. During the training day the
guidelines were discussed, and crucial interventions by the teacher educator – for
instance specific questions – have been practiced in the meetings based on video
material from the small scale study. The teacher educators also had tasks, assignments
and texts for students that had to follow the letter of the manual pointed out to them.
Some guidelines concerned the right moment to show students certain papers or forms,
with one of the intentions being to avoid influencing open-minded reflections.
Finally, the training day gave attention to collecting the research data and there were
opportunities to ask questions.
Based on the experiences during the training days the researcher revised the manual and
provided it to the teacher educators who participated.
132
Shortly after the end of the course, every participating teacher educator was interviewed
in a session that lasted about an hour. Goal of this interview was to obtain as much
information as possible about experiences with the course, particularly information
relating to interventions by the teacher educator and striking reactions from students that
were related to the use of theory. The teacher educators received a list of nine questions
from the researcher not long before the interview, intended for use as a guideline.
5.3.4 The instruments

5.3.4.1 Initial and final assessment
Experiences from the small scale study led to changes in the initial assessment for the
large scale study. The change involved a changed set-up for the way in which the
reflective note made by the students was done, resulting in a better match between the
initial and final assessments (appendix 11 and 12).
The reflective note at the start of the course was intended to test at what level the students
used theory within a specific category of the nature of theory use (factual description,
interpretation, explain and respond to) (section 5.3.6.3 and 5.3.6.4). The four assignments
for four different situations from MILE had been phrased so that they would consecutively
evoke these four types of theory use. For instance, in the first assignment the student
teachers were asked to observe student Chantal, and then in their own words give a factual
description of what occurred in that situation (appendix 11). This part of the initial
assessment yielded two types of data: primarily the number of theoretical concepts that
each student used in doing the assignments, and also statements by students in which
theoretical concepts were used. The four practical situations presented in the video
material and the situation for the final assessment were selected from the lessons about
learning the tables of multiplication in MILE-grade 2, with the same students and teachers
for all situations (appendix 23). The situation that was selected for the final assessment
was new to the students. They were given a short explanation about the context of the
situation, and where the video clip of the situation could be found in MILE; there was also
some advice on writing the reflection (appendix 12).
The large scale of the study necessitated limiting the use of tools and data to those of the
written reflections in the initial and final assessments, the numeracy test (section
5.3.4.2) and the questionnaire (section 5.3.4.3).
5.3.4.2 Numeracy test
After the course had ended, the students did a numeracy test (appendix 19). The written
test consisted of ten problems, and had been derived from tests for the subject area
Mathematics & Pedagogics as used widely at Pabos in the Netherlands at the time (2003)
the test was set (Faes et al., 1992; Goffree & Oonk, 2004). Individual numeracy was used
as an independent control variable in this study that is marked by the research questions. A
positive correlation is supposed between the ability to solve mathematical problems in
133
students and their level of pedagogical (content) theory use (section 4.3.8 and 4.4.2).
Triangulation of the data resulting from the numeracy test with the data produced by the
other instruments, had as its goal to generate answers to research question 3b (section 5.2)
to the extent of a correlation between the student teachers’ level of numeracy and the
nature or the level of their use of theory. To have the problems in the numeracy test target
aspects of numeracy even more emphatically, the test as used in the small scale study
(appendix 18) has been slightly changed for the benefit of the large scale study (appendix
19). This change involves an extended explanation with the problems in order to evoke
reflection. Furthermore, the students could also rate each problem on a five point scale to
evaluate how hard they thought a problem was.
A personal evaluation index (PEI) was also determined, to define the relation between
the level of difficulty and numeracy score (difficulty total score times two, minus the
total score of the numeracy test). The underlying idea is that the index can be a measure
for the confidence in one’s own numeracy.
The standards for determining the level of numeracy have been developed in three
sessions, with the researcher’s first proposal being discussed with other expert educators 37,
tried out and revised (appendix 20). The second version of the standards was subjected to
a random sample (n = 15; appendix 21). The fifteen tests were scored independently by
two judges in three sets of five with analysis in between. Independent assessment of the
whole random sample yielded an interrater reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of κ = 0,91.
5.3.4.3 Questionnaire
Section 4.2.3.5 describes the backgrounds, the purpose and the set-up of the
questionnaire. The experiences with the questionnaire in the small scale study did not
lead to adapting the questionnaire for the large scale study. The fourteen questions relate
to the evaluation of the course, and particularly to how the students appreciated the
theory as expressed in the course.
Descriptive statistics of the data (mean and std. deviation; appendix 14) have been
determined through the use of the computer software SPSS, version 15.0.
5.3.5 Procedure and data collection

During the first meeting of the course offered to the students, the initial assessment was
done, with the purpose of determining the number of theoretical concepts used, as well
as the level per category for the nature of the theory use (factual description,
interpretation, explanation, response to). The data yield consisted of the number of
theoretical concepts and of statements by students in which theoretical concepts or
notions of theoretical concepts were used.
For the number of concepts, a distinction was made into the total amount of concepts,
the number of different concepts, the number of pedagogical content concepts and the
number of general pedagogical concepts.
134
In the final meeting of the course the final assessment was performed. This established
the nature and level of theory use at the end of the course, as well as the number of
theoretical concepts used. The data yield consisted of the number of theoretical concepts
and of statements by students in which theoretical concepts or notions of theoretical
concepts were used. Just as for the initial assessment, subcategories were made for the
number of concepts, the number of different concepts, the number of pedagogical
content concepts and the number of general pedagogical concepts.
Also in the final meeting, the students had to fill in the anonymous questionnaire for the
evaluation of the theory on offer in the course. The output from the questionnaire
consisted of quantitative data on the appreciation of the way that – and the degree to
which theory was treated in the course (appendix 14) and statements by students who
provided an explanation for their answers to the questions in the questionnaire.
The numeracy test was set shortly after the course, with the intention of determining the
students’ level of numeracy. The data were the levels of numeracy (on a scale of 0-100)
and the level of difficulty of the problems as experienced by the students, indicated on a
five point scale; these data were used for research question 3b.
The following variables served as background variables for the large scale study: the
institute (the Pabo) at which the student studied, the student’s prior education, the kind
of course the student was taking (fulltime; part-time; shortened), the study year, the
group (class) the student was in, small or large group, gender and, the primary school
group in which the students did their teaching practice.
5.3.6 Data analysis

5.3.6.1 Analysis instrument
Based on the knowledge and experience gained from the pre-study (focal points for
theory, section 2.6.4), the exploratory studies (e.g., signals for theory use, appendix 1), the
small scale study and discussions with colleagues (appendix 10), an instrument has been
developed (see 3x4 matrix, table 5.2) to systematically order and analyze the data. The use
of theory is expressed in four types of the nature (factual description, interpreting,
explaining and responding to) and in three levels. The development of the instrument has
the character of design research (Gravemeijer, 1994; Cobb, 2000; cf. section 2.7.2). The
concept of the instrument, which arose as a result of the analysis in the small scale study,
was further refined in the large scale study, partly influenced by ideas found in literature
(Van Hiele, 1973, 1986; Freudenthal, 1978, 1991; Zeichner & Liston, 1985; Sparks-
Langer et al., 1990; Simon, 1995). Finally that process of refining and revising (Bales,
1951; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Krippendorf, 1980; Rourke et al., 2001) led to a reliable
instrument.
135
5.3.6.2 Meaningful units

The students’ reflective notes 38 were split into meaningful units (see examples in table
5.3), and each unit was evaluated for the use of theory. A meaningful unit is a complete
segment within a text, a ‘thought unit’ in the form of a paragraph on a topic or a theme
(Bales, 1951, Krippendorf, 1980; Rourke et al., 2001). This study defined units as
determined by ‘completed’ stories, trains of reasoning, or thoughts about an occurrence,
or by transitions in the type of theory use, for instance from factual description to
interpretation of the situation being observed. Where possible, the structure imposed on
the text by the student when (re)constructing (sub)situations was taken into account.
Sometimes the units to be distinguished were already visible through white lines or
paragraphs. The syntax also offered support for separating the text 39. Considerations
related to the use of concepts and the structure used by the students themselves were
taken into account before those based on a type (nature) of theory use.
Where there was doubt about a separation, a choice was made for the larger unit without
that separation.
The definition of a meaningful unit as presented here is the revision of an earlier
version; the discussions about the revision occurred during two sessions between the
researcher and a second expert on validating meaningful units. The conversations have
been transcribed.
Using a random sample of 15 students out of 269, the interrater reliability was
determined at 81% (appendix 15). The discussion on the remaining differences led to
full agreement between the judges.
5.3.6.3 The nature of the use of theory: defining the four concepts horizontally
(cumulative/including)
The relationship between the four categories for the nature of the use of theory is seen
as an inclusive relationship. It is assumed that each subsequent category will contain
one or more of the preceding ones, whether or not explicitly visible in the student’s
description. Descriptions that do clearly not satisfy the criterion of the inclusive
relationship are not scored.
A: Factual description
The student describes actual events only; no opinion is given, nor are any operations or
expressions by the teacher or a student explained. The student’s statements show in no
way that the situation has been thought about or that it has been responded to/geared to.
B: Interpreting
The student tells what he or she thinks is happening and gives his or her own opinion
without adding any explanation. For instance, a ‘bare’ assumption is made, or a
judgment is made without a foundation, or the situation is simply labeled.
Indicator words 40 for this type of description can be for example: I think that (...) or
according to me is (...). Also adjectives can give an indication of interpretation, but one
136
should be alert: adjectives – and also adverbs – can confuse the scoring; only adjectives
which give a subject-specific interpretation of the associated noun, can be qualified as
indicators. Compare ‘the student has a nice solution’ and ‘the student has a time-
consuming solution’; the first case (nice), might express a meaningless ‘filler,’ the
second (time-consuming) can be an indication of an interpretation, more so if there is no
foundation for the statement.
C: Explaining
The student explains why the teacher/student acts or thinks in a certain way. This
concerns an unambiguous, ‘neutral’ explanation on the basis of (previously mentioned)
facts or on the basis of interpretations or factually observed events. For example, it does
not concern what could have happened before, during or afterwards, but why it was
(probably) done or what might have thought to cause to the visible action; in the latter
case it involves a conjecture of an idea together with an explanation (‘proof’).
Indicator words for this type of description are for example: why, for this reason,
because, as, as... if, probably, it could be possible that..… In terms of interpreting text
(Pander Maat, 2002) this often involves causal relationships and reasoning
(argumentation and explanatory) relationships.
Both last mentioned indicators (probably, it could be possible that) also might be
indicators words for B (interpreting), but the difference is in the further elaboration:
here, “after the ‘why’ is the ‘because’ ” (Freudenthal, 1978).
The connecting word ‘so’ in a reasoning relationship can point to a conclusion or a
possible explanation (Pander Maat, 2002). If ‘so’ can be left out without the sentence
changing meaning, there is usually no C-description.
D: Responding/Gearing to
The student teacher can respond to the situation in several ways. It can be commonly
stated that responding to a situation by the student teacher appears as what one could
call a ‘design activity’ by the student teacher. Below, the different forms of
‘responding’ will be named.
The student tells what, in his or her opinion, the teacher could have thought or done
(differently) in preparation for the given situation, or what reaction by the teacher or the
student one might expect after the end of the given teaching situation. In that last case
there may be a kind of hypothetic learning trajectory involved (Simon, 1995).
Indicator words in this case can be for example: I expect that..., I predict that..., I
should…, I suspect that. Although it could start as an explanation (C), the description is
characterized as an idea about the possible consequence of operations or as a possible
continuation to the given situation.
The student teacher can also take a position as a virtual substitute of the teacher in the
observed situation: the student teacher tells or describes – for example in a preparation,
137
a design or a review – which action he himself, or he as a substitute of the teacher,

wants or would want to take, for example to try out an observed activity or an
alternative action in his own field placement group.
The reflective note can also take the form of a critical, deliberated response to the
actions of the teacher.
Indicator words in those cases can be for example: I do..., I make..., I intend for..., I
should..., my intention would be....
The student asks himself a question.
Indicator words in this case are among others: I wonder..., the question is...
The student reflects on his own thinking; the student’s own learning process is taken
into consideration.
Indicator words are for example: I have learned from this, that..., when I think of my
learning question…
Observation
It is imaginable that a D-observation turns out negative, in the sense that a student for
instance starts his or her reflection by giving a non-supported alternative for the given
teaching situation. In that case, the inclusive relationship between the horizontal
categories, with D more or less following A, B and C, is absent, and – depending on the
content – the negative D-score can be seen as a D1-score (lowest level) or a B-score
(incorrect interpretation).
5.3.6.4 Levels of use of Theory
Theoretical concept
A ‘theoretical concept’ is defined as a concept from a list of 59 general pedagogical
concepts and pedagogical content knowledge concepts which is part of the learning
environment of the student teachers (appendix 2A,B).
Notions of theoretical concepts and lay concepts
A notion of a concept is seen as a synonym or a description that within the given
context lends the same meaning as the ‘mother concept’ – which is always the concept
mentioned first – in the list of 59 concepts. These are words or expressions that occur in
the descriptions of these same ‘mother concepts’ from the register of The Guide.
A theoretical concept or the notion of it manifests as factual information in a text, not as
an interpretation of what a student might have been thinking.
It does happen that theoretical concepts are referred to by a name that is the same as
concepts that occur in daily use, for instance the concept ‘multiplication.’ If no
difference exists between use by students and use by lay people, it will not be
considered as a theoretical concept. That difference will be expressed when there is a
clear pedagogical surplus value, for instance when the concept is used in relation to
another concept within the context of the given teaching situation or if the concept is
138
used in a more contemplative sense 41. In the sentence: “Fariet is doing multiplications,”
‘multiplication’ is taken as a lay concept if no further connection is made or explanation
given, while in the sentence: “Fariet uses smart multiplication with tens,”
‘multiplication’ is seen as a theoretical (pedagogical content) concept.
On the other hand there are also words that are not identical to one of the 59 ‘mother
concepts,’ but that can have the same meaning. Sometimes they have the character of a
‘lay concept.’ An example is the phrase ‘make visible’ with the mother concept
‘visualizing.’ These concepts are scored if they occur in the description of the mother
concept in the register of The Guide; they are also included in the score list together
with the mother concepts. For these concepts it is also the case that they are only scored
if their use within their context lends a meaning that is equivalent to the mother concept.
Characteristics level 1: no visible use for theory
No visible and relevant use of theoretical concepts is observed; at most there is relevant
use of notions of theoretical concepts.
The use of irrelevant theoretical knowledge occurs in case of incorrect or improbable
statements 42 or intuitive judgments in which theoretical knowledge has no meaning and
has only been ‘mentioned.’
Characteristics level 2: reproductive or mechanical use for theory
Visible and relevant use of a theoretical concept can be seen in a sentence or in a cluster
of sentences.
Where two or more theoretical concepts or theoretical notions are being used, there is
no visible insight from the student teacher into the coherence between those concepts or
notions of concepts. No use of relative language is observed, either on its own or in
combination with demonstrative language.
Mainly reproduction of theory takes place.
Judging with the benefit of a theoretical concept occurs on the basis of simple reasoning.
Characteristics level 3: integrating and synthesizing theory
A visible and relevant use of two or more theoretical concepts is observed, with visible
insight by the student teacher into the coherence between those concepts or notions of
concepts.
Judgments and conclusions are made with the benefit of theoretical concepts on the basis
of logical reasoning (if... then implications, use of arguments, (re)considering, making
relationships, generalizing), among other things with reference to literature. Sometimes a
student’s ‘own theory’ is formulated and founded; reconstruction of theory takes place.
In section 3.9 the concept of ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge’ (EPK) was
introduced as a derivation of the concept of ‘practical knowledge.’ Within the
framework of this study, level 3 of the use of theory is seen as an important indicator for
theoretical enrichment of practical knowledge.
139
Table 5.2 gives an overview of the twelve categories for the nature (horizontal) and the
level (vertical) of theory use by students. Table 5.3 shows examples of each of these
categories and table 5.4 describes some examples of doubtful cases encountered by
experts when scoring the meaningful units.
Table 5.2 Reflection Analysis Tool. Brief description of the twelve score combinations
A B C D
Factual Interpreting Explaining Responding,
description For instance For instance gearing to
facts: who, opinion or ‘explaining For instance,
what, where, conclusion why’ anticipation,
how without continuation or
foundation alternative design,
meta-cognitive
reactions
A1 B1 C1 D1
Factual Interpretation of Explanation of Description,
description of events without events without alternative event,
Level 1 events without use of theoretical use of continuation or meta-
use of concepts. theoretical cognition without use
theoretical concepts. of theoretical
concepts. concepts.
A2 B2 C2 D2
description of events using one events using alternative event,
events using one or more one or more continuation or meta-
Level 2 or more theoretical theoretical cognition using one
theoretical concepts without concepts or more theoretical
concepts mutual without mutual concepts without
without mutual connection. connection. mutual connection.
connection.
A3 B3 C3 D3
description of events using one events using alternative event,
events using one or more one or more continuation or meta-
theoretical concepts with a concepts with a or more theoretical
concepts with a meaningful meaningful concepts with a
meaningful connection. connection. meaningful
connection. connection.
The units (table 5.3) have been borrowed from reflective notes in the final student
teachers’ assessment (appendix 12), which was the closure of the course within the
framework of the research.
140
Table 5.3. Examples of the combinations A1 up to D3

Score Example of the meaningful unit
combination
A1 At the front of the class there is a suitcase with tennis balls.
Explanation: This is an actual reproduction of the situation. No theoretical
concept is used.
B1 Before the teacher counted the balls in the suitcase together with the children,
she probably told them the exciting story of how the suitcase got into the
classroom. You can see that the children are very involved in this lesson.
Explanation: The first sentence is an interpretation of what might have
happened before the observed situation; the word 'probably' is an indication,
just like the expression ‘very involved’ in the second sentence. The word
‘exciting’ in the first sentence shows a ‘weaker’ signal.
No theoretical concept is used.
C1 It is precisely the choice for a large quantity of balls that evokes students’ thinking.
The large number of balls makes it less likely that they will just count them.
Explanation: It is indicated why teacher Minke sets the students thinking.
No theoretical concept is used.
D1 Placing the cylinders with balls might have been done at a slower pace, which
could give space for doing arithmetic in between; this is how I would do it in any
case.
Explanation: In the reflection the student teacher gears towards concepts of a
possible alternative for the teacher’s approach in the observed situation. No
theory is used.
A2 The suitcase with balls that was put down by ‘Black Piet’ is used by Minke as a
reason to count (in a structured way) with the children. The fragment starts at
the moment that the balls are snatched away and are put in transparent cylinders.
Explanation: It is a factual reproduction of a situation, in which one theoretical
concept (structured counting) is used.
B2 The children count once more up to 100 in the same way (strategy) Fariet did.
Minke indicates that Fariets’ way of thinking makes sense; that response will
reinforce his self-confidence.
Explanation: The second sentence points towards an interpretation of the
situation; one theoretical concept (strategy) is used. The final clause can be
seen as a notion of the concept ‘pedagogical climate.’
C2 Minke is working with the whole group. Counting together with jumps carries
the danger that not everybody participates in the activity. I can see that with two
children who are doing different things while the class is counting.
Explanation: The student teacher postulates a ‘thesis’ and an associated ‘proof’
for it.
Theoretical concepts are used (group teaching, to count with jumps); however,
those concepts do not have a coherent meaning that is relevant for the third
level of using theory.
141
D2 Hereafter, it could be possible to let make the students a table network, starting
with the sum 20 x 5 = 100; hang it up and discuss it.
Explanation: The student teacher gears to the given situation in terms of a
possible continuation on the observed activities.
One theoretical concept (table network) is used.
A3 By moving the cylinders the teacher makes another grid model. Now there is a
rectangle of 10 x 10. Next, she let the students give meaning to the new model,
working with doubling and halving in a very concrete way. She emphasizes that
the multiplication is/sounds different, but that the answer remains the same. She
writes the new multiplication on the blackboard as well and again connects the
concrete and the abstract sum.
Explanation: This is a factual reproduction of three successive events. Three
pedagogical concepts (grid model, rectangle model and doubling and halving)
are used coherently.
B3 Fariet gives a handy solution for 13 x 5. He immediately thinks of the
multiplication that is really represented by the 13 cylinders. So far his class has
only done the tables up to 10 x 5 (I assume), but he already understands how to
calculate the five times table above 10 x 5.
Explanation: The words and expressions ‘handy,’ ‘he immediately thinks of,’ ‘I
assume’ and ‘he already understands ... above 10x5,’ indicate an interpretation
of the situation.
The concepts ‘multiplication 13x5,’ the ‘13 cylinders’ (notion of material) and
the ‘tables up to 10 x’ are used coherently.
C3 The class already comes up with 2 x 5 followed by 3 x 5. Because she visualises
the five times table for the children, they can also tell a story to accompany a
problem. 1 x 5 will be possible to see as 1 tube times 5 balls. She also makes a
connection between concrete material and a grid model. At one point Clayton is
counting 10 x 5, the teacher confirms this for the class. In fact a transition is
being made here from multiplication by counting to structured multiplication.
Explanation: the whole text has the character of an explanatory description,
with the words ‘because,’ ‘also’ and ‘in fact’ functioning among other things as
signal words. Seven concepts are used in connection (five times table, visualises,
story to accompany a problem, concrete material, grid model, multiplication by
counting and structured multiplication).
D3 Do the children really see the tens in the rectangle model? The teacher could
have asked on with Fariet: “Fariet, how do you see the 10, 20...? Can you tell me
or point it out, Fariet?”
Explanation: The student teacher anticipates the situation in terms of a possible
alternative for the teacher’s approach. The concepts ‘tens,’ 'really see’ (notion of
structure), ‘rectangle model’ and ‘asking on’ are used coherently.
In some cases there was some doubt about the score combination for a unit. This doubt
was expressed in differences between expert scores or by both experts finding at first
that a unit qualified for two or three scores.
142
Below (table 5.4) some examples of such doubtful cases are described, together with the
considerations that led to an unequivocal score combination.
Table 5.4 Examples of doubtful cases of scoring units

Example 1
Unit In this fragment we see teacher Minke, teaching grade 2. Using a splendid
context, ‘The trunk full of balls,’ she teaches learning to multiply.
Doubt between A2 and B2
The first sentence has an A-character. However, the expressions ‘splendid
context’ and ‘learning to multiply’ in the second sentence indicate
Considerations interpretation (B). It is not clear how ‘learning’ is taken here: learning to
by the experts multiply in general? Has the first introduction been meant, the conceptual
attainment of learning to multiply? Because of the link to the ‘trunk full of
balls,’ the application of the concept ‘context’ can be considered as
meaningful use of a theoretical concept. Level 3 is not reached: no
meaningful relationship has been made between theoretical concepts.
Conclusion B2
by the experts
Example 2
Unit At first, you would think that this fragment belongs to the introductory stage
of learning to multiply, because it starts out with a context (with the balls), in
which the five times table of multiplying is hidden. One can watch the
children counting smoothly by fives and even making a link between the
table of 5 and 10, doubling, halving and, counting with jumps on the number
line. Soon after this, strategies are used and links are made. Therefore, you
could also say: these activities belong to the memorizing stage of learning to
multiply. This is strange: contexts, materials, but nevertheless the
memorizing stage (or not?).
Doubt between C3 and D3
Considerations The first part of the text reflects a C-character: the assumption that the
of the experts fragment belongs to the introductory stage of learning to multiply, is founded
with an argument. On the other hand the expression ‘at first you would think’
has a fairly subjective, non-neutral character, which is typical for D (and for
B). The same could be said about the sentence ‘Therefore, you could also
say: these activities belong to the memorizing stage of learning to multiply.’
In the last sentence the author of this unit asks himself a question, as a result
of the situation; that underpins the choice for score D.
Concerning the level of theory, it is obvious that this text characterises level
3, showing meaningful relations between several theoretical concepts,
namely some stages of learning to multiply, materials, context, the five times
table, counting with jumps and doubling and halving.
Conclusion D3
by the experts
143
5.3.6.5 Scoring procedure

The procedure, done by two experts 43, was aimed at improving and validating the
instrument in a cycle of random samples coding, discussion and revision. Finally the
reliability was established in a random sample of 15 students (see next section and
appendix 17).
- The students’ assignments for the initial and final assessment (appendix 11 and 12)
were studied, along with the accompanying video fragments and transcripts.
- The theoretical backgrounds (theoretical concepts, practical knowledge) of the
situations were mapped.
- A score was made for each individual student based on the definitions from the
analysis instrument.
- The student’s reflective memo was split into meaningful units; each unit was
checked to see if it contained theory use.
- Each unit was assigned a letter and a number to indicate nature and level of theory
use (initial assessment: number; final assessment: combination of letter and number),
as well as the number of theoretical concepts (6 categories for the initial and the final
assessment each; see section 5.4.1). The data were collected and ordered on a score
form (Guidelines for rating nature and level of use of theory; appendix 16)
- If one unit could be assigned several (intermediate) scores, the highest one was
counted. The highest score in such cases was determined by the following order of
combinations: A1, B1, C1, D1, A2, B2, C2, D2, A3, B3, C3, D3. Note that the
final score in that case was not necessarily determined by the final sentence in the
unit, nor by the final score within the unit.
- The judge was focused on possible level 3 scores going across more than one unit.
- When there was hesitation between two possible scores, the video fragment or the
transcript of that fragment from the initial or final assessment was studied and
scored again; the last score was considered final (see examples table 5.3).
- Inaccurate, irrelevant or judged to be unlikely statements were scored as level 1.
5.3.6.6 Reliability of the instrument
The reflection analysis instrument has been revised a number of times on the basis of
comments made by experts in the Netherlands and abroad (appendix 10). Finally, in a
random sample of 15 students out of 269 the interrater reliability was determined
(appendix 17). That led to the four following results. The Cohens Kappa for the level of
the initial assessment was 0,85. The Cohens Kappa for the nature and the level of the
final assessment was 0,80 respectively 0,86 and for the combination of nature and level
of the final assessment the outcome was κ = 0,77.
The next step in the procedure was for the researcher to score the reflective notes and
assessments of the remaining 254 student teachers.
144
5.4 Analysis and results
5.4.1 Introduction
The data collection of the large scale study involves the data of 269 students over 11
Pabos (table 5.1). According to the procedure described earlier, the initial assessment
has been scored for the level of theory use and the final assessment for nature and level
of theory use. The initial assessment consisted of four situations, each aimed at one of
the categories for the nature of theory use. For the purpose of scoring, the final
assessments had been divided into a total of 1740 meaningful units, on average seven
units per student (table 5.5).
Table 5.5 Statistics units in final assessment

N Valid 246
Missing 23
Mean 7,07
Median 7,00
Mode 6
Std. deviation 1,794
Minimum 4
Maximum 13
Sum 1740
For nature as well as level of theory use, each student has been scored on the number of
theoretical concepts used. Here, a division into six categories was made for both the
initial and the final assessment. 44
The scores of the numeracy tests have been included in the data collection both for the
individual problems and in total. This is also the case for the students’ own evaluation
on a five-point scale of the difficulty of each problem. A variable ‘personal evaluation
index’ (PEI) has also been created (see also section 5.3.4.2), which is the difference
between 2M-S, where M is the total of the difficulty scores and S the total of the
problem scores. PEI gives a positive result if students overrate themselves and a
negative result if they underrate themselves. It might be possible to see PEI as a
measure for self-confidence.
In the following overview all variables are mentioned that have data stored in SPSS.
The variables:
Pabo (Primary Teacher Training College), class, group size, study year, type of study,
prior education, gender, practical experience, number of concepts (pedagogical content
knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, different concepts, for begin and end,
comparing number of similar concepts (pck, gpk) start and end, level initial
assessment, number of units, nature of theory use (also in percentages), level of theory
145
use (also in percentages), number of combinations (also in percentages), assessment

numeracy, difficulty, Personal Evaluation Index (PEI).
Using various SPSS (version 15.0) tools, equations have been created to make the
variables and data accessible for analysis.
Next, an account is given of the analysis and the results for each research question.
5.4.2 Analysis and results of the first research question

The first research question is:
In what way do student teachers use theoretical knowledge when they describe
practical situations after spending a period in a learning environment that invites
the use of theory?
Considerations for research question 1
The expectation is that, where the nature of theory use is involved, students will
relatively often ‘factually represent’ (category A). A number of arguments can be
provided for that assumption. To start with, factual description – as the first in the
inclusion relationship – has an obvious function as the start of a description. Moreover,
it seems likely that a number of students will not get beyond factual description in their
reflection. Those will mainly be the students that score highest in category A. It is
plausible that this will largely involve students in lower years or students with a lower
level of prior education, primarily because the pedagogical (content) jargon of lower
year students will generally be less developed than that of higher year students. Without
a sufficiently large pedagogical repertoire it is harder to let reflection rise above the
level of factual description. Moreover we expect that factual description will occur more
in the group of students with a lower level of prior education than in students with a
higher level of prior education, because factual description requires less cognitive
abilities than explaining and responding to situations.
The two final statements – regarding a limited jargon and a lower level of prior education
– are also valid for interpreting (category B). In addition, experience teaches that students
at the start of their study have a tendency to be faster to reach a judgement about the
teacher or the students they are observing than students in later years. This is an added
reason to expect interpreting to occur more with first year than with later year students.
To explain teaching situations (category C) students must possess a sufficient pedagogical

repertoire and cognitive ability. It is therefore likely that we will find students who tend to
apply this type of theory use among the later year students or among students with a
higher level of prior education.
146
Responding to situations (category D) is likely to be scored relatively little, since that

activity requires a high cognitive level and some creative input.
Regarding the use of concepts the study distinguishes between general pedagogical and
pedagogical content concepts. Students tend to react spontaneously, and primarily in
general terms to teaching situations. This is understandable, since the general
pedagogical jargon is aimed at the whole of the action taken by teacher and students and
is more often used in both course and teaching practice. Often, intervention by the
teacher educator or by student peers is required in the discourse to focus on content-
specific aspects of the situation that has been observed.
The expectation is therefore that students will more often use general rather than
content-specific concepts in their reflections on teaching situations. It is also plausible
that students who explain or respond to situations more, will also use more theoretical
concepts, and vice versa; if you have more theoretical concepts at your disposal, there is
more of a chance for explaining or ‘responding.’
The above considerations lead to three hypotheses regarding the nature of theory use.
Hypothesis 1.1
The characteristics of the nature of theory use will manifest to various degrees, with
‘factual description’ as a category with a relatively high frequency.
Hypothesis 1.2
The characteristics of factual description and interpreting for the nature of theory use
will occur most often with lower year students or with students with a lower level of
prior education, while explaining and ‘responding to’ will mostly occur with later year
students or students with a higher level of prior education.
Hypothesis 1.3
Students will mainly use theoretical concepts to explain teaching situations and to
respond to situations. This will involve general pedagogical concepts more often than
pedagogical content concepts.
Data analysis and results hypothesis 1.1

To be able to research the hypothesis, first the variables ‘percentage X’ (X = A, B, C or
D) for the four categories of the nature of theory use are entered. The different numbers
of units per students necessitate the creation of a comparable measure.
Quantitatively speaking the first hypothesis can be answered simply by giving the four
percentages that arise from the descriptive analysis of the percentages X. The output of
that indicates a division into respectively 25, 12, 42 and 21 as the average percentages
scored by students in the categories A to D (factual description, interpretation,
explanation and ‘responding to’; see table 5.6).
147
Table 5.6 Statistics mean percentages for the nature of theory use
percentage A percentage B percentage C percentage D
factual interpretation explanation ‘responding
description to’
N Valid 246 246 246 246
Missing 23 23 23 23
Mean percentage 25,30 11,62 41,96 21,11
Std. deviation 25,320 18,077 28,423 20,898
Furthermore, 38% of the students starts the reflective note with a factual description of
the teaching situation, 19% even scores category A on both unit 1 and 2.
The results partly confirm the first hypothesis. While factual description (A) does score
high (25%), explanation (C) has a score of 42%, which is by far the highest percentage,
and category D also scores higher than expected.
Because the percentages mentioned for category A to D relate to the average percentages
scored by students (with standard deviations of 18 to 28%), and not to percentages of the
population or numbers of students per category, we also look at groups of students where
the nature of the use of theory is relatively often aimed at one specific category. This gives
us an extra opportunity to look for specific student characteristics that belong with certain
characteristics for the nature of theory use. For this purpose we define the concept
‘characteristic dominance’ as that characteristic of theory use where the students scores at
least 50% of the total number of units in the category that occurs most often 45. The seven
students who score 50% in two categories are left out of consideration (table 5.7).
Table 5.7 Students with two 50% scores for the nature of theory use
number Student nr.
Perc A = perc B = 50% 1 164
Perc A = perc C = 50% 3 75, 163 and 238
Perc A = perc D = 50% 1 107
Perc C = perc D = 50% 2 260 and 262
Total 7
Data selection and frequency analysis provide the following view of the percentages and
the numbers of students in the four categories:
Table 5.8 Statistics characteristic dominance

perc A ≥50 perc B ≥ 50 perc C ≥ 50 perc D ≥ 50
(FILTER) (FILTER) (FILTER) (FILTER)
N Valid 239 239 239 239
Missing 23 23 23 23
Percentages of population 17,6 6,7 43,5 11,7
Number of student teachers 42 16 104 28
148
It turns out that as much as 79,5% of the students dominates in one of the four
categories (190 out of 239 students; table 5.8). It may be possible to explain that result
from the differences in learning or writing style between students (Kolb, 1984;
Vermunt, 1992). The ranking of the category percentages X ≥ 50% matches that of the
category percentages X. Here too the relatively high frequency of category C stands out.
It turns out that 43,5% of students belongs to the category percentage C ≥ 50.
The higher-than-expected percentage C and ‘C-dominance’ may be related to the fact

that the student population consists of a relatively large number of higher-year students
(84% second and third year) and students with a relatively high prior education level
(havo – senior general secondary education – with mathematics 36%; vwo with
mathematics 19%). We will look further into this conjecture for hypothesis 1.2. The
influence of the learning environment may be another factor that has reinforced the
explanatory character of students’ reflections.
Where factual description is involved, linear regression analysis points to a significant
negative correlation between both category A and category percentage A > 50% and
students’ prior education (respectively sig. 0,041; beta –0,131 and sig. 0,003; beta –
0,195).
Further analysis on prior education indicates a significant positive correlation between

both category A and category percentage A ≥ 50% and the students with an mbo
education without mathematics (respectively sig. 0,041; beta 0,130 and sig. 0,013; beta
0,160; table 5.9).
Table 5.9
Correlation nature and prior education Beta Sig.
Percentage A (factual description) and prior education -0,131 0,041
Percentage A ≥ 50 and prior education -0,195 0,003
Percentage A and mbo without mathematics 0,130 0,041
Percentage A ≥ 50 and mbo without mathematics 0,160 0,013
Percentage A and vwo with mathematics -0,099 0,127
Percentage A ≥ 50 and vwo with mathematics -0,106 0,103
Percentage B (interpretation) and prior education -0,129 0,043

Percentage B ≥ 50 and prior education -0,042 0,514
Percentage B and mbo without mathematics 0,092 0,151
Percentage B and vwo with mathematics -0,043 0,498
149
Table 5.9
Correlation nature and prior education Beta Sig.
Percentage C (explanation) and prior education 0,243 0,000
Percentage C ≥ 50 and prior education 0,275 0,000
Percentage C and mbo without mathematics -0,202 0,001
Percentage C ≥ 50 and mbo without mathematics -0,246 0,000
Percentage C and vwo with mathematics 0,138 0,031
Percentage C ≥ 50 and vwo with mathematics 0,149 0,021
Percentage D (‘responding to’) and prior education -0,051 0,426

Percentage D ≥ 50 and prior education -0,037 0,573
There is a negative trend for the correlation between the percentage interpretation
(category B) and the students’ prior education (sig. 0,043; beta –0,129).
For explaining (percentage C and percentage C ≥ 50), linear regression analysis points
towards a significant positive correlation with students’ prior education, likewise for the
specific case of vwo with mathematics. Conversely, mbo without mathematics has, as
expected, a significant negative correlation with percentage C and percentage C ≥ 50.
For ‘responding to’ (percentage D and percentage D ≥ 50) there is no significant
correlation with students’ prior education.
As far as the correlation between the nature of theory use and the year in which students
are, linear regression analysis only shows a significant relation for explaining (category
C). Other than what was expected, that correlation is negative (table 5.10). A more
detailed analysis shows that the correlation is positive for the first year – and negative
for the third year. It seems likely that a combination of the following factors can explain
these correlations. First, a negative correlation has been found for explaining and mbo
without mathematics as prior education, and a positive one for explaining and vwo with
mathematics (table 5.9). In addition, the first-year students are mainly vwo with
mathematics students and many of the third-year students have mbo without
mathematics (table 5.1).
Table 5.10
Correlation nature and year of study Beta Sig.
Percentage A (factual description) and year of study 0,096 0,134
Percentage A ≥ 50 and year of study 0,079 0,222
Percentage B (interpretation) and year of study 0,010 0,879
Percentage B ≥ 50 and year of study -0,054 0,408
Percentage C (explanation) and year of study -0,169 0,008
Percentage C ≥ 50 and year of study -0,130 0,044
150
Table 5.10
Correlation nature and year of study Beta Sig.
Percentage C and study year 1 0,128 0,046
Percentage C ≥ 50 and study year 1 0,079 0,226
Percentage C and study year 2 0,070 0,273
Percentage C ≥ 50 and study year 2 0,086 0,186
Percentage C and study year 3 -0,157 0,013
Percentage C ≥ 50 and study year 3 -0,136 0,036
Percentage D (‘responding to’) and year of study 0,105 0,101
Percentage D ≥ 50 and year of study 0,068 0,292
In summary we can say that the characteristics for the nature of theory use that were
assumed in hypothesis 1.2 mainly occur for factual description (category A) and
explaining (category C). This happens particularly for students with a prior education of
mbo without mathematics (more factual description, less explaining) and students with
vwo with mathematics (more explaining).
As far as the variable year of study – and particularly for years 1 and 3 – the results
(table 5.10) confirm the characteristics that were mentioned for the category explaining,
keeping in mind the specific composition of the student population (first year mainly
vwo with mathematics, many mbo students without mathematics in the third year).
Linear regression analysis shows a clear confirmation of hypothesis 1.3 for explaining
teaching situations (table 5.11). A significant positive correlation appears between the
percentage C – and percentage C ≥ 50 as well – and the number of theoretical concepts.
The significant negative correlation between factual description – and to a lesser degree
interpreting – and the number of theoretical concepts, can be seen as additional support
for that confirmation.
No significant relationship has been shown for responding to situations. Perhaps the
learning environment has been an influence to the extent of responding to situations
shown by students, although it seems unlikely that this influence is dominant, since the
meetings and the individual study materials did not just give attention to explaining, but
also to responding to situations. It is also possible that responding to situations is a
habitual action, something that appears to require no theory.
Also remarkable are the strong correlation between explaining (both percentage C and
percentage C ≥ 50) and the amount of general pedagogic concepts used, and the
absence of any correlation between the nature of theory use and the amount of
pedagogic content concepts. There was an expectation of a difference in use between
general pedagogic and pedagogic content concepts, but not this large. This point
151
requires closer analysis. Perhaps the level of theory use plays a part; we will look into
this in research question 2.
We see another ‘opposite’ in the significant negative correlation between factual
description and the number of general pedagogic concepts used, as well as a negative
trend in relation to the correlation between the percentage interpreting and the amount
of theoretical concepts.
In connection with the outcomes of hypothesis 1.2 (table 5.9), it is to be expected that mbo
students without mathematics will use fewer concepts and vwo students with mathematics
will use more. Linear regression analysis does in fact show a significant negative
correlation between students who have mbo without mathematics as their prior education
and the number of general pedagogic concepts used (table 5.12). No correlation exists
between vwo with mathematics and the number of general pedagogic concepts.
Table 5.11
Correlation nature of theory use and number of used concepts Beta Sig.
Percentage A (factual description) and number of theoretical concepts -0,197 0,002
Percentage A ≥ 50 and number of theoretical concepts -0,197 0,002
Percentage A and number of general pedagogical concepts -0,256 0,000
Percentage A ≥ 50 and number of general pedagogical concepts -0,217 0,001
Percentage A and number of pedagogical content concepts -0,050 0,435
Percentage A ≥ 50 and number of pedagogical content concepts -0,101 0,118
Percentage B (interpretation) and number of theoretical concepts -0,130 0,041
Percentage B ≥ 50 and number of theoretical concepts -0,101 0,120
Percentage B and number of general pedagogical concepts -0,107 0,094
Percentage B ≥ 50 and number of general pedagogical concepts -0,169 0,287
Percentage B and number of pedagogical content concepts -0,116 0,070
Percentage B ≥ 50 and number of pedagogical content concepts -0,106 0,101
Percentage C (explanation) and number of theoretical concepts 0,218 0,001
Percentage C ≥ 50 and number of theoretical concepts 0,159 0,014
Percentage C and number of general pedagogical concepts 0,262 0,000
Percentage C ≥ 50 and number of general pedagogical concepts 0,209 0,001
Percentage C and number of pedagogical content concepts 0,086 0,181
Percentage C ≥ 50 and number of pedagogical content concepts 0,039 0,552
Percentage D (‘responding to’) and number of theoretical concepts 0,054 0,400
Percentage D ≥ 50 and number of theoretical concepts 0,003 0,961
The final result can be explained as follows. The group of students with vwo-with
mathematics as their prior education mainly consists of first-year students who have an
152
as yet undeveloped pedagogical (content) jargon. Furthermore, they have not yet gained
much experience in reasoning about teaching situations, which is expressed in the fact
that these students explain less (see table 5.9) than might be expected on the basis of
their prior education.
Another remarkable point is the significant negative correlation between students with prior
education mbo without mathematics and the used number of general pedagogical concept in
opposition to the significant positive correlation between students with mbo with
mathematics as their prior education and the number of general pedagogical concepts used
(table 5.12). It puts the group of students with mbo without mathematics in a special light.
Table 5.12
Correlation pre-education and number of concepts used Beta Sig.
MBO without mathematics and number of general pedagogical concepts -0,142 0,026
MBO with mathematics and number of general pedagogical concepts 0,154 0,016
VWO with mathematics and number of theoretical concepts 0,051 0,424
5.4.3 Analysis and results of the second research question

The second research question is:
What is the theoretical quality of statements made by the student teachers when
they describe practical situations?
Considerations for research question 2

As far as the level of the average percentages scored by the students for the levels of use
of theory, it is impossible to give a considered opinion. At most it seems reasonable to
predict that the average percentage for level 3 will be the lowest, simply because level 3
is the hardest to reach, highest level.
Concerning the use of theoretical concepts, it is obvious to assume that there is a
relationship, both in the initial and in the final assessment, between the level of theory
use and the number of concepts that is applied. For both the initial and the final
assessment, for the teaching situations, respectively the units, the levels of theory use
have been determined on the basis of a definition where theoretical concepts are the
determining factor for the level (section 5.3.6.4). The more concepts are used, the higher
the chance to score level 3 and vice versa. It might also be the case that students who
possess more theoretical knowledge, are challenged to higher cognitive activities or
perhaps the difference in levels comes from a potentially present difference in cognitive
capacity between students. Being able to (re)construct a meaningful relationship
between theoretical concepts, this is use of theory at level 3, demands, along with
possession of a pedagogical (content) repertoire, the ability and the experience to
adequately use or refine the cognitive network.
153
Finally, the random sample has also shown that there usually is a meaningful relationship
between concepts in units where two or more theoretical concepts occur. Our conclusion
is that use of theory at level 3 will be achieved more often by students with a higher
cognitive level (read: higher prior education) or students from a later study year.
Furthermore, we expect the relationship between the number of concepts and the level
to manifest stronger in the final assessment than in the initial one, as the students have
had the opportunity in between, that is to say within the learning environment of the
course, to expand their repertoire.
The above considerations lead to two hypotheses regarding the level of theory use.
Hypothesis 2.1
Students who use more theoretical concepts reflect at a higher level and vice versa. This
will be more strongly expressed in the final assessment than in the initial one.
Hypothesis 2.2
The first level of theory use will mainly be found in first year students or in students
with a lower level of prior education, while level 3 will mainly manifest in third or
second year students or in students with a higher level of prior education.

Descriptive analysis of the levels reveals that the average percentages of the three levels
are not far apart, with an average of 35%, 29% and 36% for respectively levels 1, 2 and
3 (see table 5.13).
Table 5.13 Statistics mean percentages for the level of theory use
percentage level 1 percentage level 2 percentage level 3
N Valid 246 246 246
Missing 23 23 23
Mean percentage 34,64 29,45 35,92
Std. deviation 24,951 17,950 25,575
The average percentage for level 3 is higher than expected. As was assumed earlier, that
higher percentage may have been caused by the relatively large number of second and
third year students or the percentage of the student population with a relatively ‘high’
prior education.
For the same reasons as with the categories for the nature of theory use, here too we will
look at the groups of students for whom the level of theory use is relatively often aimed
at one specific level. For that purpose we define the concept of ‘level dominance’ as the
level of theory use where the student scores at least 50% of the total number of units on
the level that occurs most. The five students who scored just 50% on two levels are left
out of consideration (table 5.14).
154
Table 5.14 Students with two 50% scores for the level of theory use
number student nr.
Level 1 = level 2 = 50% 1 121
Level 1 = level 3 = 50% 2 46, 159
Level 2 = level 3 = 50% 2 127, 186
Total 5
Data selection and frequency analysis give the following view of the percentages and
numbers of students (table 5.15).
Table 5.15 Mean percentages levels 1, 2, 3 ≥ 50%

Perclevel 1 ≥ 50 Perclevel 2 ≥ 50 Perclevel 3 ≥ 50
(FILTER) (FILTER) (FILTER)
N Valid 241 241 241
Missing 23 23 23
Percentage of population 30,3 15,8 30,3
Number of student teachers 73 38 73
Remarkable are the – coincidentally identical – relatively high percentages for levels 1
and 3. Linear regression analysis confirms hypothesis 2.1 on several points (see tables
5.16a and 5.16b). First, the analysis reveals that there is in fact a significant positive
correlation between level 3 of theory use and the number of theoretical concepts used,
both for percentage level 3 as for percentage level 3 ≥ 50%. Moreover, a significant
positive correlation is valid for the number of different theoretical concepts used in the
initial and final assessments.
Table 5.16a
Correlation level 3 and number of concepts in the initial assessment Beta Sig.
Percentage level 3 and number of theoretical concepts 0,204 0,002
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of theoretical concepts 0,171 0,011
Percentage level 3 and number of pedagogical content concepts 0,126 0,061
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of pedagogical content concepts 0,062 0,352
Percentage level 3 and number of general pedagogical concepts 0,220 0,001
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of general pedagogical concepts 0,205 0,002
Percentage level 3 and number of different theoretical concepts 0,222 0,001
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of different theoretical concepts 0,147 0,029
Percentage level 3 and number of different pedagogical content concepts 0,085 0,205
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of different pedagogical content concepts -0,002 0,980
Percentage level 3 and number of different general pedagogical concepts 0,264 0,001
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of different general pedagogical concepts 0,226 0,001
155
Table 5.16b
Correlation level 3 and number of concepts in the final assessment Beta Sig.
Percentage level 3 and number of theoretical concepts 0,820 0,000
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of theoretical concepts 0,681 0,000
Percentage level 3 and number of pedagogical content concepts 0,661 0,000
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of pedagogical content concepts 0,524 0,000
Percentage level 3 and number of general pedagogical concepts 0,720 0,000
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of general pedagogical concepts 0,618 0,000
Percentage level 3 and number of different theoretical concepts 0,755 0,000
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of different theoretical concepts 0,611 0,000
Percentage level 3 and number of different pedagogical content concepts 0,587 0,000
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of different pedagogical content concepts 0,436 0,000
Percentage level 3 and number of different general pedagogical concepts 0,685 0,000
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and number of different general pedagogical concepts 0,575 0,000
As expected the correlation is stronger in the final than in the initial assessment.
A remarkable difference can be found between the general pedagogical concepts and the
pedagogical content concepts. There is a significant positive correlation between the number
of general pedagogical concepts and level 3 of the initial assessment, and that correlation is
stronger in the final assessment for this category too. However, for the number of
pedagogical content concepts and level 3 there is only a significant (strong) correlation in the
final assessment, both for the percentage level 3 and the percentage level 3 ≥ 50%. It can be
taken as a given that the learning environment of the course is the cause of this correlation. It
is true in all cases that the significant correlation with the number of general pedagogical
concepts is stronger than that with the number of pedagogical content concepts.
Within the framework of hypothesis 1.3 we discussed the strong correlation between
explaining (both percentage C as percentage C ≥ 50) and the number of general
pedagogical concepts used and the absence of any correlation between the nature of
theory use and the number of pedagogical content concepts used (table 5.11). That there
is a positive correlation between level 3 and the number of pedagogical content
concepts, albeit not as strong as with the number of general pedagogical concepts, may
be linked to the more dependant relationship between the number of concepts and the
level definition than is the case for the number of concepts and explaining. Also, the
content-related differences and the difference in the range of general pedagogical and
pedagogical content concepts have been highlighted before (hypothesis 1.3).
We can find one more confirmation of hypothesis 2.1 in the outcome of the linear
regression analysis in relation to the correlations between level 1 and the number of
concepts used.
156
These correlations with respect to the final assessment are almost a mirror image of those for
level 3, that is to say, virtually the same strength, but in a significant negative direction.
For the initial assessment the (negative) correlation is weaker in the absolute sense,
moreover – in contrast to the initial assessment of level 3 – there is a significant correlation
between percentage level 1 ≥ 50% and the number of different pedagogical content
concepts. That correlation is negative, like the other numbers of concepts related to level 1.
Data-analysis and results hypothesis 2.2
Linear regression analysis shows that study year one has a significant positive correlation
with percentage level 1 and significantly negative with percentage level 3 (table 5.17a and
5.17b). So this is a confirmation of the hypothesis, though with the following comment.
Taking into account that the first year students are all in the three-year programme for vwo
students, it apparently means that here the study year (experience, available knowledge
repertoire) and not prior education (for instance cognitive ability), is the determining factor.
Apart from that, there is no high correlation between study year one and level 1, which may
be linked to the relatively high prior education. A weak correlation has been found between
prior education and percentage level 1 and percentage level 1 ≥ 50% (table 5.18a).
Study year two has a significant negative correlation with level 1 and a significant positive
one with level 3, another confirmation of the hypothesis (table 5.17a and 5.17b).
There is no significant correlation between study year 3 and percentage level 1 and a
negative correlation between study year 3 and percentage level 3 ≥ 50% (table 5.17a and
5.17b). So study year 3 is out of line with hypothesis 2.2. An explanation is the relatively
high percentage of students with mbo without mathematics as their prior education and that
group scores significantly negative on percentage level 3 and percentage level 3 ≥ 50%
(table 5.18b).
Noteworthy is the significant positive correlation between percentage level 3 and prior
education mbo with mathematics (table 5.18b).
The positive correlation between level 3 and prior education vwo (table 5.18b) also confirms
hypothesis 2.2, but the correlation is lower than expected for the same reason mentioned for
level 1, namely that the vwo students are for the larger part first year students.
Table 5.17a
Correlation level 1 and study year Beta Sig.
Percentage level 1 and study year 1 0,153 0,017
Percentage level 1 ≥ 50 and study year 1 0,170 0,008
Percentage level 1 and study year 2 -0,187 0,003
Percentage level 1 ≥ 50 and study year 2 -0,159 0,013
157
Table 5.17b
Correlation level 3 and study year Beta Sig.
Table 5.18a
Correlation level 1 and prior education Beta Sig.
Percentage level 1 and mbo without mathematics 0,094 0,143
Percentage level 1 ≥ 50 and mbo without mathematics 0,047 0,468
Percentage level 1 and mbo with mathematics -0,137 0,032
Percentage level 1 ≥ 50 and mbo with mathematics -0,132 0,040
Percentage level 1 and havo without mathematics 0,068 0,287
Percentage level 1 ≥ 50 and havo without mathematics 0,035 0,588
Percentage level 1 and havo with mathematics 0,038 0,552
Percentage level 1 ≥ 50 and havo with mathematics 0,029 0,652
Percentage level 1 and vwo without mathematics -0,136 0,033
Percentag level 1 ≥ 50 and vwo without mathematics -0,078 0,222
Percentage level 1 and vwo with mathematics -0,032 0,615
Percentage level 1 ≥ 50 and vwo with mathematics 0,013 0,838
Table 5.18b
Correlation level 3 and prior education Beta Sig.
Percentage level 3 and mbo without mathematics -0,145 0,023
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and mbo without mathematics -0,133 0,039
Percentage level 3 and mbo with mathematics 0,159 0,013
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and mbo with mathematics 0,167 0,010
Percentage level 3 and havo without mathematics -0063 0,322
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and havo without mathematics -0,119 0,062
Percentage level 3 and havo with mathematics -0,021 0,745
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and havo with mathematics -0,006 0,931
Percentage level 3 and vwo without mathematics 0,143 0,024
Percentag level 3 ≥ 50 and vwo without mathematics 0,056 0,384
Percentage level 3 and vwo with mathematics 0,074 0,245
Percentage level 3 ≥ 50 and vwo with mathematics 0,127 0,047
158
5.4.4 Analysis and results of the third research question

The third research question is:
3a. Is there a meaningful relationship between the nature and the level of theory
use? If so, how is that relationship expressed in the various components of theory
use and in various groups of students?
3b. To what extent is there a relationship between the nature or the level of the
student teachers’ use of theory and their level of numeracy?
Considerations for research question 3a.
There are reasons to assume that there is a relationship between the nature and the level
of theory use.
First, there are signals from the small scale study that students who function at a
relatively high level do more often tend to explain and respond, and on the other hand
factual description and interpreting mostly go with a lower level of theory use.
Also, the analyses resulting from the first and second research questions have shown
that the differences in the size of students’ theoretical repertoire are related to
differences in nature and level of theory use. Factual description, interpreting, the first
level, and to some degree the second level, have a negative correlation with the number
of theoretical concepts used, while explaining and level 3 both correlate positively with
the number of theoretical concepts used. Additionally factual description and
interpretation are related to a lower level of prior education, particularly mbo without
mathematics, while explaining correlates with a higher level of education, particularly
vwo with mathematics. Finally it is known from literature that teachers who have less
content knowledge are more oriented on facts and procedures, while teachers who
possess a larger repertoire look for conceptual and problem solving aspects more
(Putnam & Borko, 1997, p. 1232 and 1233).
Combining the above considerations leads to the formulation of hypothesis 3.1.
Hypothesis 3.1
mainly occur on the first and second level of theory use, while explaining and – to a lesser
degree – responding to situations are related mainly to the third level of theory use.
Table 5.19 gives an overview of the regression coefficients and the accompanying
significances of the correlation between nature and level of theory use by students.
Looking at factual description (category A), we see that the regression coefficient beta
= 0,129 (sig. 0,043) for level 1 and beta = -0,230 (sig. 0,000) for level 3. Interpreting
(category B) shows a similar picture for beta and the related significance. The reverse is
159
the case for explaining (category C). Beta is negative for level 1 (sig. 0,001) and
positive for level 3 (sig. 0,000). Barely any system can be found for category D
(‘responding to’).
Table 5.19: Correlation between nature and level of theory use

A B C D
Factual Interpreting Explaining Respond to
description
A1 B1 C1 D1
Level 1 Sig. 0,043 Sig. 0,096 Sig. 0,001 Sig. 0,506
Beta 0,129 Beta 0,106 Beta -0,214 Beta 0,043
A2 B2 C2 D2
Beta 0,149 Beta 0,155 Beta -0,104 Beta -0,173
A3 B3 C3 D3
Beta -0,230 Beta -0,212 Beta 0,282 Beta 0,080
So the linear regression analysis gives a clear confirmation of hypothesis 3.1, with the
exception of category D (responding to situations) which deviates more than expected.
In view of the inclusion relationship it would be logical for D to have a correlation that
is similar to C.
Some explanations can be provided for the deviation from the expected result for
category D.
First, the learning environment may have played a part. However, amply attention has
been given in the common activities and in the expert notes (e.g., The Guide) to the
aspects of responding to situations. Therefore, that does not seem to be the most logical
explanation, although it is unclear to what degree for example individual learning styles
have played a part (Vermunt, 1992). The tendency to take creative initiatives or to
spontaneously develop metacognitive activities mostly suits an open, meaning-oriented
learning style (Oosterheert, 2001) and not many students have developed that learning
style. It is also not clear what earlier experiences by students in relation to ‘responding
to situations’ have played a part.
Second, it can be questioned whether the definition of category D in the analysis
instrument had been phrased sufficiently unequivocally. Although the random sample
did not show problems with that definition, the number of explainers (Cat. C), including
at high levels, is remarkable, particularly as there are few ‘responders’ at a high level. It
might be the case that in category D the inclusion relationship is insufficiently
expressed or is not made explicit enough in the definition. For example, the definition
refers to a metacognitive component. Under that header, D is scored among other things
when a student asks himself a question. In such a case there is however often no
160
obvious evidence of an inclusion relationship between C and D. Furthermore, the use of

theoretical concepts in that kind of reflection is less obvious, and therefore the chance of
scoring the highest level is small.
In summary we can come to a second explanation that the analysis instrument may not
be optimal for category D, and the definition for ‘responding to’ situations may need to
be adjusted.
A third explanation for the deviation from the expected result for category D is the
character of the student population that was studied. The students with ‘vwo with
mathematics’ as their prior education are concentrated in the first study year, while
students who have done ‘mbo without mathematics’ are mainly third year students.
Taking into account the analyses of the first and second research questions, it is well
possible that this unbalanced spread across the study years results in a different
description of category D than might have been expected based on the influences of
prior education and study year.
Table 5.20 represents the average percentages that the students scored per category. The
twelve average percentages confirm hypothesis 3.1 in still another way. We see for
instance that A3 + B3 = 8%, while C3 + D3 = 27%.
Table 5.20 Mean percentages categories A1 to D3

Category A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3
Valid 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246
Missing 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Mean perc. 12 8 5 5 4 3 12 12 18 7 5 9
Std. deviation 16 13 10 10 9 7 16 14 20 12 9 13
This means that the third level of theory use mainly occurs in explaining teaching
situations and responding to situations, and that factual description and interpretation
hardly occur at that level.
Considerations for research question 3b.
Question 3b is formulated as follows: To what extent is there a relationship between the
nature or the level of the student teachers’ use of theory and their level of numeracy?
It has been proposed earlier (section 5.2) that the development of numeracy in the
education of primary school teachers in training is intertwined with the development of
pedagogical insights and skills (Goffree & Dolk, 1995). The growth in the development
of numeracy is seen by Oonk, Van Zanten & Keijzer (2007) as an amalgam of four
components, namely the acquisition of elementary arithmetical skills, recognizing
mathematics in one’s own environment, being focused on solution processes in solving
mathematical problems, and responding to pupils’ solution processes. Along the way
mathematizing is entwined with didacticizing. The pedagogical content aspect of
161
numeracy will develop fully in the later years of teacher training. This matches the fact
that students in later years have access to a larger pedagogical (content) repertoire than
students in earlier years.
Possessing solid content knowledge is seen in educational circles as an undisputed
quality of teachers. Popular wisdom also subscribes to that necessary quality of a
teacher: “If you cannot do math well yourself, how can you teach someone else to do
it?” Research among secondary school teachers shows that lack of good understanding
of the core concepts of one’s own subject can lead to misconceptions about those core
concepts in students (Putnam & Borko, 1997; Van Driel & Verloop, 1999). We have
already mentioned before (section 5.4.4) the conclusions of Putnam & Borko (1997) in
relation to the connection between content knowledge and the orientation – ‘the level’ –
of a teacher’s actions. Mandeville (1997) also found, in a large scale study of 9000
students, a positive correlation between the content knowledge of mathematics teachers
and the performance of students, with here too the differences occurring mainly in
relation to students’ higher order skills.
As far as we know, no studies have been done into this kind of phenomenon in teachers
(in training) in primary education. Research has been done into the level of the content
skills of Pabo students. In the 1980s the low mathematical skill level of Pabo students
was being linked to the mechanistic and insufficiently insight-based mathematics
teaching these students themselves had received in primary school (Jacobs, 1986).
Recent research into mathematics as a subject shows that it is mainly students with mbo
as their prior education who score lower. Their content knowledge is deficient, while
students with havo – senior general secondary education – as prior education who do
less well, have a ‘maintenance problem’ (Straetmans & Eggen, 2005; Meijer,
Vermeulen-Kerstens, Schellings & Van der Meijden, 2006).
Someone with a large amount of proficiency – or even numeracy – for mathematics, is
likely to function at a relatively high level of reasoning. In view of the nature of theory
use, for that reason a positive correlation between explaining and numeracy is to be
expected. In terms of the inclusion relationship that correlation should be present also
for ‘responding to,’ although that conclusion is not obvious after the results of the
previous analyses of category D.
Taking into account the positive connection that was found earlier between explaining,
level 3 of theory use and the number of theoretical concepts used, it is plausible that
there will be a positive correlation between level 3 or the number of theoretical concepts
and the variable numeracy as well.
Based on these considerations for research question 3b, we formulated hypothesis 3.2.
162
Hypothesis 3.2
There is a positive correlation between the level of numeracy and these variables:
- nature of theory use ‘explaining,’
- the highest, third level of theory use,
- the number of theoretical concepts used, and
- students’ prior education.
The very first thing we note is that linear regression analysis confirms the results of
recent studies into the relationship between Pabo students’ own proficiency and their
prior education (table 5.21). Particularly strong relationships are the significant negative
correlation between numeracy and mbo without mathematics and the significant
positive correlation between numeracy and vwo with mathematics. Although not
unexpected, these results are remarkable when it is taken into account that the mbo
students in this population are mainly third year students and the vwo students are
mainly first year students. A negative correlation has also been found between the
personal evaluation index (PEI) and students’ prior education (Beta –0,155; Sig. 0,034).
This may indicate increasing reticence about assessing one’s own level of numeracy as
the level of prior education increases.
Table 5.21
Correlation numeracy and prior education Beta Sig.
Numeracy and mbo without mathematics -0,342 0,000
Numeracy and mbo with mathematics -0,014 0,826
Numeracy and havo without mathematics -0,117 0,069
Numeracy and havo with mathematics 0,180 0,005
Numeracy and vwo without mathematics -0,035 0,587
Numeracy and vwo with mathematics 0,323 0,000
The hypothesis is also confirmed for the nature of theory use ‘explaining’ (table 5.22).
The other categories relating to the nature of theory use do not show a significant
correlation, including, as expected, for ‘responding to situations.’
There is a positive trend between level 3 and numeracy. That the correlation with level 3
is less strong than that with explaining can be understood from the relationship between
explaining and ‘problem solving,’ while the relationship between numeracy and level 3
is less obvious.
The negative trend between level 1 and numeracy (table 5.22) is virtually mirrored with
level 3, and also supports the hypothesis.
The number of theoretical concepts correlates significantly positive with numeracy.
163
This is the case particularly for the number of general pedagogical concepts, and not for
the number of pedagogical content concepts.
Table 5.22
Correlation numeracy, nature and level Beta Sig.
Numeracy and percentage C (explanation) 0,202 0,003
Numeracy and percentage C ≥ 50 0,201 0,003
Numeracy and level 3 0,135 0,046
Numeracy and level 3 ≥ 50 0,133 0,050
Numeracy and percentage C3 0,235 0,000
Numeracy and level 1 -0,136 0,044
Numeracy and level 1 ≥ 50 -0,129 0,056
Numeracy and number of theoretical concepts final assessment 0,166 0,014
Numeracy and general pedagogical concepts final assessment 0,175 0,010
Within the framework of hypothesis 1.3 and 2.1, the differences between the number
of general pedagogical and pedagogical content concepts used have already been
pointed out.
5.4.5 The role of the teacher educator

Section 3.5.5 and 3.9.1 indicate the important role of the teacher educator in making the
connection between theory and practice by student teachers. In this study, the educator’s
activities stretch from ‘feeding’ the discourse with theory to giving lectures and
coaching students in preparing and performing assignments in their teaching practice
(see section 5.3.3).
In all their interviews after the end of the study, the educators showed themselves
positive about content and work forms on offer in the course. Some referred to the
increase in workload 46 that teaching the course and collecting the data brought with
them. Two educators experienced organisational problems from fitting in the course,
partly in connection with the need for using a computer room. One Pabo had to pull out
halfway through the study as a result of the faculty moving.
Recently, the majority of the educators who participated in the study indicated, when
asked, that the course as a whole, parts of it or ideas from it, had been included in their
Pabo’s curriculum, sometimes even for other subjects. One educator published an article
in a specialist journal about her experiences with the study and the inspiration gained
from it (Terlouw, 2005).
(…) For me as a fellow researcher it was good to see that when discussions became
heated, people would search feverishly for a common language to express
themselves in. They were looking for the jargon to use. I noticed that they wanted to
164
use that language to convince others of their point of view. In that way many
strategies and models were referred to by name, and they suddenly recalled the basis
of the reconstruction pedagogics. From the dialogue arose a need to learn. That need
to learn also arose once the students started doing research in their own teaching
practice. They found out they did not yet know enough about certain aspects of the
didactics of multiplication and had grown curious. It was really only then that the
learning questions gained in eloquence (Terlouw, 2005, p. 23).
She seemed to have undergone a ‘conceptual change’ in relation to her opinions about
making connections between theory and practice by students. She considered the
discourse led by the educator and the research in students’ teaching practice as core
elements in the learning environment; these, according to her, were the activities that
evoked a need to learn in the students. The natural desire to learn did, for instance,
cause spontaneous questions about background literature from students.
5.5 Conclusion of the large scale study

This study involved the following questions:
1. In what way do student teachers use theoretical knowledge, when they describe
practical situations after spending a period in a learning environment that
2. What is the theoretical quality of statements made by the student teachers when
3. a. Is there a meaningful relationship between the nature and the level of theory
use? If so, how is that relationship expressed in the various components of
theory use and in various groups of students?
b. To what extent is there a relationship between the nature or the level of the
The study was done among 269 students at eleven primary teacher training colleges in
the Netherlands. According to the procedure, described in paragraph 5.3.5, the results
were scored for nature and level of theory use, for the number of theoretical concepts
used and for the students’ level of numeracy. To determine the so-called meaningful
units in which the reflective notes of the final assessment of the students were divided,
for the nature and level of theory use in the notes and for assessing the numeracy tests
the interrater reliability was determined.
First, the study shows that each meaningful unit described by a student, on average
seven per student, can be interpreted using one of the four characteristics for nature, and
one of three characteristics for level of theory use.
Nearly all students (98,5% of the population) use theory in their final reflection, on
average 12 theoretical concepts per student. From the average percentages scored by the
165
students for each of the four categories for the nature of theory use (respectively 25, 12, 42
and 21 procent), it turns out that ‘explaining’ occurs most. Remarkable is that nearly 80%
of the students dominates in one of the four categories (190 of the 239 students), that is to
say that at least 50% of the total number of units is scored in one of these categories. It
may be possible to explain that result from the differences in learning or writing style
between students. The average percentages of the three levels (respectively 35, 29 and 36
procent) are close together. Just like the nature of theory use, for the level of theory use is
a high percentage (76%) of the student population dominating on one of the levels.
38% of the students start their reflective note with a factual description of a teaching
situation, with half of that group also scoring A for the second meaningful unit.
It turns out that the higher their prior education, the less student teachers use factual
description. It is the case particularly that students who have mbo (senior secondary
vocational education) without mathematics as their prior education use factual description
more and explain less, while students who have done vwo (pre-university education) with
mathematics explain significantly more. This may well be related to the fact that factual
description calls less upon cognitive abilities than explaining. Moreover, ‘explainers’ use
more theoretical concepts, while students use less theoretical concepts the more they use
factual description or interpreting. What stands out here is the strong positive correlation
between explaining and the number of general pedagogical concepts, and the absence of
any correlation between – all four of the categories of – the nature of theory use and the
number of pedagogical content concepts used (table 5.11). However, a positive correlation
appears between level 3 of theory use and the number of pedagogical content concepts
used, though not as strong as with the number of general pedagogical concepts. That
positive correlation may be connected to the to a certain extent dependent relationship
between the number of concepts and the definition of the levels. Also, content-related
differences and the difference in reach between general pedagogical and pedagogical
content concepts may play a part. Students tend to initially respond in general terms to
teaching situations. This is understandable, since the general pedagogical jargon is aimed
more at the whole of the pedagogical-didactical actions of teacher and students, and is also
used more frequently in teacher training and practice.
As a matter of fact students who have mbo without mathematics as their prior education
significantly use relatively few general pedagogical concepts, and the students with
mbo with mathematics use these concepts significantly more. No correlation has been
found between vwo with mathematics as prior education and the number of general
pedagogical concepts. The group with that specific prior education consists mainly of
first year students, and these have not yet sufficiently developed their pedagogical
(content) jargon. Furthermore, they have not yet gained enough experience in reasoning
about teaching situations.
166
The lack of correlation with level 3 for that group fits with the image of their as yet
underdeveloped theoretical knowledge network.
As far as the correlation between the level of theory use and the use of theoretical jargon
is concerned, it is the case for all (six) categories, that the more theoretical concepts
students use, the hight the level they reflect at, and vice versa. This is expressed more
strongly in the final assessment than in the initial assessment, and is the case
particularly for the number of pedagogical content concepts used, which, as mentioned
before, has a significant positive correlation with level 3 only in the final assessment.
Possibly that difference between the initial and the final assessment can be ascribed to
the influence of the learning environment.
According to the correlation between study year and the level of theory use, it appears
that first year students mainly function at the first level. The second year students
function more at the third level. The third year does not match up with the third level;
there is even a negative correlation for level 3 ≥ 50 (table 5.17b). An explanation is the
relatively high percentage of third year students who have mbo without mathematics as
their prior education, which is a group that correlates significantly negative with the
third level of theory use (table 5.18b). This is clearly not true for the group of students
with mbo with mathematics (also later year students), who in fact correlate positively
with percentage level 3 (table 5.18b).
The correlation between the two characteristics factual description and interpreting for
the nature of theory use, and the third level of theory use is significantly negative.
Factual description and interpreting mainly occur at the first and second levels of theory
use and hardly at the third. The third level of theory use is mainly related to explaining
teaching situations and responding to situations. The connection between the category
‘responding to’ and the levels 1 to 3 resembles the relationship between the category
explaining and the levels 1 to 3 less in its structure – from significantly negative to
significantly positive – than one might expect based on the inclusion relationship. There
are three explanations for that anomaly. In the first place the character of the learning
environment, individual learning styles or previous experiences may play a part.
Second, there is some doubt as to whether the definition in the analysis tool of category
D for ‘responding to’ situations has been optimally formulated. A third explanation for
the deviation from the expected result for category D is the character of the student
population that was studied.
Section 2.6.5.5 introduced the concept ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge’ (EPK) as a

derivation of the concept of ‘practical knowledge,’ where level 3 of theory use is seen in this
study as the most important indicator for theoretical enrichment of practical knowledge
(section 5.3.6.4). We can therefore draw the conclusion that on average the students
(re)constructed over a third of their reflections using ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge.’
167
In relation to the level of numeracy we can draw the following conclusions. There is a
positive relationship between the level of numeracy and the nature of theory use
‘explaining,’ as well as between the level of numeracy and the third level of theory use.
The correlation with level 3 is not as strong as that with explaining. This may be
connected to the relationship between explaining and ‘problem solving.’
A significant positive correlation has also been found with the number of theoretical
concepts used. The higher the level of numeracy, the more theoretical concepts students
use. This is the case particularly for the number of general pedagogical concepts
The relationships that have been found between the level of numeracy and students’
prior education fall within expectations, with students who had mathematics in their
prior education standing out positively.
What is remarkable here, as for the results of theory use by students, is the weak
position of the – generally third year – student teachers who have done mbo without
mathematics as prior education. A further point that stands out is that this group with
the lowest average score, scores the second highest PEI-value (read: selfconfidence).
The (anonymous) questionnaire was administered to 257 students.

Even more clearly than the data from the questionnaire in the small scale study
(appendix 13), the data from the large scale study show that the students appreciate
particularly the theory on offer, integrated into practical situations, as support for their
practice (appendix 14). This is especially true for question 14 (‘theory and practice are
far removed from each other/are integrated’), with the highest average score on the five
point scale of the 14 questions (4,22).
Another noticeable difference is that the average score of question 7 (‘the course is
dull/challenging’; mean 3,31) and question 8 (‘the course is vague/concrete’; mean
3,47) is higher than the score of the same questions in the small scale study. A possible
explanation for this is that the students appreciated the more structured learning
environment of the large scale study.
The students had the option to clarify their score for each question in the questionnaire.
Two typical examples of student statements are given below.
Question 14. Theory and practice are far removed from each other/are integrated.
Student 93. I recognize everything we learned in theory in my practice school now.
Student 170. When you know a bit more of the theory you can understand better
that children use different calculations than you think.
Generally speaking, the output of the questionnaire can be interpreted as an appreciation
by the students of both theory and the integrated approach in the theory and practice on
offer in the course.
168
6 General conclusion and discussion
6.1 Introduction
The purpose of the present study was to gain insight in the student teachers’ process of
integrating theory and practice, and particularly to find out how they are relating theory
and practice and to what extent they are competent to use theoretical knowledge in
multimedia education situations.
Motivation for the study was the still opaque and unresolved theory-practice problem in
teacher education. There is still little known in the research area of teacher education
about how student teachers link theoretical knowledge and practical situations. The
question of how the integration of several elements of the knowledge base of
(prospective) teachers can be realized, and in particular can be fostered in student
teachers (chapter 2) is essential for this. A second reason for this study, related to this
problem, was the development in the field of multimedia learning environments that
started at the end of the nineties, particularly for the subject of mathematics education
(chapter 3). This development appeared to offer an opportunity to focus student teachers
on their own professional development in a natural way, particularly where learning to
integrate theory and practice was involved.
This study was performed in such a – gradually more and more adapted – multimedia
learning environment for student teachers.
In brief, the complete study can be considered as a chain of four links, two exploratory
studies, a small scale study and a large scale study, with each of them having its own
function. Every time the output of each link provided the material for the next study,
with more refined questions and a better adapted design of the learning environment for
the participating student teachers.
The main conclusion of this study is that 98,5% of the student teachers is able to relate
theory and practice in the context of the learning environment offered. However,
students differ strongly in the way in which they link theory and practice and in the
depth to which they use theoretical concepts in their reflections on practice.
The instrument that has been developed in this study offered the opportunity to perform
a systematic and nuanced analysis of the student teachers’ reflections.
In the next section, some general conclusions of this study will be drawn.
Then, as an elaboration of the findings, in section 6.3 a proposal for a local theory of
integrating theory and practice by student teachers will be presented.
Some limitations of the study have not been referred to, or only implicitly, in the
analyses and conclusions; section 6.4 takes a closer look at some of these limitations.
In section 6.5 some suggestions for future research will be made. These are partly the
169
General conclusion and discussion
product of the supposed shortcomings of the study, but are in the main prompted by
ongoing developments as a result of the outcome of the study.
Finally, in section 6.6 some implications for teacher education, the area that this study
focuses on, will be discussed.
6.2 Conclusions
6.2.1 The exploratory studies

The first research question that was formulated in the (first) exploratory study, was
about the existence and the type of theory use by students in a multimedia learning
environment: do they use theory, and if so, what is the output of their learning process
in terms of knowledge construction (section 3.5). Four levels of student teacher
knowledge construction were observed. Their learning and research process turned out
to be a cyclical process of planning, searching, observing, reflecting and evaluating.
Especially at the third and fourth level of knowledge construction (section 3.5.5),
integration of theory and practice occurred, in those moments where students asked
themselves questions about situations they had observed, when they made a connection
with literature or when they formulated their own conjectures.
The second exploration was designed to find out more explicitly how prospective
teachers made connections between theory and practice, and particularly which signals
of utilizing theory they showed in their reflections on studied practices of MILE. A list
of fifteen signals of theory use was drawn up (section 3.8).
In short it can be said that the two exploratory studies provided a first insight into the
use of theory by students and in addition the yield of these studies was a reason to set up
a learning environment that was more structured and more focused on engaging student
teachers in practical reasoning, in combination with the use of theory.
6.2.2 The small scale study

The CD-rom ‘The Guide’ that was used for the design of the new learning environment
in the small scale study (chapter 4), can be considered as an adapted version of MILE.
The research question for this small scale study was: “In what way and to what extent
do student teachers use theoretical knowledge when they describe practical situations,
after spending a period in a learning environment that invites the use of theory?”
The study showed that all students used theory in their oral and written responses to
practical situations, and that the selected learning environment enabled them to reason
diversely about those situations. The differences in both the way of describing and in
using theoretical concepts were relatively large. The extent to which students used
theoretical concepts in their reflections on practical situations could be differentiated
into levels based on the students’ ability to make meaningful connections between
170
theoretical concepts. Especially during the interaction under the supervision of the
teacher educator and during interviews, reasoning leading to a rise in the level of theory
use was observed. In a few instances that rise in level could be interpreted as vertical
didacticizing (section 4.4.2).
On the other hand, the suspicion arose that an optimal use of theory was not being
instigated in all students, which was the reason to adapt the learning environment for the
large scale study. Furthermore, new insights into the use of theory by the students were
reason to refine and further focus the research questions, as well as to design a first
version of a reflection-analysis instrument.
6.2.3 The large scale research

Through the ‘natural structure’ (increasing refinement of focus and methodology) of the
series of four studies, the developments and data from the previous studies lend a content-
related, characteristic meaning to the conclusive descriptions in the final, large scale study.
For instance, the insight that the use of theory by students can be distinguished in two
dimension, the nature and the level of theory use (section 4.3.9), only arose during the
small scale study, partly in reaction to the output of the preceding exploratory study.
In the large scale study these insights have been further elaborated into a reflection
analysis instrument.
The nature is shown in four types of theory use: factual description, interpretation,
explanation and ‘response to.’ For the level, three types have been defined, level 1 to 3,
based on the degree to which theoretical concepts are used meaningfully (section 5.3.6).
This approach based on both dimensions allowed to unambiguously visualize the use of
theory. The matrix of twelve categories resulting from combining the two dimensions is
shown in table 5.2 (section 5.3.6.4).
The students’ reflective notes were divided into – an average of seven – so-called
meaningful units, ‘complete units’ within a text (section 5.3.6.2). Every meaningful unit
described by a student, could be interpreted using one of the four characteristics for the
nature and one of the three characteristics for the level of theory use.
One general conclusion that can be drawn is that a large majority of the students, that is
to say 98,5% of the population in the large scale study, used theory in the final
assessment of the course they followed.
The first research question
The first research question mainly related to the nature of use of theory: “In what way
do student teachers use theoretical knowledge when they describe practical situations
after spending a period in a learning environment that invites the use of theory?”
(section 5.4.2).
171
It turned out that ‘explaining’ was the most common; students scored an average of
42% for that category, against 25, 12 and 21 percent for respectively factual description,
interpretation and ‘responding to situations.’ So factual description is placed second,
rather than first, as was assumed in hypothesis 1.1: ‘The characteristics of the nature of
theory use will manifest to various degrees, with ‘factual description’ as a category
with a relatively high frequency.’ A possible explanation for the higher frequency of the
category ‘explaining’ is the relatively high number of older year students (84% second
and third year) and students with a relatively high level of prior education (havo –
senior general secondary education – with mathematics 36%; vwo – pre-university
education – with mathematics 19%). The learning environment may be another factor
that has strengthened the explanatory nature of student reflections. On the other hand it
is the case that a large number of students (38%) started their reflective memo with
‘factual description,’ with a fifth of the students even scoring category A on both the
first and the second unit. Roughly another fifth part dominated on category A, meaning
they had a score of at least 50% of all units in that category. There was dominance for
the other categories for the nature of theory use as well; 80% of the students did in fact
dominate on one of the four categories (190 out of 239 students; table 5.8). Differences
in learning or writing style between students (Kolb, 1984; Vermunt, 1992) may provide
an explanation for that dominance.
The second hypothesis (1.2) for the first research question concerned the relationship
between the nature of the use of theory and the variables prior education and study year:
‘The characteristics of factual description and interpretation for the nature of theory
use will occur most often with lower year students or with students with a lower level of
prior education, while explaining and ‘responding to’ will mostly occur with later year
students or students with a higher level of prior education.’ Analysis revealed that the
hypothesis could be confirmed for factual description (category A), interpretation
(category B) and explaining (category C), with as its clear exponents the students with
as their prior education mbo (senior secondary vocational education) without
mathematics (more factual description, less explanation) and students with vwo with
mathematics as their prior education (more explanation).
The third hypothesis (1.3) in the framework of the first research question concerned the
relationship between the nature of theory use and the degree to which concepts were
used. The assumption was that ‘students will mainly use theoretical concepts to explain
teaching situations and to respond to situations. This will involve general pedagogical
concepts more often than pedagogical content concepts.’
The hypothesis received strong confirmation for ‘explaining’ and the number of general
pedagogical concepts used and the absence of any relationship between the nature of
theory use and the number of pedagogical content concepts. In relation with the result
172
of hypothesis 1.2 that mbo students without mathematics explained less, linear
regression analysis showed a significant negative correlation between this group of
students and the number of general pedagogical concepts used. No relationship exists
between vwo with mathematics as prior education and the total number of pedagogical
or pedagogical content concepts. That last finding can be explained as follows. The
group of students with vwo with mathematics as their prior education mostly consisted
of first year students, and the pedagogical (content) jargon of first year students is not
yet very developed. In addition, they have as yet gained little experience in arguing
about teaching situations, which was confirmed in the study by the fact that these
students explained significantly less than might have been expected on the basis of their
prior education.
In brief it can be put as the result of research question one that the theory use of students
mainly manifested itself in ‘explaining’ situations.
It also turned out that students with a higher level of prior education used less factual
description and explained more. For students with mbo without mathematics as their
prior education it was the case that they used significantly more factual description and
significantly less explanation, and for the students with vwo with mathematics as their
prior education that they explained significantly more.
Finally it became clear that students used significantly more general pedagogical
concepts for explaining and significantly less for factual description of situations.
No relationship has been established between the nature of theory use and the number of
The second research question.
The second research question, concerning the level of theory use, ran as follows: “What
is the theoretical quality of statements made by student teachers when they describe
practical situations?” (section 5.4.3)
Below, first some general conclusions in relation to this research question are discussed.
The average percentages scored for the levels were 35, 29 and 36 percent for
respectively levels 1, 2 and 3. Especially the percentage for the third level was higher
than had been expected for that ‘highest’ level.
Also, the conclusion was drawn in the preceding studies that some students do in fact
reach an even higher level than that of level 3. This happened for instance when a
‘personal theory’ was formulated in response to a practical observation (‘theory from
practice’; section 3.5.4) or when a student reflected at a higher level than the level of the
network of theoretical concepts, by reasoning about the relationships within that
network (section 4.3.4). The latter phenomenon has been named in section 4.4.2 as a
level transition from horizontal to vertical didactization. Similar level rises were
173
observed in student teachers’ reflections on the research in their teaching practice into
children’s multiplication strategies.
The highest level (3) of theory use by students can be seen as an important indicator for
theoretical enrichment of practical knowledge (section 5.3.6.4). Upon consideration the
conclusion can be drawn that, in on average well over a third (table 5.13) of the number
of meaningful units in their reflections, students were (re)constructing ‘theory enriched
practical knowledge.’
The first hypothesis (2.1) of the second research question assumed a relationship
between the level of theory use and the number of concepts: “Students who use more
theoretical concepts reflect at a higher level and vice versa. This will be more strongly
expressed in the final assessment than in the initial one.”
This hypothesis could be confirmed in several respects. An obvious explanation is the
fact that the more concepts are used the higher the chance of scoring level 3 is and vice
versa. Furthermore it is likely that in students who possess more theoretical knowledge,
higher cognitive activities are evoked, or that a potential difference in cognitive capacity
between students will lead to the differences in level. That the relationship between the
number of concepts and the level manifested stronger in the final assessment, can be
ascribed to the fact that between the initial and the final assessment – that is to say in the
learning environment – the students had the opportunity to expand their repertoire.
One thing that stands out is the positive correlation between the number of pedagogical
content concepts and level 3, especially since there was no correlation at all between the
nature of theory use and the number of pedagogical content concepts, not even for
explaining (hypothesis 1.3). An explanation is that the relationship between the number of
concepts and the level definition has a more dependent character than is the case between
the number of concepts and ‘explaining.’ There are also differences with respect to
content between general pedagogical and pedagogical content concepts, and there is a
difference in reach for both types of concepts. The general pedagogical jargon is aimed at
all actions by teacher and students, and is also used more frequently in training and
teaching practice. This study shows that in all cases that occur, the significant correlation
with the number of general pedagogical concepts is stronger than with the number of
pedagogical content concepts. It is the case for all groups of students that proportionally
more general pedagogical than pedagogical content concepts are used.
The second hypothesis (2.2) for this research question into the level of theory use,
focused on the relationship between the level of theory use and the variables study year
and prior education: “The first level of theory use will mainly be found in first year
students or in students with a lower level of prior education, while level 3 will mainly
manifest in third or second year students or in students with a higher level of prior
education.”
174
This hypothesis has been inspired by the idea that the conditions for theory use at level
3 are mainly determined by having a pedagogical (content) repertoire at one’s disposal,
and the ability and experience to adequately use the cognitive network. It is argued that
the third level of theory use will therefore be achieved more often by students with a
higher cognitive level (higher prior education) or students from a higher study year.
The hypothesis has been confirmed by the variable study year, including the second
study year, which has a significant negative correlation with level 1 and a significantly
positive one with level 3.
The research within the framework of the second research question led, in summary, to
the conclusion that students who used more theoretical concepts reflected at a higher
level and vice versa. Remarkable is the strong, significantly positive correlation
between the number of pedagogical content concepts and level 3 in the final
assessment, against the absence of that correlation in the initial assessment. It was also
the case that the first level of theory use mainly occurred in first year students, while
level 3 mainly manifested itself in second and third year students or students with a
higher level of prior education.
The third research question
The first sub-question 3a of research question 3 focused on a possible connection
between the nature and the level of theory use: “Is there a meaningful relationship
between the nature and the level of theory use? If so, how is that relationship expressed
in the various components of theory use and in various groups of students?” (section
5.4.4).
Indeed, a meaningful relationship exists between the nature and the level of use of
theory. It can be seen in the conclusions of the first and second research questions that
the differences in the size of the theoretical repertoire available to students correlate
with differences in nature and level of theory use. Factual description, interpreting and
level 1 have a negative correlation with the number of theoretical concepts, while
explaining and level 3 both correlate positively with the number of theoretical concepts.
It is also the case that factual description and interpreting are related to a lower level of
prior education, particularly mbo without mathematics, while explaining correlates with
a higher level of prior education, particularly vwo with mathematics.
These results largely confirm hypothesis 3.1, which has been formulated as follows: “The
characteristics of factual description and interpreting for the nature of theory use mainly
occur on the first and second level of theory use, while explaining and – to a lesser degree
– responding to situations are related mainly to the third level of theory use.”
Only for category D (responding to situation) there is no clear confirmation of the
hypothesis.
175
Linear regression analysis shows a remarkable agreement with these results. For factual
description (category A), beta = 0,129 (sig. 0,043) for level 1 and beta = - 0,230 (sig.
0,000) for level 3 (table 5.19). For interpreting (category B) there is a similar result for
beta and the related significance. For explaining (category C) the reverse is the case.
There, beta is negative for level 1 (–0,214; sig. 0,001) and positive for level 3 (0,282;
sig. 000). For category D (responding to situations) there is a significant correlation
between nature and level of theory use only for D2.
Another confirmation of hypothesis 3.1 can be found in the average percentages of the
twelve categories A1 up to D3 (table 5.20). For instance, the averages for A3, B3, C3
and D3 are respectively 5, 3, 18 and 9 percent. This also confirms that the third level of
theory use mainly occurs in explaining teaching situations and responding to situations,
and that factual description and interpreting only occur at this level to a slight degree.
The deviation from the expected outcome for category D may have been caused by
differences in students’ learning styles, by a definition of category D that did not target
the inclusion relationship enough, or by the special composition of the student
population that was studied (see section 5.4.4).
The second sub-question 3b involved the relationship between the use of theory and the
students’ level of numeracy: “To what extent is there a relationship between the nature
or the level of the student teachers’ use of theory and their level of numeracy?”
The hypothesis (3.2) that was formulated for this research question, was motivated by
the idea that students who possess a great deal of ability for numeracy, were likely to
reason at a relatively high level. For that reason a positive relationship was expected
between explaining and numeracy. In terms of the inclusion relationship, that
relationship should also occur for ‘responding to situations,’ although that conclusion
was no longer self-evident after the results of the previous analyses relating to that
category (D).
In addition the conclusion in relation to the positive correlation that was found between
explaining, level 3 of theory use and the number of theoretical concepts used, led to the
assumption that there would exist a positive relationship between the latter two
variables and numeracy as well. Based on these considerations, hypothesis 3.2 was
formulated as follows (see also section 5.2 and 5.4.4):
“There is a positive correlation between the level of numeracy and the variables:
- nature of theory use ‘explaining,’
- the highest, third level of theory use,
- the number of theoretical concepts used, and
- students’ prior education.”
Linear regression analysis confirmed the positive correlation between numeracy and
‘explaining,’ while a positive trend was found between level 3 and numeracy. That the
176
correlation with explaining turns out to be stronger than the one with level 3 is likely
when one takes into account the relationship between explaining and ‘problem solving,’
while the relationship between numeracy and level 3 of the use of theory is less self-
evident.
The positive relationship between numeracy and the number of theoretical concepts
used also turns out to be significant, though this concerns the number of general
pedagogical concepts used, rather than the number of pedagogical content concepts.
This study also confirms a significant correlation between student teachers’ numeracy
and their prior education (table 5.21). This result is not unexpected, and corresponds
with the results of recent studies into the relationship between individual skills and Pabo
students’ prior education. It is remarkable that the mbo students in this study’s
population were mainly in the third year, while the vwo students could mainly be found
in the first year, and that for these groups of mbo and vwo students there were still
significant negative, respectively positive, correlations being found. According to this
result, the negative correlation between the so-called personal evaluation index (PEI;
section 5.4.1) and students’ prior education is remarkable (Beta –0,155; Sig. 0,034). It
may indicate that more reticence regarding estimating one’s own level of numeracy
corresponds to a higher level of prior education.
The results from research question 3 can be summarised as follows.

A meaningful correlation appears between the nature and the level of theory use.
occur mostly at the first and second level of theory use, while explaining and – to a
lesser degree – responding to situations, are on the whole related to the third level of
theory use. Also, a strong relationship exists between the category ‘explaining’ for the
nature of theory use and numeracy, to a lesser degree also between level 3 of theory use
and numeracy.
There also is a strong correlation between the level of numeracy and that of prior
education.
In a more general sense, it could be established, from the questionnaire the students
filled in (appendix 14), that the students who participated in the study appreciated the
learning environment aimed at integrating theory and practice.
6.3 Towards a local theory of integrating theory and practice

The results of the study and the analysis of the student teachers’ activities in the course
of the four parts of the study, provides the basis for reflection to a local theory for
learning to integrate theory and practice by student teachers. On the one side this theory
involves the student teachers’ process of learning to integrate, on the other it involves
the learning environment that is intended to support that process with teaching materials
177
and targeted interventions by the teacher educator. Both components are presented
mainly in an integrated manner in the following description.
Below, first a description is given of the context in which the intended learning by the
student teacher and the support of that learning process by the teacher educator took
place, providing an overview of the ingredients of the local theory. After that, the theory
will be further elaborated and finally presented in summary.
The first confrontation student teachers had with theory within this study, was the
moment that the theoretical framework was presented as a multifunctional list of
theoretical key concepts that would come up in the learning environment. At first this
list functioned as an advance organizer. The students could indicate which concepts
were (un)known to them in the context of a practice story, and the source of that story
(own practice, literature, MILE, lectures and workshops). At this stage it was likely that
for most of the students the theory of the domain in question was a disjointed collection
of concepts, parts of which were, as separate elements, related to narratives of practice.
The stories were not always meaningful to the students, sometimes they even turned out
to be linked to concepts that were thought to be meaningful on the basis of
misconceptions. A number of students indicated in the evaluation of the study that
certain concepts had gained a different, or more, meaning for them during the course
than their original ideas. The intention of the course was to evoke, in several ways,
meaningful use of the concepts by the students, to expand and deepen their repertoire,
with the highest goal attaining a cognitive network of ‘theory-enriched practical
knowledge.’ The most important sources were theory-laden ‘practice stories’ from
MILE and The Guide, and the ‘research stories’ from the students’ own practice. The
theoretical reflections by the teacher educator that were related to those narratives and
the reflective notes in The Guide functioned as mirror and sounding board in the
discourse and during individual study.
Multimedia learning environments as used in this study, give student teachers the
opportunity to observe ‘practice’ alone or together, to discuss and study it, without
being distracted by having to keep order or all kinds of organisational problems. The
experience and identity of student teachers do place specific demands on that learning
environment. Opinions about teaching and learning that students have acquired, also by
earlier experiences, can easily lead to critical judgements and a focus on cut-and-dried
answers in analysing practical situations. It requires extensive coaching to put the
students on the investigative trail, and any approach must lead students towards an
attitude that is marked by being prepared to ask questions of oneself and pronouncing
cautious suspicions and preliminary conclusions. In such a learning environment,
including sophisticated coaching, students can learn to integrate theory and practice.
The variety of data collected from both the small and large scale studies has shown how
178
students made connections at different levels between theory and practical situations. In
the second part of the course on offer, the focus of student activities shifted more and
more towards constructing a cognitive network of theoretical concepts. Examples are
the reflections on the investigations about childrens’ knowledge of tables of
multiplication in the student teachers’ teaching practice, the activities related to the
game of concepts, the concept-map activities and the concluding ‘collaborative lecture’
in which the knowledge and experience that had been gained were positioned in the
stages of the multiplication course under the teacher educator’s supervision.
The search for answers to the student teachers’ individual learning questions could lead
to a more profound ‘ownership’ of the enriched practical knowledge. At the end of each
meeting, students were invited to think, respectively become aware of, the theory-
enriched practical knowledge they had gained, using the motto: “What (else) did I
learn?” The practical knowledge that was gained could be further deepened and
widened by writing reflective notes at some points during the course.
At that stage, the list of concepts gained two new functions, that of giving support and
providing an overview, and providing an insight into progress with acquiring theory. In
the final assessment, students could show the theory-enriched practical knowledge they
had gained by writing a reflective note based on observation of a teaching situation from
MILE that had not been brought up in the course.
The theoretical character of the course showed itself in the number of theoretical
concepts that students used and their ability to meaningfully relate theoretical concepts
to each other. In Dutch mathematics teacher education student teachers are faced with
subject specific theory, with the realistic mathematics domain-specific instructional
theory in that area (RME; e.g., section 2.6 and 3.2) and with general pedagogical
theories. That complexity of teaching mathematics (Lampert, 2001) was reflected on a
small scale in the study, through the learning environment, the theory in the list of fifty-
nine theoretical concepts that were central to the course, together with the theory laden
practice narratives. The study showed large differences in the way in which the
students involved these theoretical concepts in their arguments. Two dimensions were
distinguished, the nature and the level of theory use. The nature of theory use relates to
four ways of using theory: factual description, interpretation, explanation and
‘responding to.’
The level relates to the degree to which the concepts are expressed meaningfully and in
relation to each other in the statements and notes of the students. The highest level (3) is
reached when students express a meaningful relationship between two or more
theoretical concepts in a written (meaningful) unit. In such level 3 units, the transition
from the second to the third level can often be seen. A first or second sentence will
contain statements using a theoretical concept, while the following sentences will
179
contain different concepts that correlate meaningfully with the foregoing concepts.
There are also rises in level within the third level. One such rise in level has for instance
been observed in student Anne, when she showed a tendency towards hypothetical
thinking and reasoning (section 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). This could be defined as a fourth level
of ‘responding to situations’ (D4), something that Ruthven (2001) might call ‘practical
theorizing’ (section 2.7.1) and Simon (1995) as the start of developing a ‘hypothetical
learning trajectory’ (HLT) (section 2.7.1). A rise in level from D3 to ‘D4’ also occurs
when Anne reflects at a higher level than the level of the network of theoretical
concepts, by reasoning about the relationships within that network (section 4.3.4).
Section 4.4.2 argues that these rises in level seem related to the kind of level-rise that
Van Hiele (1973) describes in his theory on levels in mathematical thinking. That level
theory has influenced many scientists both within and outside the Netherlands, among
other things in the development of theory about mathematical learning processes in
students. For instance, Gravemeijer (2007) describes rises in level within the framework
of the design heuristics of emergent modelling as the development of a network of
mathematical relations. And this is in fact what student Anne did, to construct
abstraction by reflection on the relationships she distinguished. In section 4.4.2 this has
been interpreted as the transition from horizontal to vertical didacticizing (Freudenthal,
1991).
The study has shown that the role of the teacher educator regarding the stimulation of
rises in level is crucial. The teacher educator has the expertise to theorise, to evoke
theory use and to stimulate it, among other things by selecting adequate video
fragments, asking challenging questions, making use of differences in argumentations,
presenting confronting situations (Piaget, 1974; section 2.7.1) and inspiring
‘pedagogical conflicts,’ sharpening the discourse with theory-laden summaries or by
stimulating hypothetical thinking. It is exactly the combination of these ingredients that
can lead student teachers to adopt theory (section 2.6.4) and construct EPK. The
narratively oriented learning environment (Pendlebury, 1995) provides the EPK with a
lasting meaning. The ‘theory in narratives’ leaves a lasting impression and can be
recalled.
Taking the above considerations and their relation to the results of the study as its starting
point, a local theory of integrating theory and practice in mathematics teacher education
has been formulated, based on the concepts theory, practice and the relationship between
theory and practice as they have been described in the sections 2.3 up to 2.7. There,
theory is defined as a collection of descriptive concepts that show cohesion, with that
cohesion being supported by reflection on ‘practice.’ For the acquisition of theory-practice
relationships by students, the first step is to look for a connection with theoretical notions
that students already have. This is done by making connections between theoretical
180
concepts with multiple definitions (definitions, notes, contexts; list of concepts) and
practical situations students themselves have experienced. Afterwards practical knowledge
is made explicit and theory-enriched through cycles of observation, analysis of theory-
enriched practical situations and ‘responding’ to them. That enrichment occurs in the
discourse, led by the teacher educator, in collective work, during individual study and by
writing reflective notes. Impulses for enrichment are: the ‘narrativised’ theoretical
framework of concepts, adequate literature, the learning and investigation assignments,
confrontational situations, reflective conversations, challenging questions, reflection on
successes, (collaborative) lectures, and reflective notes.
To some degree, the cycles of observing, analysing and ‘responding,’ are the detailed
elaboration of the cyclical process that for example was observed in The Pioneers in the
first exploratory research project (section 3.5.5). The ‘theory-enriched practical
knowledge’ that student teachers acquire, contains the key insights in relation to
learning and teaching mathematics.
The connections between theory and practice that students themselves make, become
visible in the nature and level of theory use. A rise in level is caused by practical
reasoning and reflection; it leads to an extension and refinement of the ‘theory-enriched
practical knowledge’ network.
The reflection-analysis instrument can be used as a guidance or (self)assessment tool to
establish the degree to which students are competent to integrate theory and practice.
In summary, and in line with what has been described about the definition of theory, it
can be established that the local theory is determined by three main components, the
formulated concepts of theory, practice and the relationship between theory and
practice, the theoretical knowledge base of the learning environment for student
teachers and the guidelines for teacher educators, to support the learning and
developmental processes of students.
These lead to the theory gaining a function as an orientation basis for reflection on
practice. The coherence of the descriptive concepts that was mentioned in the definition
of theory, is determined by the learning and teaching theory of realistic mathematics
education and the concepts for nature and level of the use of theory.
The research into theory use by student teachers has provided the reason in this study to
design a learning environment that is optimized with respect to the possibilities for
students to use theory. The research questions could be answered in this learning
environment. The fact that the development of the learning environment was guided by
theory, and that there are guarantees that the development can be traced, makes it
possible to do a similar study in other domains and other subjects in teacher education.
The design of the learning environment can be considered as a paradigmatic case of a
broader class of phenomena (Cobb & Gravemeijer, 2008). The trackability also involves
181
the reflection analysis instrument that is part of this study and which can be used as a
guidance and assessment tool.
6.4 Limitations
To a certain extent this study was limited by the context in which it occurred. The
students’ learning environment consisted mainly of practical situations that were
represented in a multimedia form. While these situations were real teaching situations,
they were not situations from the students’ own practice. The student teachers’ own
practice experiences were to some degree involved in their activities, for instance
through investigations on their field placement. One might ask whether having
situations from the students’ own practice as objects of discussion and reflecting would
not have resulted in a better and more realistic insight into the process of relating theory
and practice. It is after all ‘real’ practice where (student) teachers have to become aware
of theory as a necessary instrument for reflecting on their own teaching, aimed at
‘explaining’ situations, and ‘responding to’ situations. This allows them to use their
theoretical knowledge and develop it further, among other things by testing conjectures
that are aimed at their own ‘professional setting’ (section 6.3) in various situations. The
next section (section 6.5) contains suggestions for further research into this point.
Another limitation of this study was the selected portion of the available data collection
from the large scale study. The nature of this collection – the students’ reflective notes –
may have limited insight into some aspects of theory use. Expressing thoughts in
writing is something that requires specific skills in students, which may mean that input
of potentially present notions of theory may be less than when thoughts are expressed
orally. The yield of oral reflections is often higher than that of written ones (Jaworski,
2006, p. 188). In addition, theory use is particularly evoked by activities where oral
input is natural, such as the interaction in the discourse and in interviews. As a result,
the large scale study does not yield hard evidence in relation to for instance student
reasoning leading to level rises, as were seen in the small scale study.
Other limitations of the study have already been described more or less explicitly in the
analyses and conclusions of the various sub-studies. This concerns for instance the
deviation from the expected outcome in category D (‘responding to situations’) and the
nature of the research population in the large scale study.
During the course of the study, ideas also arose about desired, possibly more effective
or more efficient research strategies. One example is the only partially fulfilled desire to
have the teacher educators participate in the study as teacher educator-researchers.
Another example is the need that arose for an interdisciplinary research team consisting
of content specialists for mathematics, language, and general pedagogues. The use of
such a team would be particularly profitable for analysing the data from different
182
angles, most likely leading to deeper insight into student reasoning than was the case
now. In the next section, the suggestion to form such an interdisciplinary research team
will be made.
6.5 Suggestions for future research

Before (in section 6.4) the limitations of practical situations in the multimedia learning
environment in comparison to students’ teaching practice were discussed. On the other
hand, this study also shows that a multimedia learning environment gives students the
opportunity to quietly observe, discuss and study ‘practice’ – also together. It turns out
that they appreciate working in such a multimedia learning environment with its focus
on integrating theory and practice and take advantage of it. The learning environment of
their own teaching practice evokes ‘survival’ rather than study and reflection.
In any case, further study in the students’ teaching practice will be necessary. Moreover,
there is a need for long-term study to determine how both beginning and experienced
teachers – consciously or subconsciously – use theory in daily practice and how the
development of ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge’ takes place in the longer term.
Particularly long-running research can provide more insight in for instance the ability of
teachers to anticipate with consideration on students’ learning and to respond to learning
processes (category D for the nature of theory use in this study). Also, in-service
training would seem a suitable venue for such a study. It is important to involve a varied
group of experienced teachers for such long term research, with variables such as prior
education, prior experience, the learning and teaching style or the extent of using
professional literature. Taking into account the various angles from which the data have
to be analyzed, it is desirable to form an interdisciplinary research team consisting of
general pedagogues as well as content specialists in the fields of mathematics and
language.
The use of the reflection-analysis instrument by teacher educators and (student) teachers
requires further training. Recent use of the instrument, also for other subjects, has
shown that there are minimum conditions that have to be met to allow its effective use.
One example of such a condition is prior definition of a theoretical network of concepts,
not only at meso-level but also at micro-level. If the available theoretical network of
concepts is too limited, it will not be possible to establish whether students are capable
of creating meaningful connections between concepts.
The reflection-analysis instrument offers the opportunity to perform a systematic and
nuanced analysis of (one’s own) video recordings of teaching practice. Do teachers have
(spiral) levels of development, as is sometimes assumed? To what degree do teachers
appreciate the use of theory in their reflection on their own practice, and can the
usefulness of the effect be measured?
183
Based on the experiences from this study, a combination of small scale and large scale
research is recommended. Triangulation of the results from both kinds of research can
lead to deeper, coherent analyses, which will, as a result of the possibility to have more
nuances within the data system, be more consistent and cogent than the analysis of data
from individual studies. Examples of such results in these studies were the level rises in
student teachers (cf. sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3, and 4.3.4).
6.6 Implications for teacher education

Implications for the curriculum design
The set-up of the designs for the learning environment in the four sub-studies, shows an
increased structuring in the approach of the student teachers’ learning processes. Seen in
that light the learning study of the student pioneers in the first exploratory study was an
‘open learning study’ in MILE, and the studies that followed were more structured
studies. It has been mentioned before (section 2.4 and 3.5) that open investigations as a
part of the learning environment for students in mathematics teacher education have
been seen already for years as a likely opportunity to have students focus on their own
professional development in a natural way. The theoretical backgrounds that have been
mentioned are recognisable in the design of the investigations activity, in the sense that
the ideas have to be placed in the context of the development of theory for the pre-
service mathematics teacher education (in the Netherlands). A large effort is asked from
teacher educators to coach students in the pre-service training, for example from
superficial observing and judging of teaching situations to the level of predicting
occurrences or anticipating on and responding to situations. This is not an easy task; one
thing teacher educators are confronted with is the dilemma of the learning paradox
(Bereiter, 1985; section 3.7 and 3.9.1).
This is different for in-service training. The students often start the courses with their
own, practice-oriented questions, and can put in their direct experience and mirror or
test that against the experiences of others and against practice-relevant theory being
discussed.
Particularly, and this is not the least important difference with the pre-service training,
there is the direct, functional goal to improve one’s own teaching. For example ‘lesson
studies’ as proposed by Hiebert, Morris & Glass (2003), can fit the knowledge
generation and improvement processes for teacher preparation.
For that reason, gaining and extending the repertoire of theory-enriched practical
knowledge, seems a more easily attainable target for in-service training than for pre-
service training. The question may be asked whether it is possible for the pre-service
training to closer approach the concept of the in-service training. In both cases, we are
in fact dealing with cycles of observation of practical situations and reflecting on them
184
(collectively), followed by using the newly-gained practical knowledge. For the

curriculum of the pre-service training this could for instance mean a build-up of
investigation activities in four successive learning practices:
- the ‘multimedia practice’ of expert teachers,
- the mentor’s practice,
- the student’s own practice under the mentor’s supervision and
- independently in one’s own practice.
In that phased continuum, multimedia applications for students have different functions,
which gradually focus more and more on learning one’s own, complex practice.
Looking at the extremes, the scale runs from being able to quietly study the good
practice of expert teachers – particularly aimed at learning to observe and analyze
students’ and teachers’ activities – to studying and reflecting (also by others) on one’s
own practice in a ‘community of learners’ (cf. school team). For each of the four stages
that have been mentioned, the basis for reflection on practice is provided by theory, with
the ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge’ having the potential to develop into a theory
of practice for the teacher in practice. In the final stages of the outlined course, video
recordings of one’s own practice are an important tool for reflection. The images alert
(student) teachers to their own actions. This can be a confrontational experience, but for
that reason it will also lead to greater involvement and reflection, visible in the level
character of the local theory.
This study shows that multimedia may perform useful functions in the learning
environment of primary mathematics student teachers, particularly in relation to the
theory-practice problem. Primarily, there is the previously-mentioned possibility for
students to concentrate on others’ ‘safe’ good practice, away from the hectic of their
own practice group. Secondly, it is possible to discuss the ‘communally experienced’
practice in small or large groups. Thirdly, the ‘theory-enriched practice’ that is offered,
can be selected by teacher educators and be included in a sophisticated way in the
curriculum. Important is that the discourse about that practice is led by the teacher
educator, who, like no other, is able to make (hidden) practical knowledge explicit and
enrich it with theory. While the mentor at the practice school cannot do that, he or she
can play an important role in eliciting the mentor teachers’ practical knowledge in
prospective teachers. That ought to occur primarily in the third and fourth stage of the
structure for using video practice mentioned above. It turns out that the obvious advice
for student teachers to ask their mentor questions about a lesson they observed in
practice, is often overlooked by them (Zanting, 2001), while that activity contains
excellent opportunities to have the mentor’s practical knowledge be made explicit,
particularly if that ‘mentor’s practice’ has been recorded on video. The teacher educator
now moves to the foreground again, especially where enrichment of theory is involved,
185
or for instance in response to the student’s reflective note. An important competence of

the teacher educator is the ability to theorize practice. Being able to “intertwine the
investigation of practice with the examination and development of theory” (Lampert
and Loewenberg Ball, 1998) is a key element of the educator’s expertise. There should
be special attention to stimulating a rise in level. Section 2.4 and 4.4.2 point out, among
other things, the relationship between the rise in the students’ level of reasoning and the
ideas of Van Hiele (1973) and Freudenthal (1991). Van Hiele sees rises in level as
discontinuous, because the levels differ in the degree of abstraction and the way in
which the learner thinks and acts in relation to objects and relationships. The
discontinuous character of level rises may be one of the causes for the lack of
understanding between student(s) and teacher, because they think and reason on
different levels. The danger is present also in teacher education that teacher educator
and student(s) misunderstand each other for that reason, especially since the
phenomenon can occur at all ‘levels’ of education. Students encounter it in their
relations with the children in their teaching practice, and in their contacts with teacher
educators and student peers, the teacher educators encounter it in their contacts with
student teachers and in contacts at the level of the methods of teacher education.
This study shows that a rise in the level of reflection by students mainly occurred as a
result of direct or indirect interventions by the teacher educator. It will require great
effort by student teachers and their educators to reach the level of practical theorizing
(sections 3.1, 4.4.2 and 6.3), not in the least because that requires a specific knowledge
base and attitude from both parties.
The reflection-analysis instrument from this study can support teacher educator and
student in formative or summative assessment of the quality of the theory-enriched
practical knowledge. The ability to reflect is one of the most important characteristics of
a teacher’s professionalism, and it is largely the component of learning to reflect in a
systematic and functional way that gives the teacher education curriculum the
appropriate level. The reflection-analysis instrument is one item that can help create that
functionality and system. If necessary, it can be reduced to the level dimension of theory
use, making it easy to apply in teacher education for both students and teachers,
including those in other subjects than mathematics education.
Knowledge for mathematics teaching
The tendency by students that was found in the study to use general pedagogical, rather
than pedagogical content concepts, has consequences for the curriculum design at
teacher training colleges, in the sense that it is important to optimally use the meaning
of general pedagogical concepts in subject-specific contexts. Also, when choosing
teaching situations, subjects for discussions and interventions by teacher educators, it is
186
possible to focus (more) strongly on evoking and using domain-specific theory. In

section 2.6.4 we already pointed at the importance of giving more attention to what
Ball, Hill & Bass (2005) call ‘mathematical knowledge for teaching,’ a generic term for
the subject matter knowledge and the pedagogical content knowledge that teachers need
in the practice of mathematics teaching. The fact that pedagogical content concepts are
used mainly at ‘level 3,’ albeit that the use of general pedagogical concepts also occurs
more at that level, is another reason to stimulate students to as high a level of theory use
as possible, i.e. meaningful use of theoretical concepts in mutual relationships.
The fact that students have a lot of affinity with the general pedagogical aspects of the
development of children has other consequences for the design of the Pabo curriculum.
Teaching situations within the subject of mathematics clearly are motivating learning
situations for student teachers where the use of general pedagogical theory is concerned.
This means that it may be possible to make even better use of the school subject of
mathematics to develop (notions of) big ideas in the area of general educational theory.
On the other hand, deep exploration and use of general pedagogical concepts (e.g.,
interaction; context) is very important for learning to distinguish the pedagogical
content meaning, and particularly helps to avoid verbalism and separation of systems in
thinking.
The use of theory and student teachers’ prior education
It was to be expected that students with a higher level of prior education and students
who were in later years in their study would reflect at a higher level. That students with
mbo (senior secondary vocational education) without mathematics as prior education
still differ negatively in later years, both in their own ability and for the competence to
use subject-specific pedagogical knowledge, indicates that specific attention needs to be
given to this category of students. The hypothesis that is occasionally heard that
students with that kind of prior education and often weaker numeracy skills would not
be able to function well in the upper grades of primary school, though they would do
well at the lower levels, are not confirmed by the results of this study. After all, this
group scored below average not just on numeracy, but their use of theory (both general
pedagogical and pedagogical content) was also limited in nature and level, while the
theory in the study was aimed at the lower grades, and the mbo students who
participated in this study were mainly third year students. According to the results of the
study, for students with mbo without mathematics as prior education, it seems essential
to strengthen their theoretical knowledge network by reasoning about practice in terms
of ‘explaining’ and ‘responding to’ situations. Such activities stimulate the use of
theory, with respect to the number of theoretical concepts as well as to the level of using
those concepts.
For the ‘opposite poles’ of the mbo students where prior education is concerned, the
187
vwo (pre-university education) students, extra attention is also needed. Out of the ‘top
six’ among the student population, i.e. the students who scored 100% at level 3 of
theory use, five had vwo as their prior education. Perhaps not surprising, taking their
cognitive head start at the beginning of the course into account, but on the whole the
vwo students perform not as well as expected. The outcome confirms the suspicion that
these students also need special attention. Research has shown that vwo students, more
than others, indicate that they miss a theoretical depth (Geerdink & Derks, 2007). One
explanation for the fact that vwo students do not perform significantly better than their
student peers for the (pedagogical) use of theory, may be the attitude that a part of them
assumes at the start of the course. It does happen that these students underestimate the
relevance and the level of domain specific pedagogy at the start of the course, possibly
because they themselves can usually solve the mathematics problems to be taught
quickly (albeit in a formal manner).
In summary we can say that this study shows that multimedia in a primary mathematics
student teachers’ learning environment can perform useful functions, particularly in
relation to the theory-practice problem. If this learning environment is optimized for the
use of theory in practical situations, students can learn to integrate theory and practice,
and they may acquire ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge.’ An important criterion for
that optimisation of the learning environment can be found in the input of the teacher
educator, whose guidance for instance leads to a level rise in student reasoning about
practice.
The reflection-analysis instrument from this study can support the student teachers’ self-
assessment, and can be a tool for formative and summative assessment.
188
7 Summary
This study concentrates on the theory-practice problem in primary teacher education,
focusing specifically on the subject of mathematics education.
The main question is how student teachers can integrate theory and practice and how the
organisation of their learning environment can contribute to that integration. Little is
known yet about how student teachers at teacher training colleges gain knowledge or
about how they connect theoretical knowledge and practical situations, both crucial
components of learning to teach.
Chapter 1 of the thesis briefly describes background, context, problem, research

questions, relevance and character of the study.
The aim of the study is to gain an insight into the way in which student teachers connect
theory and practice and to what degree and at what level they are able to use theory in
teaching situations.
The research consisted of four sub-studies, namely two exploratory studies, a small
scale study and a large scale study, each with their own function in the whole. Each
time, the result of the previous study provided the means for the next study, with more
refined research questions and a more adequate design of the learning environments for
the student teachers who participated in the study. The multimedia character of the
learning environment allowed the optimisation of the use of theory.
The first three studies gradually provided new insight into the use of theory. In the small
scale study that insight was defined as the nature and level of theory use by student
teachers. Categorizing nature and level provided the tools for developing a reflection-
analysis instrument for the large scale study.
Chapter 2 describes the theoretical framework of the study.

The necessity of prospective teachers learning to integrate theory and practice is
generally acknowledged. Yet very little is known about the character of that process of
integration. The realisation that the prescriptive ‘transfer’ of theory does not lead to the
desired integration has existed for years in the field of teacher training, as well as the
awareness that theory is often insufficiently attuned to reality and the complexity of
acting in practice.
Teacher education colleges differ – also at a global scale – strongly in the way in which
they try to shape integrating theory and practice. Of the various trends that can be
distinguished, in the last several years the emphasis has been on the so-called ‘reflective
practice’ orientation and on the ‘development of professional knowledge’ orientation
(§ 2.2).
189
Summary
This last direction appears promising, especially because of the attention to the
simultaneous and integrated use of theoretical and practical knowledge by teachers in
training. However, this still does not answer the question of how integrating the various
elements of the knowledge base by teachers-to-be takes place and how that integration
can be developed and supported. A barrier in the search of an approach to a pedagogy
for teacher education is the ambiguity over the concepts of theory and practice. There is
a variety of views in the research literature. In § 2.3 and § 2.4 of this thesis an attempt is
made to chart this diversity and to justify the choices made for the purposes of the
studies. In that view the concept of teacher practical knowledge plays an essential part
(§ 2.3.4). For the derived concept ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge’ developed
during this study, this is the case especially. The quotation below shows the ‘theory-
enriched practical knowledge’ of student teacher Anne as she reflects on the results of
the study of multiplication strategies she performed in her practice school (§ 4.3). She
describes practice using theoretical concepts (multiplication strategies, memorizing,
automating, supporting problems) and uses these concepts in a meaningful way and
with mutual connections.
The various strategies do turn out to be somewhat complicated for some children.
They find it difficult to choose the right supporting problem [anchor point; w.o.] or
the right size of the problem (…). Strategies are needed to automate and memorize
the problems. You can also reverse this. That memorised problems are needed for
the strategies. Think of the supporting problems. They can calculate new problems
through problems they already know. Strategies, automating and memorizing are
inextricably linked. The use of strategies is not limited to multiplication, but occurs
in all other areas of mathematics education. Another reason to offer strategies is the
opportunity for checks. In practice you encounter children who have memorised
problems wrong. By calculating problems using the strategies you can check the
answers. Provided the strategies are used correctly, which is sometimes difficult for
the weaker students.
The history of Dutch primary mathematics teacher education, particularly after 1970,
shows how the relationship between theory and practice developed there (§ 2.5). The
founding of the Institute for the development of mathematics education (‘Instituut voor
ontwikkeling van het wiskundeonderwijs’; IOWO) in 1971, started a new development
in mathematics education in primary and secondary education in the Netherlands.
In this study that influence can be found in the design of the student teacher learning
environment for the student teachers who participated in the various studies.
The development of the learning environment occurred as a ‘design research process’ in

four stages, with the three components of performing a design project recognisable in
each, namely preparing, trying out the design in a group and performing a retrospective
analysis (§ 2.7). Focal points for the use of theory in the course (§ 2.6) were used as a
190
frame of reference for developing and refining particularly the learning environment for
the small and large scale studies.
The multimedia character of the learning environments enabled the use of video images
of practical situations as objects of learning and inquiry activities for student teachers.
In this ‘multimedia practice’ they could concentrate on teaching situations that had been
selected for them both individually and in groups. Assignments for the student teachers’
own practice were part of the learning environment. For the two exploratory studies, use
was made of the Multimedia Interactive Learning Environment – MILE, the
development of which is described in section 3.3 of this thesis. In the small and large
scale studies a CD-rom ‘The Guide for grade two’ (section 4.2.2.2) was used as part of
the student teachers’ learning environment.
Chapter 3 presents both the exploratory studies within the context of the development
of the MILE project.
The first exploratory study (§ 3.5) was set in a learning environment that consisted of
ten lessons in grade two on CD-roms, a description of these lessons, the textbooks for
the lessons and the first version of the MILE search engine.
The goal of the study was to gain an insight into the character of the learning process of
student teachers who explored the diverse content of MILE and in the process, they
constructed new knowledge.
The learning and inquiry process of the two student teachers who participated in the
study manifested a cyclical process of planning, searching, observing, reflecting and
evaluating. In addition, the study showed the levels at which student teachers
constructed their knowledge. Relationships between theory and practice were created in
the discussions, which were led by the participating teacher educator/researcher,
through written reflection on the discussions, and at a later stage based on literature.
Integration of theory and practice occurred particularly at the so-called third and fourth
levels of observed construction of knowledge (§ 3.5.5), at moments that student teachers
asked themselves questions about observed situations, when they made connections
with the literature or when they formulated their own ‘local theory.’
In the second exploratory study (§ 3.8) the MILE environment was extended with
lessons from several primary school classes, as well as an advanced search engine,
which allowed the student teachers to search the lessons and additional materials.
In addition, the two groups of 25 student teachers who participated in the study were
provided with a list of 150 theoretical concepts. This list gave them the opportunity to
estimate their advance theoretical knowledge at the start of ‘The Foundation,’ a new
course for MILE. The course consisted of ten meetings led by the teacher educator, with
group work and individual study after each meeting. The student teachers had a
191
Summary
workbook with learning and investigation assignments for working with MILE.
The purpose of this exploratory study was to inventory ‘signals of theory use’ shown by
student teachers in their reflections on their study of practical situations within MILE.
Connections between theory and practice were made during discussions led by the
trainers, during group work, in individual study and in the oral and written reports of
assignments the student teachers had to perform.
The research data were obtained through observation of eight student teachers during
the collective meetings, through a participatory study of group work and through
interviews.
The analysis of the results on the basis of fifteen formulated ‘signals of theory use’
showed that student teachers only rose above the level of responding in terms of
‘practical wisdom’ in situations where the teacher educator participated. This led to the
conclusion that the student teachers’ learning environment would have to be optimized
for learning to make the practical knowledge within MILE explicit and to enrich it with
theory.
Chapter 4 describes the small scale study.

The learning environment for the small scale study was adapted on the basis of the
conclusions from the second exploratory study. The elements that were added to the
learning environment, were intended to challenge student teachers to make explicit the
theory-loaded practical knowledge that was present in the multimedia practical
situations, and to analyze them, to enable the construction of ‘theory-enriched practical
knowledge.’ Examples of such elements were:
- ‘The Guide,’ a CD-rom, used as learning and private study material, containing
practical narratives, with additional theoretical reflections and literature;
- discussions, based among other things on ‘theorems’ that had been formulated in
group work;
- a ‘game of concepts,’ consisting of four practical situations (video) and for each
student teacher six differently colored cards (concepts) and an answer form;
- inquiry on student teacher’s own field placement;
- writing ‘annotated narratives’ and reflective notes.
As in the second exploratory study, the student teachers had a list of theoretical
concepts available to them. This functioned not only as an initial assessment, but it
played a prominent part for the student teachers in the whole course.
The research question of the small scale study (§ 4.1) was aimed at the way in which
and the amount of theory student teachers used when describing practical situations
after their course.
192
The assumption was that the renewed learning environment would enable the student
teachers to reason in a diverse way about practical situations, and that there would be
demonstrable differences in the depth of their theory use. The study was aimed at
mapping that variance and depth. Two groups of six, respectively eight, student teachers
voluntarily worked in the learning environment for five one-and-a-half hour meetings,
led by two experienced teacher educators. In advance of these meetings some
components of the learning environment (The Guide, list of concepts, ‘theorems’) were
tested with four groups of 63 second year student teachers in total. Next, the researcher
developed the first version of the learning environment for the fourteen student teachers
taking part in the small scale study. After each meeting there was an evaluation, and the
researcher made suggestions for the next step based on (video) observations and the
input from the teacher educators. The research data from the fourteen student teachers
were the source material for describing a case about the learning process of student
teacher Anne (§ 4.3).
Considerations based on the results and experiences from the previous studies and from
research literature, inspired the development and testing of the first version of the
reflection-analysis instrument.
In contrast to the collection of fifteen ‘signals of theory use’ that had been compiled in
the second exploratory study, this instrument allowed comparing the use of theory by
Anne and her fellow student teachers (§ 4.4).
The study showed that all student teachers used theory in their oral and written
responses to practical situations. The differences in both the way theory was used in the
descriptions as the number of theoretical concepts in use were relatively large. The
difference in the level at which student teachers used theoretical concepts in their
reflection on practical situations, could be distinguished based on the student teacher’s
ability to create meaningful connections between theoretical concepts. Reasoning
leading to a rise in level of theory use were observed especially during interactions led
by the teacher educator and during interviews (§ 4.4.2).
The study of the relationship between theory use and the level of numeracy, also a part
of the small scale study, strengthened the suspicion that there was a positive relationship
between the two variables (§ 4.4.1).
In addition, the output of the anonymous questionnaire the student teachers were handed
as an evaluation form after the series of meetings, could be interpreted as an
appreciation of theory by the student teachers and of the integrated approach in offering
theory and practice in the student teachers’ learning environment.
Chapter 5 describes the large scale study of 269 student teachers.

The study was set up partly on the basis of the results of the small scale study.
193
Summary
Specifically, the research questions were refined, and the learning environment and the
research instruments were adapted.
The research questions of the large scale study were formulated as follows:
1. In what way do student teachers use theoretical knowledge when they describe
practical situations after spending a period in a learning environment that
2. What is the theoretical quality of statements made by the student teachers when
3. a). Is there a meaningful relationship between the nature and the level of theory
use? If so, how is that relationship expressed in the various components of
theory use and in various groups of students?
b). To what extent is there a relationship between the nature or the level of the
The changes in the learning environment for the large scale study mainly involved the
initial assessment, the final assessment and the numeracy test. In addition a manual for
teacher educators was designed, which contained a detailed description of the student
teachers’ course, with guidelines for the content and organisation of the meetings,
instructions for known to be successful interventions, criteria for good learning
questions and hints for stimulating the use of theory and rises in level.
A general characteristic in the development of the curriculum for the student teacher
course was the plural embedding of theory (intrinsic, extrinsic; § 2.6.4.) and the desire
for a balance between content components, as well as between self-guidance and
guidance from the teacher educator, and between the student teachers’ teaching practice
and the professional practice targeted by the teacher training colleges (§ 2.7.1).
The data analysis of the small scale study also provided new insight into the use of
theory by student teachers. It turned out that two dimensions could be distinguished,
namely the nature and the level of theory use. Other than with the ‘signals of theory
use’ that were developed in the second exploratory study, four signals for nature,
combined with three categories for level (table 7.1), allowed a consistent and systematic
categorisation of theory use.
Using the twelve (4 x 3) categories as a foundation, the reflection-analysis instrument
was developed further, validated and assessed for reliability (§ 5.3.6).
Table 7.1 gives an overview of the twelve categories for nature and level of theory use.
194
Table 7.1 Reflection analysis tool. Brief description of the twelve score combinations, with
horizontally the division based on the nature of theory use and vertically the level of theory
use
A B C D
Factual Interpreting Explaining Responding,
description For instance For instance gearing to
facts: who, opinion or ‘explaining why’ For instance,
what, where, conclusion anticipation,
how without continuation or
foundation alternative design,
meta-cognitive
reactions
A1 B1 C1 D1
description of events without events without alternative event,
Level 1 events without use of theoretical use of theoretical continuation or meta-
use of concepts. concepts. cognition without use
theoretical of theoretical
concepts. concepts.
A2 B2 C2 D2
description of events using one events using one alternative event,
events using one or more or more continuation or meta-
theoretical concepts without concepts without or more theoretical
concepts mutual mutual concepts without
without mutual connection. connection. mutual connection.
connection.
A3 B3 C3 D3
description of events using one events using one alternative event,
events using one or more or more continuation or meta-
theoretical concepts with a concepts with a or more theoretical
concepts with a meaningful meaningful concepts with a
meaningful connection. connection. meaningful
connection. connection.
Generally speaking, the scoring procedure came down to dividing the student teachers’
reflective notes into ‘meaningful units,’ on average seven per student teachers, and in
total 1740 units. For each unit the nature (A-D) and the level (1-3) were determined.
Table 7.2 describes two examples of meaningful units to which score combinations
have been (A2 respectively C3) assigned.
195
Summary
Table 7.2 Example of setting scores A2 and C3

Score Example of the meaningful unit with an explanation of the score
(combination)
The suitcase with balls that was put down by ‘Black Piet’ is used by Minke as a
reason to count (in a structured way) with the children. The fragment starts at the
A2 moment that the balls are snatched away and are put in transparent cylinders.
Explanation: It is a factual reproduction of a situation, in which one
theoretical concept (structured counting) is used.
The class already comes up with 2 x 5 followed by 3 x 5. Because she
visualises the five times table for the children, they can also tell a story to
accompany a problem. 1 x 5 will be possible to see as 1 tube times 5 balls. She
also makes a connection between concrete material and a grid model. At one
point Clayton is counting 10 x 5, the teacher confirms this for the class. There
is in fact a transition being made here from multiplication by counting to
C3
structured multiplication.
Explanation: the whole text has the character of an explanatory description,
with the words ‘because,’ ‘also’ and ‘in fact’ functioning among other things
as signal words. Seven concepts are used in connection (five times table,
visualises, story to accompany a problem, concrete material, grid model,
multiplication by counting and structured multiplication).
The results of the large scale study (§ 5.4) give an insight into the way in which and the
amount of connections student teachers make between theory and practice and the
degree to which there is a relationship between the nature and the level of theory use
and the student teachers’ level of numeracy.
It turned out that nearly all student teachers used theory, but that there were large
differences in the way in which they used theory and the amount of theory that they used.
Table 7.3 shows the average percentages that student teachers scored per category.
Table 7.3 Average percentages categories A1 to D3
Nature A B C D
Level
1 12 5 12 7
2 8 4 12 5
3 5 3 18 9
What stands out is the high score for ‘explaining’ (category C) and the fact that the
highest, third level of theory use mainly occurs in combination with ‘explaining’ and
‘responding to situations’ and hardly with ‘factual description’ and ‘interpreting.’
Seven hypotheses have been formulated for the research questions into the nature and
the level of theory use and the relationship between the two dimensions. The hypotheses
were largely confirmed by the study (§ 5.4.2 - § 5.4.4).
196
One of the conclusions was that nearly 80% of the student teachers dominated in one of
the four categories in relation to the nature of theory use. One possible explanation of
that dominance might be differences in learning or writing styles between student
teachers. A similar dominance could be seen in the level of theory use; 76% of the
student teachers were dominant at one of the three levels of theory use.
It also turned out that student teachers used theoretical concepts mainly in explaining
situations. These theoretical concepts were mostly general pedagogical concepts.
No relationship could be found between the number of pedagogical content concepts
and the nature of theory use, including ‘explaining.’ A positive correlation was found
between the number of pedagogical content concepts and level 3.
Factual description and interpretation mainly occurred at the first and second level of
theory use. The third level of theory use is mainly related to explaining teaching
situations and responding to situations.
A significant positive correlation has been found between the nature of theory use
‘explaining’ and the level of numeracy, as well as between the level of numeracy and
the third level of theory use.
Concerning the relationship between the use of theory and the variable prior education,
the group of student teachers with ‘mbo without mathematics’ as their prior education
stands out. This group of mainly third year student teachers holds an in all respects
negative position. This is the case for both the number of theoretical concepts used and
the nature and level of theory use. These student teachers’ reflections mainly manifest
as factual description and interpreting at the lowest level.
In a more general sense, a meaningful relationship existed between the nature and the
level of theory use. At the higher levels less factual description (category A) and
interpretation (category B) emerged. On the other hand, explaining (category C)
appeared to occur more at the highest level. For responding to situations (category D)
no strong relationship between nature and level was found (§ 5.4.4).
Chapter 6 describes the general conclusions, limitations, suggestions for future research
and implications for teacher training colleges. In addition, a local theory for (the
learning of) integrating theory and practice is discussed.
Based on the four sub-studies, the following general conclusion can be formulated
(§ 6.2):
- The use of theory in practical situations could be established unambiguously
through the use of the reflection-analysis instrument by determining the nature and
the level of theory use by student teachers.
197
Summary
- The nature is shown in four types of theory use: factual description, interpreting,
explaining and ‘responding to’ situations. The three levels have been defined
based on the degree to which theoretical concepts are used meaningfully.
- Nearly all student teachers used theory in the final assessment of their course, and
a large number of student teachers dominated on one component for the nature and
level of theory use.
- The nature of theory use by student teachers manifested mainly in ‘explaining’
situations. The average percentages of the three levels were roughly similar.
- It turned out to be the case that the higher their prior education, the less student
teachers used ‘factual description’ and ‘interpretation,’ and the more they
‘explained.’ The student teachers with mbo without mathematics described
significantly more factually and explained less. Student teachers with vwo with
mathematics explained more.
- The student teachers used significantly more general pedagogical concepts in
explaining and significantly less in factual descriptions of situations.
- No relationship was found between the nature of theory use and the number of
- The first level of theory use occurred mainly with first year student teachers, while
level 3 mainly occurred with second and third year student teachers, and those
with a higher level of prior education.
- Student teachers who used more theoretical concepts, reflected at a higher level
and vice versa. A significant positive relationship was found between the number
of pedagogical content concepts and level 3 in the final assessment and no
relationship between the same variables in the initial assessment.
- A meaningful relationship was found between nature and level of theory use. The
characteristics of factual description and interpreting for the nature of theory use
mostly occurred at the first and second levels, while explaining and – to a lesser
degree – responding to situations were mostly connected with the third level of
theory use.
- Reasoning leading to a rise in level of theory use were observed especially during
the interactions led by the teacher educator and during interviews. In a few
instances that rise in level could be interpreted as ‘vertical didacticizing.’
- A strong relationship was found between the category ‘explaining’ for the nature
of theory use and numeracy, and slightly less strong between level 3 of theory use
and numeracy. Another strong relationship was found between the level of
numeracy and the level of prior education.
- Student teachers who participated in the study appreciated the learning
environment aimed at integrating theory and practice.
198
The results of the study and the analysis of the student teachers’ activities aimed at the
use of theory, provided the basis for reflection in relation to a local theory for (learning)
integrating theory and practice by student teachers (§ 6.3).
The core of the theory is that student teachers learn to integrate theory and practice in a
learning environment that invites the use of theory. The process of learning to integrate
is supported by teaching materials and targeted interventions by the teacher educator.
One aim of that support is finding a connection to student teachers’ existing knowledge
network, as well as stimulating a rise in level for reasoning about practical situations.
The level character of the theory is expressed in the nature and the level of theory use.
The process of learning to integrate theory and practice leads increasingly to the gaining
of ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge.’
The local theory as described, consists of three main components, namely the formulated
concepts of theory, practice and the relationship between theory and practice, the
theoretical knowledge base of the learning environment for student teachers and the
guidelines for teacher educators to support student teachers’ learning and development
processes. The theory-laden practice narratives, the multifunctional lists of concepts, the
varied and practice-oriented activities for the student teachers, the input of the teacher
educator and the reflection-analysis instrument are essential components for the
elaboration of that theory in the curriculum of the teacher training course.
To a certain extent this study was limited by choices that were made (§ 6.4). One
example is the context in which the study occured. It was not their own teaching
practice that was at the centre of the study, but ‘practice’ for the student teachers
consisted mainly of practice situations that were represented in multimedia form.
Despite all the advantages of the multimedia practice, the question remains whether
situations from the student teachers’ own practice as an object of discussion and
reflection would not lead to a better insight into making relations between theory and
practice. It is particularly the real practice of teaching where student teachers can
become aware of theory as a necessary instrument for reflection on their thinking and
actions, with as its goal understanding and adequate response to situations.
A second example of limitations of this study was the collection of data for the large
scale study. The nature of this collection, mainly consisting of reflective notes, may
possibly have limited the insight into some aspects of the use of theory.
Further research is necessary (§ 6.5), partly to counter the limitations mentioned above.
Short term research may focus on the field placement of (student) teachers. Long term
research is desirable to achieve an insight into the use of theory – consciously or
subconsciously – of beginning and experienced teachers in daily practice and the effect
it has on the quality of teaching.
199
Summary
Considering the various approaches from which the data would have to be analyzed, it
would be desirable for such a study to be led by an interdisciplinary research team of
pedagogues and specialists in the pedagogy of mathematics and language.
The reflection-analysis instrument that was developed in this study, offers the
opportunity to analyze reflections systematically and in detail to other areas of teacher
training than mathematics and pedagogy alone. The instrument can support teacher
educators and student teachers in assessing or judging the quality of theory-enriched
practical knowledge. The instrument may also be simplified by limiting it to the vertical
dimension for the description of the level of theory use.
A combination of small and large scale studies is recommended for any further research.
The use of various types of data or data sources from both studies can lead to deeper,
coherent analyses, which will, as a result of the possibility to have more nuances within
the data system, be more consistent and cogent than the analysis of data from individual
studies. The rise in levels of theory use of student teachers in this study is an example of
this.
In addition this study provides possible directions for the design of the curriculum for
teacher education (§ 6.6). Primarily, this study shows that multimedia in student teachers’
learning environment may serve a useful purpose, particularly where learning to integrate
theory and practice by student teachers is concerned. A multimedia learning environment
offers student teachers the chance to concentrate on studying practical knowledge, outside
the pressure and complexity of their own practice class. The ‘communally experienced’
practice can be observed and studied individually or with a team.
Multimedia, for instance video images that could be recorded by student teachers or
teacher educators themselves, can be used within teacher training in four stages of
learning and research activities.
The conclusion was drawn within all (sub)studies of this study that the input of the
teacher educator is crucial for the quality of student teacher activities. Like no other the
teacher educator is able to make (hidden) practical knowledge explicit and to enrich it
with theory. For example, rises in level in the reasoning of student teachers were
observed almost exclusively in discussions that were led by the teacher trainer or in
interviews with the researcher.
The multifunctional lists of concepts was useful to both student teachers and their
educators. During the whole of the course, the lists supported awareness of the progress
in student teacher learning processes.
The reflection-analysis instrument can be used to assess or evaluate the use of theory by
student teachers.
200
A second direction for the teacher training curriculum is derived from the tendency,
found in the study, of student teachers to use general pedagogical concepts more than
pedagogical content concepts. This underlines the importance of more attention to the
use of domain-specific instruction theory and particularly the importance of giving
meaning to general pedagogical concepts within the context of a domain-specific
subject.
A third direction concerns attention to student teachers with ‘mbo without mathematics’
as their prior education as well as for student teachers with prior education ‘vwo with
mathematics.’ For different reasons, the results of this study point out the need for extra
pedagogical measures for both groups of student teachers.
Finally, the anonymous questionnaires show that the student teachers appreciated the
learning environment in which they had the opportunity to gain their practical
knowledge, and that they appreciated in particular the theory that had been integrated
into these practical situations as a support of their own practice. They believe that the
learning environment makes it clear that you need theory, and that theory helps in
understanding practice and guiding your students.
201
Summary
202
8 Samenvatting
Dit onderzoek richt zich op de theorie-praktijkproblematiek in de opleiding voor leraren
basisonderwijs, toegespitst op het vak rekenen-wiskunde en didactiek.
Het gaat daarbij vooral om de vraag op welke wijze studenten theorie en praktijk kunnen
integreren en hoe de inrichting van hun leeromgeving daaraan kan bijdragen. Er is nog
weinig bekend omtrent de kennisverwerving door studenten van de lerarenopleiding en al
evenmin over de wijze waarop studenten theoretische kennis en praktijksituaties met
elkaar in verband brengen, beide cruciale componenten van het leren onderwijzen.
Hoofdstuk 1 van het proefschrift geeft een korte beschrijving van achtergrond, context,
probleemstelling, onderzoeksvragen, de relevantie en het karakter van het onderzoek.
Het doel van het onderzoek is inzicht te krijgen in de wijze waarop studenten theorie en
praktijk verbinden en in welke mate en op welk niveau zij in staat zijn theorie te
gebruiken in onderwijssituaties.
Het onderzoek bestond uit vier deelonderzoeken, te weten twee exploratieve
onderzoeken, een kleinschalig onderzoek en een grootschalig onderzoek, elk met hun
eigen functie. Telkens leverde de opbrengst van het voorgaande onderzoek de middelen
voor het volgende onderzoek, met meer verfijnde onderzoeksvragen en een meer
adequaat ontwerp van de leeromgeving voor de studenten die aan het onderzoek
deelnamen. Het multimediale karakter van de leeromgeving maakte het mogelijk het
gebruik van theorie te optimaliseren.
De eerste drie onderzoeken verschaften gaandeweg nieuw inzicht in het theoriegebruik.
Dat inzicht werd in het kleinschalige onderzoek benoemd als de aard en het niveau van
theoriegebruik door studenten. De categorisering van de aard en het niveau leverde het
gereedschap voor het ontwikkelen van een reflectie-analyse instrument ten behoeve van
het grootschalige onderzoek.
Hoofdstuk 2 beschrijft het theoretisch kader van het onderzoek.

De noodzaak van het leren integreren van theorie en praktijk door aanstaande leraren
wordt allerwegen onderkend. Toch is er nog weinig bekend over het karakter van dat
integratieproces. Al vele jaren leeft in opleidingskringen het besef dat het
voorschrijvend ‘overdragen’ van theorie niet leidt tot de gewenste integratie en
bovendien dat de theorie vaak onvoldoende is afgestemd op de realiteit en de
complexiteit van het handelen in de praktijk.
Opleidingen verschillen – ook mondiaal – sterk in de manier waarop zij in hun curricula de
integratie van theorie en praktijk proberen vorm te geven. Van de richtingen die daarin
kunnen worden onderscheiden, ligt de laatste jaren het accent op de zogenaamde ‘reflective
practice’-oriëntatie en op de ‘development of professional knowledge’-oriëntatie (§ 2.2).
203
Samenvatting
De laatste richting lijkt veelbelovend, vooral door de aandacht voor het gelijktijdig en
geïntegreerd gebruik van theoretische kennis en praktijkkennis door aanstaande leraren.
Dat biedt echter nog geen antwoord op de vraag op welke wijze de integratie van de
verschillende elementen van de kennisbasis van aanstaande leraren tot stand komt en
hoe die integratie kan worden bevorderd. Een barrière bij het zoeken naar een
opleidingsdidactische aanpak is het gemis aan eenduidigheid over de concepten theorie
en praktijk. Er is een verscheidenheid aan opvattingen in de onderzoeksliteratuur. In
§ 2.3 en § 2.4 van dit proefschrift wordt gepoogd die verscheidenheid in kaart te
brengen en de voor het onderzoek noodzakelijke keuzen te verantwoorden. In dat
keuzeproces speelt het concept ‘praktijkkennis’ (teacher practical knowledge) een
essentiële rol (§ 2.3.4). Dit geldt in het bijzonder voor het daarvan afgeleide concept
‘met theorie verrijkte praktijkkennis,’ dat in de loop van dit onderzoek is ontwikkeld.
Onderstaand citaat toont ‘met theorie verrijkte praktijkkennis’ van studente Anne als zij
reflecteert op de uitkomsten van het onderzoek naar vermenigvuldigstrategieën dat zij in
haar stagepraktijk heeft uitgevoerd (§ 4.3.6). Zij beschrijft de praktijk met behulp van
theoretische begrippen (vermenigvuldigstrategieën, memoriseren, automatiseren,
steunsommen) en gebruikt die begrippen betekenisvol en in onderlinge samenhang.
De verschillende strategieën blijken toch vrij ingewikkeld te zijn voor sommige
rekenaars. Ze hebben moeite met het kiezen van de juiste steunsom of de juiste
grootte van de som (...). Strategieën zijn nodig om de sommen te automatiseren en
memoriseren. Andersom kun je ook zeggen dat gememoriseerde sommen nodig zijn
bij de strategieën. Denk aan de steunsommen. Door middel van sommen die ze al
weten kunnen ze andere sommen uitrekenen. Strategieën, automatiseren en
memoriseren zijn onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden. Het gebruik van strategieën
komt niet alleen voor bij het vermenigvuldigen, maar bij alle andere onderdelen van
het rekenen wiskundeonderwijs. Een andere reden om strategieën aan te bieden is
de controle mogelijkheid. Je komt in de praktijk kinderen tegen die bepaalde
sommen verkeerd hebben gememoriseerd. Door sommen uit te rekenen m.b.v. de
strategieën kun je de antwoorden controleren. Mits de strategieën goed gebruikt
worden, wat voor zwakkere rekenaars soms moeilijk is.
De historie van de Nederlandse opleiding voor leraren basisonderwijs in het vak
rekenen-wiskunde en didactiek, in het bijzonder die van ná 1970, laat zien hoe de
verhouding tussen theorie en praktijk zich in deze opleiding heeft ontwikkeld (§ 2.5).
Met de oprichting van het Instituut voor ontwikkeling van het wiskundeonderwijs
(IOWO) in 1971, startte in Nederland een nieuwe ontwikkeling van het rekenen
wiskundeonderwijs in het primair en voortgezet onderwijs. Die ontwikkeling had grote
invloed op de verwante lerarenopleidingen.
In dit onderzoek is deze invloed zichtbaar in het ontwerp van de leeromgevingen van
studenten die aan de verschillende onderzoeken deelnamen.
204
De ontwikkeling van de leeromgevingen voltrok zich als een ‘design research proces’ in
vier fasen, in elk waarvan de drie componenten van het uitvoeren van een designproject
herkend kunnen worden, namelijk voorbereiden, uitproberen in een groep en het
uitvoeren van een retrospectieve analyse (§ 2.7). Aandachtspunten voor het gebruik van
theorie in de opleiding (§ 2.6) fungeerden als referentiekader voor het ontwikkelen en
verfijnen van met name de leeromgeving voor het klein- en grootschalige onderzoek.
Het multimediale karakter van de leeromgevingen maakte het mogelijk om videobeelden
van praktijksituaties in te zetten als object van leer- en onderzoeksactiviteiten voor
studenten. In deze ‘multimediale praktijk’ konden zij zich individueel, maar ook
gezamenlijk, concentreren op voor hen geselecteerde onderwijssituaties. Opdrachten voor
de eigen stagepraktijk maakten deel uit van de leeromgeving. Ten behoeve van de twee
exploratieve onderzoeken is de Multimediale Interactieve Leeromgeving – MILE –
ingezet, waarvan de ontwikkeling beschreven is in § 3.3 van dit proefschrift. In het klein-
en grootschalige onderzoek werd de CD-rom ‘Gids voor rekenen/wiskunde’ (§ 4.2.2.2)
gebruikt als onderdeel van de leeromgeving voor studenten.
Hoofdstuk 3 presenteert de beide exploratieve onderzoeken in de context van de

ontwikkeling van het MILE-project.
Het eerste exploratieve onderzoek (§ 3.5) speelde zich af in een leeromgeving die
bestond uit tien lessen van groep 4 op CD-roms, een beschrijving van die lessen, de bij
de lessen behorende werkboeken en de eerste versie van de zoekmachine van MILE.
Doel van het onderzoek was inzicht te krijgen in het karakter van het leerproces van
studenten die in MILE op onderzoek gingen en in de opbrengst van hun leerproces in
termen van kennisconstructie.
Het leer- en onderzoeksproces van de twee aan het onderzoek deelnemende studenten
manifesteerde zich als een cyclisch proces van plannen, zoeken, observeren, reflecteren en
evalueren. Het onderzoek gaf verder een beeld van de niveaus waarop de studenten hun
kennis construeerden. Relaties tussen theorie en praktijkrelaties werden gelegd in de
discussies onder leiding van de participerende opleider-onderzoeker, door schriftelijke
reflectie op de discussies en in een later stadium op basis van vakliteratuur.
Met name op het als zodanig benoemde derde en vierde niveau van de geconstateerde
kennisconstructie (§ 3.5.5), was er sprake van integreren van theorie en praktijk, op
momenten dat studenten zichzelf vragen stelden over geobserveerde situaties, wanneer zij
verband legden met de literatuur of wanneer zij een eigen ‘lokale theorie’ formuleerden.
In het tweede exploratieve onderzoek (§ 3.8) werd de MILE-omgeving uitgebreid met

lessen uit diverse groepen van de basisschool en een geavanceerde zoekmachine
waarmee studenten de lessen en additionele materialen konden doorzoeken.
205
Samenvatting
De twee groepen van 25 studenten die aan het onderzoek deelnamen kregen verder de
beschikking over een lijst met 150 theoretische begrippen. Die gaf hen de mogelijkheid
om hun theoretische voorkennis in te schatten bij het starten van ‘Het Fundament,’ een
nieuwe leergang voor MILE. De leergang bestond uit tien bijeenkomsten van twee uur
onder leiding van de opleider met na elke bijeenkomst groepswerk en zelfstudie. De
studenten hadden de beschikking over een werkboek met leer- en onderzoeksopdrachten
voor het werken met MILE.
Dit exploratieve onderzoek beoogde het inventariseren van ‘signalen van
theoriegebruik’ die studenten toonden in hun reflecties op hun studie van
praktijksituaties in MILE.
Theorie-praktijkrelaties werden gelegd tijdens discussies onder leiding van de opleiders,
in het groepswerk, tijdens zelfstudie en in de mondelinge en schriftelijke verslaggeving
van opdrachten die studenten moesten uitvoeren.
De onderzoeksdata werden verkregen door observatie van acht studenten tijdens de
gezamenlijke bijeenkomsten, door een participerende studie van groepswerk en door
interviews.
Uit de analyse van de resultaten aan de hand van vijftien geformuleerde ‘signalen van
theoriegebruik’ bleek dat studenten alleen in de situaties waarin de opleider
participeerde, uitstegen boven het niveau van reageren in termen van ‘practical
wisdom’. Dat leidde tot de conclusie dat de leeromgeving van de studenten
geoptimaliseerd zou moeten worden met betrekking tot de mogelijkheid om de in MILE
aanwezige praktijkkennis te leren expliciteren en theoretisch te verrijken.
Hoofdstuk 4 beschrijft het kleinschalige onderzoek.

De leeromgeving van het kleinschalige onderzoek werd aangepast op basis van de
conclusies uit het tweede exploratieve onderzoek. De elementen die aan de
leeromgeving werden toegevoegd, waren bedoeld om de studenten uit te lokken de in de
multimediale praktijksituaties aanwezige theoriegeladen praktijkkennis te expliciteren
en te analyseren, teneinde constructie van ‘met theorie verrijkte praktijkkennis’
mogelijk te maken. Voorbeelden van dergelijke elementen waren:
- de CD-rom ‘Gids voor rekenen/wiskunde’ (§ 4.2.2.2), ingezet als leer- en
zelfstudiemateriaal met praktijkverhalen, voorzien van theoretische reflecties en
literatuur;
- discussies, onder andere op basis van in groepswerk geformuleerde stellingen;
- een ‘begrippenspel,’ bestaande uit vier praktijksituaties (video) en voor iedere
student zes verschillend gekleurde kaartjes (begrippen) en een antwoordformulier;
- onderzoek in de eigen stagepraktijk;
- het schrijven van ‘geannoteerde verhalen’ en reflectieve notities.
Evenals in het tweede exploratieve onderzoek hadden de studenten de beschikking over
206
een lijst met theoretische begrippen. Die kreeg nu echter niet alleen een functie als
beginpeiling, maar speelde in de gehele leergang van de studenten een prominente rol.
De onderzoeksvraag van het kleinschalige onderzoek (§ 4.1) richtte zich op de manier

waarop en de mate waarin studenten theorie gebruikten als zij praktijksituaties
beschreven na afloop van de leergang die zij volgden.
De veronderstelling was dat de vernieuwde leeromgeving de studenten in staat zou
stellen gevarieerd te redeneren over praktijksituaties en dat er aanwijsbare verschillen
zouden zijn in de diepgang van hun theoriegebruik. Het onderzoek was erop gericht die
gevarieerdheid en diepgang in kaart te brengen. Twee groepen van zes, respectievelijk
acht studenten gingen op vrijwillige basis onder leiding van twee ervaren opleiders in de
leeromgeving aan de slag gedurende vijf bijeenkomsten van anderhalf uur. Voorafgaand
aan die bijeenkomsten werden enkele componenten van de leeromgeving (CD-rom,
begrippenlijst, stellingen) uitgeprobeerd met vier groepen van in totaal 63
tweedejaarsstudenten. Vervolgens ontwikkelde de onderzoeker een eerste versie van de
leergang voor de veertien aan het kleinschalige onderzoek deelnemende studenten. Na
elke bijeenkomst vond een nabespreking plaats en deed de onderzoeker voorstellen voor
het vervolg op basis van (video-)observaties en de inbreng van de opleiders. De
onderzoeksdata van de veertien studenten vormden het bronnenmateriaal voor het
beschrijven van een casus over het leerproces van studente Anne (§ 4.3).
Overwegingen op basis van de resultaten en ervaringen van de voorgaande onderzoeken

en van onderzoeksliteratuur, inspireerden tot het ontwikkelen en uitproberen van de
eerste versie van het reflectie-analyse instrument.
Anders dan met de de verzameling van vijftien ‘signalen van theoriegebruik’ die in het
tweede exploratieve onderzoek tot stand was gekomen, werd het met dit instrument
mogelijk het gebruik van theorie door Anne en haar medestudenten te vergelijken (§ 4.4).
Het onderzoek wees uit dat alle studenten theorie gebruikten in hun mondelinge en
schriftelijke reacties op praktijksituaties. De verschillen in zowel de manier waarop
theorie gebruikt werd in de beschrijvingen als de inzet van het aantal theoretische
begrippen waren relatief groot. Het verschil in niveau waarop studenten theoretische
begrippen gebruikten bij hun reflectie op praktijksituaties, kon onderscheiden worden
op basis van het vermogen van studenten om betekenisvolle relaties tussen theoretisch
begrippen te leggen. Vooral tijdens de interactie onder leiding van de opleider en tijdens
interviews werden redeneringen geobserveerd die leidden tot niveauverhoging in het
gebruik van theorie (§ 4.4.2).
Het onderzoek naar de relatie tussen het theoriegebruik en het niveau van gecijferdheid,
ook onderdeel van het kleinschalige onderzoek, versterkte het vermoeden van een
positief verband tussen beide variabelen (§ 4.4.1).
207
Samenvatting
Verder kon de opbrengst van de anonieme vragenlijst, aan de studenten voorgelegd als
evaluatieformulier na afloop van de serie bijeenkomsten, geïnterpreteerd worden als een
appreciatie van theorie door studenten en van de geïntegreerde aanpak in het aanbod
van theorie en praktijk in de leeromgeving van de studenten.
Hoofdstuk 5 beschrijft het grootschalige onderzoek onder 269 studenten.

Het onderzoek werd mede op basis van de resultaten van het kleinschalige onderzoek
ingericht. In het bijzonder werden de onderzoeksvragen verfijnd en de leeromgeving en
het onderzoeksinstrumentarium aangepast.
De onderzoeksvragen van het grootschalige onderzoek zijn als volgt geformuleerd:
1. Op welke wijze gebruiken aanstaande leraren theoretische kennis wanneer
zij praktijksituaties beschrijven na afloop van een periode die zij hebben
doorgebracht in een leeromgeving die uitnodigt tot het gebruik van theorie?
2. Wat is het theoretische gehalte van uitspraken van aanstaande leraren
wanneer zij praktijksituaties beschrijven?
3. a. Is er een betekenisvol verband tussen de aard en het niveau van
theoriegebruik? Zo ja, hoe komt die relatie tot uitdrukking in de
verschillende componenten van het theoriegebruik en bij verschillende
groepen studenten?
b. In hoeverre is er verband tussen de aard en het niveau van
theoriegebruik en de eigen vaardigheid c.q. gecijferdheid van studenten?
De aanpassingen van de leeromgeving ten behoeve van het grootschalige onderzoek
betroffen vooral de beginpeiling, de eindpeiling en de peiling gecijferdheid. Verder
werd een handboek voor opleiders ontworpen, met een gedetailleerde beschrijving van
de leergang voor studenten, voorzien van richtlijnen voor de inhoud en organisatie van
de bijeenkomsten, aanwijzingen voor succesvol gebleken interventies, criteria voor
goede leervragen en tips voor het stimuleren van theoriegebruik en niveauverhoging.
Algemeen kenmerk van de curriculumontwikkeling voor de leergang van de studenten
was de meervoudige inbedding van theorie (intrinsiek, extrinsiek; § 2.6.4.) en het
streven naar een balans tussen inhoudelijke componenten, alsmede tussen zelfsturing en
begeleiding door de opleider en tussen de stagepraktijk van de studenten en de gewenste
professionele praktijk van de opleidingen (§ 2.7.1).
De data-analyse van het kleinschalige onderzoek verschafte verder nieuw inzicht in het
theoriegebruik van studenten. Het bleek dat twee dimensies onderscheiden konden
worden, namelijk de aard en het niveau van theoriegebruik. Anders dan de ‘signalen
van theoriegebruik’ die in het tweede exploratieve onderzoek werden ontwikkeld, kon
met vier categorieën voor de aard, gecombineerd met drie categorieën voor het niveau
(tabel 8.1), het theoriegebruik eenduidig en systematisch worden bepaald.
Met de twaalf (4 x 3) categorieën als fundament, werd het reflectie-analyse instrument
208
verder ontwikkeld, gevalideerd en op betrouwbaarheid getoetst (§ 5.3.6).

Tabel 8.1 geeft een overzicht van de twaalf categorieën voor de aard en het niveau van
theoriegebruik.
Tabel 8.1 Reflectie-analyse instrument. Beknopte beschrijving van de twaalf score-

combinaties, met horizontaal de indeling in aard van theoriegebruik en verticaal het niveau
van theoriegebruik
A B C D
Feitelijk Interpreteren Verklaren Inspelen op
weergeven o.a. opinie of o.a. ‘uitleg van o.a. anticiperen,
feiten: wie, wat, conclusie zonder het waarom’. vervolg of
waar, hoe. onderbouwing. alternatief
ontwerpen,
metacognitieve
reacties.
A1 B1 C1 D1
Feitelijke Interpretatie van Verklaring van Beschrijving
beschrijving van gebeurtenissen gebeurtenissen alternatieve
gebeurtenissen zonder gebruik van zonder gebruik gebeurtenis, vervolg
Niveau 1
zonder gebruik theoretische van theoretische of metacognitie
van theoretische begrippen. begrippen. zonder gebruik van
begrippen. theoretische
begrippen.
A2 B2 C2 D2
beschrijving van gebeurtenissen met gebeurtenissen alternatieve
gebeurtenissen gebruik van één of met gebruik van gebeurtenis, vervolg
met gebruik van meer theoretische één of meer of metacognitie met
Niveau 2 één of meer begrippen, zonder theoretische gebruik van één of
theoretische onderlinge begrippen, meer theoretische
begrippen, samenhang. zonder begrippen zonder
zonder onderlinge onderlinge
onderlinge samenhang. samenhang.
samenhang.
A3 B3 C3 D3
beschrijving van gebeurtenissen met gebeurtenissen alternatieve
gebeurtenissen gebruik van twee of met gebruik van gebeurtenis, vervolg
met gebruik van meer theoretische twee of meer of metacognitie met
Niveau 3
twee of meer begrippen in theoretische gebruik van twee of
theoretische betekenisvolle begrippen in meer theoretische
begrippen in samenhang. betekenisvolle begrippen in
betekenisvolle samenhang. betekenisvolle
samenhang. samenhang.
209
Samenvatting
De scoreprocedure kwam er in grote lijnen op neer, dat de reflectieve notities van de

studenten in ‘betekenisvolle eenheden’ werden verdeeld, gemiddeld zeven per student, in
totaal 1740 eenheden. Per eenheid werd de aard (A-D) en het niveau (1-3) vastgesteld.
In tabel 8.2 zijn twee voorbeelden beschreven van betekenisvolle eenheden waaraan een
scorecombinatie (A2, respectievelijk C3) is toegekend.
Tabel 8.2 Voorbeeld van toekenning scores A2 en C3

Score Voorbeeld van betekenisvolle eenheid met toelichting bij de score
(combinatie)
De koffer met ballen die door zwarte piet is neergezet, gebruikt Minke als
aanleiding om met de kinderen (gestructureerd) te gaan tellen. Het fragment
begint op het moment dat de ballen uit de koffer worden gehaald en in kokers
A2
worden gestopt.
Toelichting: Het is de feitelijke weergave van een situatie waarbij één
theoretisch vakdidactisch begrip (gestructureerd tellen)wordt gebruikt.
Uit de klas komt al 2 x 5 en vervolgens 3 x 5. Doordat ze de tafel van vijf
visualiseert voor de kinderen kunnen zij ook een verhaal bij een som vertellen.
1 x 5 zal om te zetten zijn in 1 koker keer 5 ballen. Tevens maakt ze een
verbinding tussen concreet materiaal en een roostermodel. Clayton telt op een
gegeven moment 10 x 5, de juf bevestigt dit naar de klas toe. Er wordt hier
eigenlijk een overgang van het tellend vermenigvuldigen naar het
C3
structurerend vermenigvuldigen gemaakt.
Toelichting: De gehele tekst ademt het karakter van een verklarende
beschrijving, de woorden ‘doordat,’ ‘tevens’ en ‘eigenlijk’ fungeren o.a. als
signaalwoorden. Een zevental begrippen wordt in samenhang gebruikt (tafel
van vijf, visualiseert, verhaal bij som, concreet materiaal, roostermodel,
tellend vermenigvuldigen en structurerend vermeningvuldigen).
De resultaten van het grootschalige onderzoek (§ 5.4) geven inzicht in de manier
waarop en de mate waarin pabostudenten verband leggen tussen theorie en praktijk en
in hoeverre er een verband bestaat tussen de aard en het niveau van theoriegebruik en
het niveau van gecijferdheid van studenten.
Het bleek dat vrijwel alle studenten theorie gebruikten, maar dat er grote verschillen
waren in de manier waarop en de mate waarin dat gebeurde. Tabel 8.3 geeft de
gemiddelde percentages weer die de studenten per categorie scoorden.
Tabel 8.3 Gemiddelde percentages categorieën A1 tot en met D3

Aard A B C D
Niveau
1 12 5 12 7
2 8 4 12 5
3 5 3 18 9
210
Wat opvalt is de hoge score van ‘verklaren’ (categorie C) en het feit dat het hoogste,
derde niveau van theoriegebruik vooral voorkomt bij ‘verklaren’ en ‘inspelen op
situaties’ en nauwelijks bij ‘feitelijk weergeven’ en ‘interpreteren’.
Er zijn zeven hypothesen gesteld bij de onderzoeksvragen naar de aard en het niveau
van theoriegebruik en naar het verband tussen die beide dimensies. De hypothesen zijn
grotendeels bevestigd door het onderzoek.
Er werd onder meer vastgesteld dat bijna 80% van de studenten domineerde op één van
de vier categorieën met betrekking tot de aard van theoriegebruik. Een mogelijke
verklaring voor die dominantie is het verschil in leer- of schrijfstijl tussen studenten.
Ook voor het niveau van theoriegebruik manifesteerde zich een soortgelijke dominantie;
76% van de studenten domineerde op één van de drie niveaus van theoriegebruik.
Verder bleek dat studenten theoretische begrippen vooral gebruikten bij het verklaren
van situaties. Dat waren dan voornamelijk algemeen-didactische begrippen.
Tussen het aantal vakdidactische begrippen en de aard van theoriegebruik is geen
verband geconstateerd, ook niet voor ‘verklaren’. Er is wel een positieve correlatie
vastgesteld tussen het aantal vakdidactische begrippen en niveau drie.
Feitelijk weergeven en interpreteren speelde zich vooral af op het eerste en tweede
niveau van theoriegebruik. Het derde niveau van theoriegebruik is voornamelijk
gerelateerd aan verklaren van onderwijssituaties en inspelen op situaties.
Er is een significant positieve correlatie geconstateerd tussen de aard van theoriegebruik

‘verklaren’ en het niveau van gecijferdheid, evenals tussen het niveau van gecijferdheid
en het derde niveau van theoriegebruik.
Wat het verband tussen het theoriegebruik en de variable vooropleiding betreft, valt
vooral de groep studenten met vooropleiding ‘mbo zonder wiskunde’ op. Deze groep
van voornamelijk derdejaarsstudenten neemt een in alle opzichten significant negatieve
uitzonderingspositie in. Dat geldt voor zowel het aantal theoretische begrippen dat werd
gebruikt als voor de aard en het niveau van theoriegebruik. Het reflecteren van deze
studenten manifesteerde zich voornamelijk als feitelijk weergeven en interpreteren op
het laagste niveau.
In meer algemene zin werd er een betekenisvol verband tussen de aard en het niveau
van theoriegebruik aangetoond. Er wordt minder feitelijk weergegeven (categorie A) en
geïnterpreteerd (categorie B) naar mate het niveau hoger wordt. Bij verklaren (categorie
C) is het omgekeerd: er wordt meer verklaard naar mate het niveau hoger wordt. Voor
inspelen op situaties (categorie D) is geen sterk verband tussen aard en niveau
geconstateerd (§ 5.4.4).
211
Samenvatting
Hoofdstuk 6 beschrijft de algemene conclusies, de beperkingen, suggesties voor

vervolgonderzoek en implicaties voor de lerarenopleiding. Verder wordt er een lokale
theorie voor het (leren) integreren van theorie en praktijk besproken. Op basis van de vier
deelonderzoeken, kunnen de volgende algemene conclusies worden geformuleerd (§ 6.2):
- Het gebruik van theorie in praktijksituaties kon met behulp van het reflectie-
analyse instrument eenduidig worden bepaald door het vaststellen van de aard en
het niveau van theoriegebruik door studenten.
- De aard is zichtbaar in vier soorten van theoriegebruik: feitelijk weergeven,
interpreteren, verklaren en ‘inspelen op’ situaties. De drie niveaus zijn gedefiniëerd
naar de mate waarin theoretische begrippen betekenisvol worden gebruikt.
- Nagenoeg alle studenten gebruikten theorie in de eindpeiling van de leergang die
zij volgden en een groot aantal studenten domineerde op één van de componenten
voor de aard en het niveau van theoriegebruik.
- De aard van het theoriegebruik van studenten manifesteerde zich vooral in het
‘verklaren’ van situaties. De gemiddelde percentages van de drie niveaus waren
ongeveer gelijk.
- Het bleek dat studenten minder ‘feitelijk weergaven’ en ‘interpreteerden’ en meer
‘verklaarden’ naarmate hun vooropleiding hoger was. Voor de studenten met
vooropleiding mbo zonder wiskunde gold dat zij significant meer feitelijk
weergaven en minder verklaarden, voor de studenten met vooropleiding vwo met
wiskunde dat zij meer verklaarden.
- De studenten gebruikten significant meer algemeen didactische begrippen bij het
verklaren en significant minder bij het feitelijk weergeven van situaties.
- Er is geen verband geconstateerd tussen de aard van theoriegebruik en het aantal
gebruikte vakdidactische begrippen.
- Het eerste niveau van theoriegebruik kwam vooral voor bij eerstejaarsstudenten,
terwijl niveau drie zich vooral manifesteerde bij tweede- en derdejaarsstudenten of
bij studenten met een hogere vooropleiding.
- Studenten die meer theoretische begrippen gebruikten, reflecteerden op een hoger
niveau en omgekeerd. Er werd een significant positief verband geconstateerd
tussen het aantal vakdidactische begrippen en niveau drie in de eindpeiling en
geen verband tussen diezelfde variabelen in de beginpeiling.
- Er is een betekenisvol verband vastgesteld tussen de aard en het niveau van
theoriegebruik. De karakteristieken feitelijk weergeven en interpreteren voor de
aard van het theoriegebruik speelden zich vooral af op het eerste en tweede niveau
van theoriegebruik, terwijl verklaren en – in mindere mate – inspelen op situaties,
vooral gerelateerd waren aan het derde niveau van theoriegebruik.
- Vooral tijdens de interactie onder leiding van de opleider en tijdens interviews
212
werden redeneringen geobserveerd die leidden tot niveauverhoging in het gebruik

van theorie. In enkele gevallen kon die niveauverhoging geïnterpreteerd worden
als verticaal didactiseren.
- Er is een sterk verband geconstateerd tussen de categorie ‘verklaren’ voor de aard
van het theoriegebruik en gecijferdheid en in mindere mate tussen niveau drie van
theoriegebruik en gecijferdheid. Ook is een sterk verband vastgesteld tussen het
niveau van gecijferdheid en het niveau van de vooropleiding.
- De aan het onderzoek deelnemende studenten appreciëerden de op integratie van
theorie en praktijk gerichte leeromgeving die hen werd aangeboden.
De resultaten van het onderzoek en de analyse van de op theoriegebruik gerichte

activiteiten van studenten, vormden de basis voor de gedachtevorming met betrekking
tot een lokale theorie voor het (leren) integreren van theorie en praktijk door
aanstaande leraren (§ 6.3).
Kern van de theorie is dat studenten theorie en praktijk leren integreren in een
leeromgeving die uitnodigt tot het gebruik van theorie. Het proces van leren integreren
wordt ondersteund met onderwijsmiddelen en doelgerichte interventies van de opleider.
Die ondersteuning richt zich onder meer op het zoeken naar aansluiting bij het
bestaande kennisnetwerk van studenten en op het stimuleren van niveauverhoging in het
redeneren over praktijksituaties. Het niveaukarakter van de theorie komt tot uiting in de
aard en het niveau van theoriegebruik.
Het proces van leren integreren van theorie en praktijk leidt in toenemende mate tot het
verwerven van ‘met theorie verrijkte praktijkkennis’.
De lokale theorie zoals beschreven, bestaat uit drie hoofdcomponenten, namelijk de
geformuleerde concepten van theorie, praktijk en de relatie tussen theorie en praktijk, de
theoretische kennisbasis van de leeromgeving voor studenten en de richtlijnen voor
opleiders ten behoeve van het ondersteunen van leer- en ontwikkelingsprocessen van
studenten. De theoriegeladen praktijkverhalen, de multifunctionele begrippenlijsten, de
gevarieerde en op de praktijk gerichte activiteiten voor de studenten, de inbreng van de
opleider en het reflectie-analyse instrument zijn essentiële componenten voor de
uitwerking van die theorie in het curriculum van de opleiding.
Dit onderzoek werd tot op zekere hoogte beperkt door omstandigheden of door keuzen
die zijn gemaakt (§ 6.4). Een voorbeeld daarvan is de context waarin het onderzoek
plaats vond. Niet de eigen stagepraktijk stond centraal in het onderzoek, maar ‘de
praktijk’ bestond voor de studenten voornamelijk uit praktijksituaties die in
multimediale vorm waren weergegeven. Ondanks alle voordelen van de multimediaal
weergegeven praktijk is het de vraag of situaties uit de eigen stagepraktijk als object van
discussie en reflectie niet tot een beter inzicht in het leggen van relaties tussen theorie
213
Samenvatting
en praktijk leiden. Het is vooral de reële onderwijspraktijk waar studenten zich bewust
kunnen worden van theorie als noodzakelijk instrument voor reflectie op hun denken en
handelen, met als doel het begrijpen en adequaat inspelen op situaties.
Een tweede voorbeeld van beperkingen van dit onderzoek vormde de dataverzameling
van het grootschalige onderzoek. De aard van deze verzameling, bestaande uit
reflectieve notities, heeft mogelijkerwijs het zicht beperkt op enkele aspecten van
theoriegebruik.
Vervolgonderzoek is noodzakelijk (§ 6.5), onder andere om de hiervoor genoemde

beperkingen op te heffen. Onderzoek op korte termijn kan zich richten op de
stagewerkplek van (aanstaande) leraren. Langetermijnonderzoek is gewenst om inzicht te
verkrijgen in het theoriegebruik – bewust of onbewust – van beginnende en ervaren
leraren in de praktijk van alledag en de invloed daarvan op de kwaliteit van het onderwijs.
Gezien de verschillende invalshoeken van waaruit de data moeten worden geanalyseerd,
zou het wenselijk zijn dat zo’n onderzoek wordt geleid door een interdisciplinair
onderzoeksteam van onderwijskundigen en vakdidactici op het gebied van rekenen-
wiskunde en taal.
Het analyse instrument dat in dit onderzoek is ontwikkeld, biedt ook voor andere
opleidingsvakgebieden dan rekenen-wiskunde en didactiek de mogelijkheid om
reflecties systematisch en genuanceerd te analyseren. Het instrument kan opleiders en
studenten ondersteuning bieden bij het peilen of beoordelen van de kwaliteit van de met
theorie verijkte praktijkkennis. Eventueel kan het instrument vereenvoudigd worden
door het te beperken tot de verticale dimensie waarin het niveau van theoriegebruik
beschreven is.
Ook voor het vervolgonderzoek is een combinatie van klein- en grootschalig onderzoek
aan te bevelen. Het gebruik van verschillende soorten gegevens of gegevensbronnen uit
de beide onderzoeken kan leiden tot meer diepgaande, samenhangende analyses, die
door de mogelijkheid van nuancering binnen de systematiek van data meer consistent
zijn en meer overtuigingskracht hebben dan de data-analyses van de afzonderlijke
onderzoeken. De niveauverhogingen die zich bij studenten voordeden in dit onderzoek
zijn daar voorbeelden van.
Verder geeft dit onderzoek aanwijzingen voor de inrichting van het curriculum van de
lerarenopleiding (§ 6.6).
In de eerste plaats wordt in dit onderzoek aangetoond dat multimedia in de
leeromgeving van studenten nuttige functies kunnen vervullen, in het bijzonder wat
betreft het leren integreren van theorie en praktijk door studenten. Een multimediaal
ingerichte leeromgeving biedt studenten de mogelijkheid om zich te concentreren op de
studie van de praktijkkennis, buiten de druk en complexiteit van de eigen stagegroep.
214
Individueel of in teamverband kan de ‘gemeenschappelijk ervaren’ praktijk

geobserveerd en bestudeerd worden.
Voor het curriculum van de opleiding kunnen multimedia, bijvoorbeeld al of niet door
studenten of opleiders zelf opgenomen videobeelden, ingezet worden in vier fasen van
leer- en onderzoeksactiviteiten.
In alle (deel)onderzoeken van deze studie werd geconstateerd dat de inbreng van de
opleider cruciaal is voor de kwaliteit van de studentenactiviteiten. De opleider is als
geen ander in staat de al of niet verborgen praktijkkennis te expliciteren en die
theoretisch te verrijken. Niveauverhoging in het redeneren van studenten over
praktijksituaties zijn bijvoorbeeld vrijwel alleen maar waargenomen in de discussies
onder leiding van de opleider of tijdens interviews met de onderzoeker.
De multifunctionele begrippenlijsten bleken studenten en hun opleiders houvast te
geven. Ze vervulden tijdens de gehele leergang ondersteuning bij het bewustmaken van
de voortgang in de leerprocessen van studenten.
Het reflectie-analyse instrument kan worden ingezet ten behoeve van het peilen of
beoordelen van het theoriegebruik door studenten.
Een tweede aanwijzing voor het curriculum van de lerarenopleiding is afgeleid van de
in het onderzoek geconstateerde neiging van studenten om eerder algemeen-didactische
begrippen te gebruiken dan vakdidactische begrippen. Het onderstreept het belang van
ruimere aandacht voor het gebruik van vakspecifieke kennis en vakdidactische theorie
en bovendien het belang van betekenisverlening aan algemeen-didactische begrippen in
een vakspecifieke context.
Een derde aanwijzing betreft de aandacht voor studenten met vooropleiding ‘mbo
zonder wiskunde’ en studenten met vooropleiding ‘vwo met wiskunde’. Om redenen
van verschillende aard wijzen de resultaten van dit onderzoek op de noodzaak van extra
opleidingsdidactische maatregelen voor deze beide groepen studenten (§ 6.6).
Uit de anonieme vragenlijsten die zijn afgenomen blijkt ten slotte, dat de studenten de
leeromgeving waarin ze die praktijkkennis konden verwerven apprecieerden en dat zij
de aangeboden, in de praktijksituaties geïntegreerde theorie vooral waardeerden als
ondersteuning van hun stagepraktijk. Ze zijn van mening dat de leeromgeving laat zien
dat je theorie nodig hebt en dat theorie helpt bij het begrijpen van de praktijk en bij het
begeleiden van leerlingen.
215
Samenvatting
216
9 References
Alexander, R.J. (1984). Innovation and continuity in the initial teacher education
curriculum. In R.J. Alexander, M. Craft & J. Lynch (Eds.), Change in teacher
education: Context and provision since Robins (pp. 103-160). London: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Bakker, M.E.J., Sanders, P., Beijaard, D., Roelofs, E., Tigelaar, D., & Verloop, N. (2008).
De betrouwbaarheid en generaliseerbaarheid van competentiebeoordelingen op
basis van een videodossier [The reliability and generalizability of competence
judgements based on a video portfolio]. Pedagogische Studiën, 85, 240-260.
Bales, R. (1951). Interactive Process Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison & Wesley.
Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward
a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-
Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and
practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H.C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who
knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide?
American Educator, Fall, 14-17.
Barnett, C.S. (1998). Mathematics case methods project. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 1 (3), 349-356.
Bartjens, W. (2005). Cijfferinge. Het rekenboek van de beroemde schoolmeester
(bewerking van de oorspronkelijk uitgave uit 1604) [Ciphering. The famous
schoolmaster’s calculating textbook – adaptation of the original publication from
1604]. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren.
Baxter, J.A., & Lederman, N.G. (1999). Assessment of pedagogical content knowledge.
In J. Gess-Newsone & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content
knowledge (pp. 147-161). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Beattie, M. (1997). Fostering reflective practice in teacher education: Inquiry as a
framework for the construction of professional knowledge in teaching. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25 (2), 111-128.
Beijaard D., & Verloop, N. (1996). Assessing teachers’ practical knowledge. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 22 (3), 275-286.
Bengtsson, J. (1993). Theory and Practice: Two fundamental categories in the philosophy
of teacher education. Educational Review, 45 (3), 205-211.
Bereiter, C. (1985). Towards a solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational
Research, 55 (2), 201-226.
Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., & the CSILE / Knowledge-Building Team (1997).
Knowledge Forum. Canada: University of Toronto.
217
References
Beugen, M. van (1988). De theorie-praktijkverhouding in de sociale wetenschappen [The

relationship between theory and practice in social science]. Baarn: H. Nelissen.
Black, A., & Halliwell, G. (2000). Accessing practical knowledge: How? Why? Teaching
and teacher education, 16, 103-115.
Blikslager, D., & Bont, H. de (1997). Op onderzoek in MILE [Researching in MILE].
Amsterdam: EFA.
Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P.R. (1993). Leren en instructie [Learning and instruction].
Assen: Dekker & Van de Vegt.
Boersma, K.Th., & Looy, F. (1997). Een praktijktheorie voor leerplanontwikkeling
[A practice theory for curriculum development]. Enschede: SLO.
Boerst, T.A., & Oonk, W. (2005). Reflection for teaching: Noticing and nurturing
reflection in practice-based professional learning experiences. Aguas de Lindoia,
Brazil: presentation at ICMI Study Conference 15.
Booth, M., Hargreaves, D.H., Bradley, H., & Southworth, G. (1995). Training of doctors
in hospitals: A comparison with teacher education. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 21 (2), 145-161.
Bor, J., Petersma, E., & Kingma, J. (Red.). (1995). De verbeelding van het denken [The
imagination of thinking]. Amsterdam/Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 673-708). New York:
Macmillan.
Branger, J.D.C. (1973). Onderwijsperspectieven-opleidingsperspectieven. Een
vergelijkende studie van de functie en de structuur van het basisonderwijs en de
opleidingen van onderwijzend personeel in Engeland en Wales, Nederland en de
Duitse Bondsrepubliek (dissertatie) [Teaching perspectives-training perspectives.
A comparative study of the function and the structure of primary education and
teacher education in England and Wales, the Netherlands and Western Germany
(dissertation)]. Zaandijk: J.Heijnis Tsz.
Brink, F.J. van den (1989). Realistisch rekenonderwijs aan jonge kinderen (dissertatie)
[Realistic mathematics education for young children (dissertation)]. Universiteit
Utrecht: Vakgroep OW&OC.
Brophy, J. (1988). The teacher’s role in stimulating student motivation to learn. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. New Orleans.
Brouwer, C.N. (1989). Geïntegreerde lerarenopleiding, principes en effecten (dissertatie)
[Integrated teacher education, principles and effects (dissertation)]. Utrecht:
Elinkwijk.
218
Brown, A.L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce
& W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.
Brownell, W.A., & Chazal, C.B. (1935). The effect of premature drill in third grade
arithmetic. Journal of Educational Research. 29, 17-32.
Buijs, K. (2008). Leren vermenigvuldigen met meercijferige getallen (dissertatie)
[Learning to multiply with multidigit numbers (dissertation)]. Utrecht:
Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education.
Bühler, K. (1916). Die geistige Entwicklung des Kindes (6th ed., 1930). Jena: Gustav
Fischer.
Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 5, 43-45.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York:
Macmillan.
Carpenter, T.P. (1981). Results from the Second Mathematics Assessment. Reston:
NCTM Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action
research. London: Falmer Press.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W.R. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York:
Macmillan.
Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education.
Educational Researcher, 22 (1), 5-12.
Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processess. In M.C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, third edition (pp. 255-296). New York:
Macmillan.
Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting classroom teaching experiments in collaboration with
teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in
mathematics and science education (pp. 307–334). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Publishers.
Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning
processes. In A. E. Kelly (Ed.), Handbook of design research. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
219
References
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the
representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 23, 2-33.
Cobb, P., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective
reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 28 (3), 258-277.
Cochran, K.F., De Ruiter, J.A., & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An
integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44,
263-272.
Cohen, D. (1998). Experience and education: Learning to teach. In M. Lampert & D.
Loewenberg Ball, (Eds.), Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics, investigations
of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, D.K., & Ball, D.L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 331-338.
Coonen, H.W.A.M. (1987). De opleiding van leraren basisonderwijs (dissertatie) [The
education of primary school teachers (dissertation)]. ’s Hertogenbosch: Katholiek
Pedagogisch Centrum.
Cooney, T.J. (2001a). Theories, opportunities, and farewell. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 4(4), 255-258.
Cooney, T.J. (2001b). Considering the paradoxes, perils, and purposes of conceptualizing
teacher development. In F. Lin & T.J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of
mathematics teacher education (pp. 9-31). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Corporaal, A.H. (1988). Bouwstenen voor een opleidingsdidactiek. Theorie en onderzoek
met betrekking tot cognities van aanstaande onderwijsgevenden (dissertatie)
[Building blocks for a didactics of training. Theory and research relating to
cognition of teachers in training (dissertation)]. De Lier: Academisch Boeken
Centrum.
Creemers, B.P.M. (1991). Effectieve instructie. Een empirische bijdrage aan de
verbetering van het onderwijs in de klas. [Effective Instruction. An empirical
contribution to the improvement of classroom teaching]. Den Haag: SVO.
Daniel, P. (1996). Helping beginning teachers link theory to practice: An interactive
multimedia environment for mathematics and science teacher preparation.
Journal of Teacher Education, 47 (3), 197-204.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed.
London: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus books.
220
Dolk, M. (1997). Onmiddellijk onderwijsgedrag (dissertatie) [Immediate teaching

behavior (dissertation)]. Culemborg: Technipress.
Dolk, M., & Oonk, W. (1998). MILE rekenen-wiskunde & didactiek: De ontwikkeling
van een multimediale interactieve leeromgeving voor Pabo-studenten en de
gevolgen voor het opleidingsprogramma [A multimedia interactive learning
environment for (future) primary school teachers and the consequences for the
primary mathematics teacher education program]. In H.J.A. Biemans, H. van den
Bor, F.P.C.M. de Jong & C.T. Jongmans (Red.), Studielandschap. Een
leeromgeving met een goed vooruitzicht (pp. 89-99). Wageningen:
Landbouwuniversiteit.
Dolk, M., Faes, W., Goffree, F., Hermsen, H., & Oonk, W. (1996). A multimedia
interactive learning environment for (future) primary school teachers with
consequences for primary mathematics teacher education programs. Utrecht:
Freudenthal Institute/National Association for the Development of Mathematics
Education.
Dolk, M., Goffree, F., Hertog, J. den, & Oonk, W. (2000). Het Fundament. Module
ontworpen door het Mile-team in samenwerking met de aan het project MILE
deelnemende opleiders [Foundation. Module designed by the MILE-team in
cooperation with the teacher educators taking part in the MILE project]. Utrecht:
Dolk, M., Hertog, J. den, & Gravemeijer, K. (2002). Using multimedia cases for educating
the primary school mathematics teacher educator: A design study. International
Journal of Educational Research, 37 (2), 161-178.
Dormolen, J. van (1982). Aandachtspunten. De a priori analyse van leerteksten voor
wiskunde bij het voortgezet onderwijs [Focal points. The a priori analysis of
learning texts for mathematics in secondary education]. Utrecht/Antwerpen:
Bohn, Scheltema en Holkema.
Drever, E., & Cope, P. (1999). Students’ use of theory in an initial teacher education
programme. Journal of Education for Teaching, 25 (2), 97-109.
Driel, J.H. van, & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in
science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1141-1153.
Driel, J.H. van, Verloop, N., & Vos, D. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (6), 673-695.
Eerde, H.A.A. van (1996). Kwantiwijzer. Diagnostiek in het reken-wiskundeonderwijs
[Quantipointer. Diagnostics in mathematics education]. Tilburg: Uitgeverij
Zwijsen.
Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s ‘practical knowledge’: Report of a case study. Curriculum
Inquiry, 11 (1).
221
References
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom

Helm.
Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers’ knowledge: The evolution of a discourse. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 23 (1), 1-19.
Elbers, E. (1993). Leren door interactie [Learning through interaction]. Groningen:
Wolters-Noordhoff.
Elliott, J. (1987). Educational theory, practical philosophy and action research. British
Journal of Educational Studies, 35 (2), 149-169.
Emans, R. (1983). Implementing the knowledge base: Redesigning the function of
cooperating teachers and college supervisors. Journal of Teacher Education, 34
(3), 14-18.
Eraut, M. (1994a). The acquisition and use of educational theory by beginning teachers. In
G.R. Harvard & P. Hodkinson (Eds.), Action and Reflection in Teacher
Education. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Eraut, M. (1994b). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer
Press.
Eraut, M. (1995a). Schön Shock: A case for reframing reflection in action? Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1 (1), 9-22.
Eraut, M. (1995b). Developing professional knowledge within a client-centered
orientation. In T.R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in
education. New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Essen, M. van (2006). Kwekeling tussen akte en ideaal. De opleiding tot onderwijzer(es)
vanaf 1800 [Teacher in training between diploma and ideal. Teacher training
from 1800]. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij SUN.
Even, R. (1990). Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case of functions.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 521-544.
Even, R. (1999). Integrating academic and practical knowledge in a teacher leaders’
development program. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 235-252.
Even, R., Tirosh, D., & Markovits, Z. (1996). Teacher subject matter knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge: Research and development. In L. Puig &
A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentieth meeting of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, I (pp. 119-134).
Faes, W.H.L., Olofsen, K., & Bergh, J.W.M. van den (Red.) (1992). Gecijferdheid.
Docentenhandleiding & studentenmateriaal. Verzameling toetsvragen
[Numeracy. Teacher manual and student material. A collection of test questions].
Den Haag: HBO-raad.
Fauvel, J., & Maanen, J. van (Eds.) (2000). History in mathematics education. The ICMI
Study. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
222
Fenstermacher, G.D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In

M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 37-49).
New York: Macmillan.
Fenstermacher, G.D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in
research on teaching. Review of Research on Teaching, 20, 1-54.
Fenstermacher, G.D., & Richardson, V. (1993). The elicitation and reconstruction of
practical arguments in teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25 (2), 101-114.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview. From structured questions to negotiated
text. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research.
London: Sage Publications.
Fosnot, C.T., & Dolk, M. (2001). Young mathematicians at work. Constructing
multiplication and division. Portsmouth, NH: Reed Elsevier Inc.
Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing: Preface to a science of mathematics
education. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Freudenthal, H. (1984a). Didactische fenomenologie van wiskundige structuren
[Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures]. Universiteit Utrecht:
Vakgroep OW&OC.
Freudenthal, H. (1984b). Appels en peren. Wiskunde en psychologie [Apples and pears.
Mathematics and psychology]. Apeldoorn: Walraven bv.
Freudenthal, H. (1984c). Memoriseren. Willem Bartjens, 3 (2), 124-126.
Freudenthal, H. (1987). Theorievorming bij het wiskundeonderwijs. Geraamte en
gereedschap [Formation of theory in mathematics education. Framework and
tools]. Tijdschrift voor nascholing en onderzoek van het reken-
wiskundeonderwijs), 5 (3), 4-15.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Geerdink, G., & Derks, M. (2007). Attent op talent op de Pabo. Een onderzoek naar de
verschillen tussen vwo-instromers en overige studenten [Focus on talent in
teacher education. A study into the differences between vwo-level entrants and
other students]. VELON Tijdschrift voor lerarenopleiders [VELON Magazine
for teacher educators], 28 (2).
Gelder, L. van (1964). Vernieuwing in het basisonderwijs. Een didactische beschouwing
over de leersituatie, het leerproces en de leerstof van de lagere school [Innovation
in primary education. A pedagogical reflection on the educational situation, the
learning process and the material to be taught in primary education]. Groningen:
J.B. Wolters.
223
References
Gess-Newsone, J., & Lederman, N. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gilroy, P. (1993). Reflections on Schon: An epistemological critique and a practical
alternative. Journal of Education for Teaching, Supplement International
Analysis, 19 (2), 125-143.
Glasersfeld, E. von (1995). Radical constructivism. A way of knowing and learning.
London: Falmer Press.
Goffree, F. (1979). Leren onderwijzen met Wiskobas (dissertatie) [Learning to teach with
Wiskobas (dissertation)]. Utrecht: Instituut voor Ontwikkeling van het Wiskunde
Onderwijs.
Goffree, F. (1982; 1994). Wiskunde & didactiek, deel 1 [Mathematics and pedagogics,
part 1]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Goffree, F. (1983; 1992). Wiskunde & didactiek, deel 2 [Mathematics and pedagogics,
part 2]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Goffree, F. (1984). Wiskunde & didactiek, deel 3 [Mathematics and pedagogics, part 3].
Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Goffree, F. (1998). MILE op de werkvloer [MILE in practice]. Utrecht: Freudenthal
Instituut.
Goffree, F. (2000). Wiskunde & didactiek. Rekenen en wiskunde in de bovenbouw
[Mathematics and pedagogics. Mathematics at the upper levels of primary
school]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Goffree, F., & Dolk, M. (Red.) (1995). Proeve van een nationaal programma voor
rekenen-wiskunde & didactiek op de Pabo [Standards for primary mathematics
teacher education]. Utrecht/Enschede: Freudenthal Instituut/SLO.
Goffree, F., & Dolk, M. (Eds.) (1995). Standards for primary mathematics teacher
education. [translation of a portion of Goffree, F., & M. Dolk (Red.) (1995).
Proeve van een nationaal programma voor rekenen-wiskunde & didactiek op de
Pabo]. Utrecht/Enschede: NVORWO/SLO
Goffree, F., & Frowijn, R. (2000). Zelfevaluatie in het basisonderwijs: Rekenen en
wiskunde [Self-evaluation in primary education: mathematics]. Enschede: SLO.
Goffree, F., & Oonk, W. (1999). Teacher education around the world. Educating primary
school mathematics teachers in the Netherlands: Back to the classroom. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2 (2), 207-214.
Goffree, F., & Oonk, W. (2001). Digitizing real practice for teacher education
programmes: The MILE approach. In F. Lin & T.J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense
of Mathematics Teacher Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
224
Goffree, F., & Oonk, W. (2004). Rekenvaardig. Op weg naar basale en professionele
gecijferdheid [Numeracy. On the way to basic and professional numeracy].
Goffree, F., Faes, W., & Oonk, W. (1989). Wiskunde & didactiek, deel 0 [Mathematics
and pedagogics, part 0]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Goffree, F., Markusse, A., Munk, F., & Olofsen, K. (2003). Gids voor rekenen/wiskunde.
Verhalen uit groep 4, versie 2003 [Guide for mathematics. Stories from grade 2’,
version 2003]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Goffree, F., Oliveira, H., Serrazina, M. L., & Szendrei, J. (1999). Good practice. In
K. Krainer, F. Goffree & P. Berger (Eds.), On research in teacher education.
From a study of teaching practices to issues in teacher education (pp. 149-169).
CERME 1. Osnabrück: Forschungsinstitut für Mathematikdidaktik.
Gravemeijer, K.P.E. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education (dissertation).
Utrecht: Freudenthal Instituut.
Gravemeijer, K.P.E. (1995). Het ontwikkelen van ‘constructivistisch’ reken-
wiskundeonderwijs [Developing ‘constructivist’ mathematics education].
Pedagogisch Tijdschrift [Magazine for Pedagogics], 20 (4/5), 277-292.
Gravemeijer, K.P.E (2007). Emergent modelling as a precursor to mathematical
modelling. In W. Blum, P.L. Galbraith, H-W. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling
and Applications in Mathematics Education. The 14th ICMI Study. New ICMI
Study Series Vol. 10 (pp. 137-144). New York: Springer.
Gravemeijer, K.P.E., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design
perspective. In J. Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.),
Educational Design Research (pp. 45-85). London Routledge: Taylor Francis
Group.
Griffiths, M. (1987). The teaching of skills and the skills of teaching. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 21 (2), 203-214.
Griffiths, M., & Tann, S. (1992). Using reflective practice to link personal and public
theories. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18 (1), 69-84.
Grimmett, P.P.P., & MacKinnon, A.M. (1992). Craft knowledge and the education of
teachers. Review of Research in Education, 18, 385-456.
Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P.L. (1992). Why models matter. An alternate view of professional growth in
teaching. Review of Educational Research, 62, 171-179.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1995). The narrative nature of pedagogical content knowledge. In
H. McEwan & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning and, research
(pp. 24-38). New York: Teachers College Press.
225
References
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1996). The teller, the tale, and the one being told: The narrative
nature of the research interview. Curriculum Inquiry, 26 (3), 293-306.
Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D.J. (1990). Student teaching and school experience. In
W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514-534).
New York: Macmillan.
Hansen, D.T. (2002). Dewey’s conception of an environment for teaching and learning.
Curriculum Inquiry, 32 (3), 267-280.
Harris, D., & Eggen, P. (1993). The impact of experience on conceptions of expertise:
A comparison of the thinking of veteran, first-year, and preservice teachers.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta.
Hermsen, H., Goffree, F., & Stolting, J. (1997). Mile lokaal. Inrichting van een
multimedialokaal [MILE classroom. Setting up a multimedia classroom].
Heege, H. ter (1978). Testing the maturity for learning the algorithm of multiplication.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 9, 75-83.
Heege, H. ter (1985). The acquisition of basic multiplication skills. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 16, 375-389.
Heege, H. ter (1986). Een goed product. Onderzoek en ontwikkeling ten behoeve van een
leergang vermenigvuldigen [A good product. Research and development for a
teaching method for multiplication]. Universiteit Utrecht: Vakgroep OW&OC.
Heege, H. ter (2005). Over memoriseren. Ontwikkelingen in het onderwijs in
vermenigvuldigen [On memorizing. Developments in the teaching of
multiplication]. In H. ter Heege, T. Goris, R. Keijzer & L. Wesker (Red.),
Freudenthal 100. Speciale editie van Panama Post en Nieuwe Wiskrant
[Freudenthal 100. Special edition of Panama Post and Nieuwe Wiskrant].
Herrington, A., Herrington, J., Sparrow, L., & Oliver, R. (1998). Learning to teach and
assess mathematics using multimedia: A teacher development project. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1 (1), 189-112.
Hertog, J. den (2006). Verslag projectleiding MILE2 [Report project management
MILE2]. Utrecht: Vereniging MILE2.
Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. van den, Buys, K., & Treffers, A. (Red.) (1998, 2000).
Tussendoelen Annex Leerlijnen (TAL) [Intermediate Targets and Learning
Trajectories]. Utrecht: Freudenthal Instituut.
Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. van den (Ed.) (2001). Children learn mathematics. A learning
teaching trajectory with intermediate attainment targets for calculation with
whole numbers in primary school. Utrecht/Enschede: Freudenthal Instituut/SLO.
226
Hiebert, J., Morris, A.K., & Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: An ‘experiment’
model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 6 (3), 201-222.
Hiele, P.M. van (1973). Begrip en inzicht [Understanding and insight]. Purmerend:
Muusses.
Hiele, P.M. van (1986). Structure and insight. A theory of mathematics education.
Orlando: Academic Press.
Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories:
Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review
of Educational Research, 67 (1), 88-140.
Holligan, C. (1997). Theory in initial teacher education: Students’ perspectives on its
utility – a case study. Britisch Educational Research Journal, 23 (4), 533-552.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs (1989). Overwegingen van een proefvisitatie [Consideration
of a test visitation]. Utrecht: De Meern.
Inspectie Hoger Onderwijs en Basisonderwijs (1996). Advies over de startbekwaamheden
leraar primair onderwijs [Advice on the starting competencies for teachers in
primary education]. Zwolle: Rijksinspectie.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs (1998). Verslag van de staat van het onderwijs in Nederland
over het jaar 1997 [Report on the state of education in the Netherlands in the
year 1997]. Utrecht: De Meern.
Jacobs, J. (1986). Rekenen op de Pabo [Mathematics in teacher education]. Universiteit
Utrecht: Vakgroep OW&OC.
Janssen, F., Hullu, E. de, & Tigelaar, D. (2008). Positive experiences as input for
reflection of student teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
14 (2), 115-127.
Jaworski, B. (1998). Mathematics teacher research: Process, practice and the development
of teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 3-31.
Jaworski, B. (1999). The plurality of knowledge growth in mathematics teaching. In B.
Jaworski, T. Wood & A.J. Dawson (Eds.), Mathematics teacher education:
Critical international perspectives. London: Falmer Press.
Jaworski, B. (2001). Developing mathematics teaching: Teachers, teacher educators, and
researchers as co-learners. In F. Lin & T. Cooney (Ed.), Making Sense of
Mathematics Teacher Education, (pp.295-320). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical
inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
227
References
Jong, B. C. de (1996). Jan Ligthart (1859-1916). Een schoolmeester-pedagoog uit de

Schilderswijk (dissertatie) [Jan Ligthart (1859-1916). A schoolmaster-pedagogue
from the Schilderswijk (dissertation)]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Kagan, D.M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the
Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60 (3), 419-469.
Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist,
27 (1), 65-90.
Kagan, D.M., Freeman, L.E., Horton, C.E., & Rountree, B.S. (1993). Personal
perspectives on a school-university partnership. Teaching and Teacher
Keijzer, R., & Os, S. van (2002). Rekenen-wiskunde & didactiek anno 2002 [Mathematics
and didactics, anno 2002]. Tijdschrift voor nascholing en onderzoek van het
reken-wiskundeonderwijs [Magazine for in-service training and research into
mathematics teaching], 20 (3), 17-20.
Kennedy, M. (1987). Inexact sciences: Professional education and the development of
expertise. Review of Research in Education, 14, 133-166.
Kennedy, M. (1992). Establishing professional schools for teachers. In M. Levine (Ed.),
Professional practice schools. Linking teacher education and school reform
(pp. 63-80). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kieran, C., Forman, E., & Sfard, A. (2001). Bridging the individual and the social:
Discursive approaches to research in mathematics education. A PME Special
Issue. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 1-3.
Kilpatrick, J. (1987). What construction might be in mathematics education. In J.C.
Bergeron, N. Hercovics & C. Kieran. Psychology of Mathematics Education,
PME-XI, Vol. I (pp. 3-27).
Klep, J. (1998). Arithmeticus. Simulatie van wiskundige bekwaamheid.
Computerprogramma’s voor het generatief en adaptief plannen van inzichtelijk
oefenen in het reken-wiskundeonderwijs (dissertatie) [Arithmetician. Simulation
of mathematical competence. Computer programs for generative and adaptive
planning of practicing with understanding in mathematics education
(dissertation)]. Tilburg: Uitgeverij Zwijsen.
Klep, J., & Paus, H. (2006). Geen competentie zonder repertoire [No competency without
repertoire]. VELON Tijdschrift voor lerarenopleiders [VELON Magazine for
teacher educators], 27 (1), 5-12.
Knol, W.E., & Tillema, H.H. (1995). Presenting relevant knowledge to student teachers:
Conceptual change in teacher education programs. Paper presented at the 6th
European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction. Nijmegen, the
Netherlands.
228
Kohl, H.R. (1986). On teaching. New York: Schocken books.

Kohl, H.R. (1988). Growing minds: On becoming a teacher. New York: Harper & Row.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Koningsveld, H. (1992). Inleiding wetenschapsfilosofie [Introduction philosophy of
science]. Wageningen: Landbouwuniversiteit.
Kool, M. (1999). Die conste vanden getale. Een studie over Nederlandstalige rekenboeken
uit de vijftiende en zestiende eeuw, met een glossarium van rekenkundige termen
(dissertatie) [The art of number. A study of Dutch arithmetic books of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, with a glossary of arithmatic terms
(dissertation)]. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren.
Korthagen, F.A.J. (1993). Two modes of reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education,
9 (3), 317-326.
Korthagen, F.A.J. (2001). Linking theory and practice: The pedagogy of realistic teacher
education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Korthagen, F.A.J., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the
pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Reseacher, 28 (4), 4-17.
Korthagen, F.A.J., & Lagerwerf, B. (1995). Levels in learning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 32 (10), 1011-1038.
Krainer, K. (2001). Teachers’ growth is more than the growth of individual teachers:
The case of Gisela. In F. Lin & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics
teacher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Krause, F. (1986). Subjective theories of teachers: Reconstruction through stimulated
recall, interview and graphic representation of teacher thinking. In M. Ben-
Peretz, R. Bromme & R. Halkes (Eds.), Advances of research on teacher
thinking (pp. 159-171). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lagerwerf, B., & Korthagen, F.A.J. (1993). Niveaus in leren [Levels in learning].
Tijdschrift voor Didactiek der ß-wetenschappen [Magazine for the didactics of
science], 11 (3), 147-177.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in
practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55 (2), 178-194.
Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and
Instruction, 3, 305-342.
229
References
Lampert, M. (1998a). Knowing teaching from the inside out: Implications of inquiry in
practice for teacher education. In G.A. Griffin (Ed.), 1999 Yearbook on Teacher
Education National Society for the study of Education.
Lampert, M. (1998b). Studying teaching as a thinking practice. In J.M. Greeno &
S.V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning.
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven &
London: Yale University Press.
Lampert, M., & Loewenberg Ball, D. (1998). Teaching. multimedia and mathematics.
Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated knowledge and expertise in teaching. In J. Calderhead
(Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 146-168). London: Falmer Press.
Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. (1985). Expertise in mathematical instruction: Subject matter
knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (3), 247-271.
Leinhardt, G., McCarthy Young, K., & Merriman, J. (1995). Integrating professional
knowledge: The theory of practice and the practice of theory. Learning and
Instruction. The Journal of the European Association for Research on Learning
and Instruction, 5, 401-408.
Lerman, S. (2001). A review of research perspectives on mathematics teacher education.
In F. Lin & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lesh, R., & Landau, M. (Eds.) (1983). Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes
(pp. 128-175). London: Academic Press.
Loewenberg Ball, D. (2000). Bridging practices. Intertwining content and pedagogy in
teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education 51, 241-247.
Loonstra, F. (1963). Inleiding tot de algebra [Introduction to algebra]. Groningen:
Wolters-Noorhoff.
Loughran, J.J. (2002). Effective reflective practice in search of meaning in learning about
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (1), 33-43.
Lowyck, J., & Terwel, J. (2003). Ontwerpen van leeromgevingen [Designing learning
environments]. In N. Verloop & J. Lowyck (Red.). Onderwijskunde. Een
kennisbasis voor professionals [Educational science. A knowledge base for
professionals] (pp. 285-330). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Mandeville, G.K. (1997). The effect of teacher certification and task level on mathematics
achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13 (4), 397-407.
Marx, E.C.H., Vries, O.A. de, Veenman, S.A.M., & Sleegers, P. (1995). School en klas
[School and classroom]. In J. Lowyck & N. Verloop (Red.), Onderwijskunde.
230
Een kennisbasis voor professionals [Educational science. A knowledge base for

professionals]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Masingila, J.O., & Doerr, H.M. (2002). Understanding pre-service teachers’ emerging
practices through their analyses of a multimedia case study of practice. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education 5 (3), 235-263.
Maso, I., & Smaling, A. (1998). Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktijk en theorie. [Qualitative
research: Practice and theory}. Amsterdam: Boom.
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice. The discipline of noticing. London:
Routledge/Falmer Press.
Maxwell, J.A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in
education. Educational Researcher, 33 (2), 3-11.
McEwan, H., & Egan, K. (Eds.) (1995). Narrative in teaching, learning and, research.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Meijer, J., Vermeulen-Kerstens, L., Schellings, G., & Meijden, A. van der (2006). Reken-
en Taalvaardigheid van instromers lerarenopleiding basisonderwijs. Voorstellen
ter verbetering van de rekenen taalvaardigheid van instromende studenten
lerarenopleiding basisonderwijs, gebaseerd op een kleinschalig, verkennend
onderzoek [Ability in mathematics and language of students who are starting
primary teacher education. Proposals to improve the ability in mathematics and
language of students who are starting primary teacher education, based on a
small scale exploratory study]. Amsterdam: SCO Kohnstamm
Instituut/Rotterdam: RISBO.
Meijer, J.H. (1963). Theorie en praktijk [Theory and practice]. Zutphen: Thieme & Cie.
Meijer, P. (1999). Teachers’ practical knowledge. Teaching reading comprehension in
secondary education (dissertation). Universiteit Leiden.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1993). Tracing conceptual change in preservice teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 9 (1), 15-26.
Mousley, J., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Learning about teaching: An interactive tutorial
program to facilitate the study of teaching. Adelaide: The Australian Association
of Mathematics Teachers.
NCTM (1989). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM Press.
NCTM (1992). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Professional standards for
teaching mathematics. Reston: NCTM Press.
Nelissen, J.M.C. (1987). Kinderen leren wiskunde. Een studie over constructie en reflectie
in het basisonderwijs (dissertatie) [Children learn mathematics. A study of
231
References
construction and reflection in primary education (dissertation)]. Gorinchem:

Uitgeverij De Ruiter.
Nettle, E.B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (2), 193-204.
Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to
facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Nussbaum, M.C. (1986). The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and
philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Onderwijsraad (2005). Leraren opleiden in de school [Educating teachers in school].
Den Haag: Onderwijsraad.
Oonk, W. (1997). Verhalen van reken-wiskundeonderwijs in groep 4. [Stories of
mathematics teaching in grade 2]. Utrecht: Freudenthal Instituut.
Oonk, W. (1999). Pioniers in MILE. Een exploratief onderzoek [Pioneers in MILE. An
exploratory study]. Utrecht: Freudenthal Instituut.
Oonk, W. (2000). De professionaliteit van de leraar [The professionalism of the teacher].
Tijdschrift voor nascholing en onderzoek van het reken-wiskundeonderwijs
[Magazine for in-service training and research into mathematics teaching],
18 (4), 9-19.
Oonk, W. (2001). Putting theory into practice: Growth of appreciating theory by student
teachers. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th
conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education 4 (pp. 17-24).
Oonk, W. (2002). Wat is theorie? Exploratie van een fenomeen [What is theory?
Exploration of a phenomenon]. Utrecht: Freudenthal Instituut.
Oonk, W. (2003). Pabo onderzoek ‘Theorie in Praktijk’ (TIP). Handleiding voor opleiders
[Pabo study ‘Theory in practice (TIP). Manual for teacher educators]. Utrecht:
Oonk, W. (2005). De verbeelding van het mathematisch-didactisch denken [The
imagination of mathematical-didactical thinking]. In H. ter Heege, T.Goris, R.
Keijzer & L.Wesker (Red.), Freudenthal 100. Speciale editie van Panama Post
en Nieuwe Wiskrant [Freudenthal 100. Special edition of Panama Post and
Nieuwe Wiskrant]. Utrecht, Freudenthal Instituut.
Oonk, W. (2007). Kenmerken van vakdidactische theorie. Implicaties voor de Pabo.
[Characteristics of domain-specific theory. Implications for mathematics teacher
education]. Reken-wiskundeonderwijs: Onderzoek, ontwikkeling, praktijk
[Primary mathematics education: Research, development, practice], 26 (3),
19-32.
232
Oonk, W., Goffree, F., & Verloop, N. (2004). For the enrichment of practical knowledge.
Good practice and useful theory for future primary teachers. In J. Brophy (Ed.),
Using video in teacher education. Advances in Research on teaching. Vol. 10
(pp. 131-168). New York: Elsevier Science.
Oonk, W., Zanten, M. van, & Keijzer, R. (2007). Gecijferdheid, vier eeuwen
ontwikkeling. Perspectieven voor de opleiding [Numeracy, four centuries of
development. Perspectives for teacher education]. Reken-wiskundeonderwijs:
Onderzoek, ontwikkeling, praktijk [Primary mathematics education: Research,
development, practice], 26 (3), 3-18.
Oonk, W., Keijzer, R., Olofsen, K., De Vet, C.A.J., Tjon Soei Sjoe, K., Blom, N., Ale,
P.F.J., & Markusse, A. (1994). Reflecteren als gereedschap [Reflection as a tool].
Tijdschrift voor nascholing en onderzoek van het reken-wiskundeonderwijs
[Magazine for in-service training and research into mathematics teaching],
12 (4), 3-16.
Oosterheert, I.E. (2001). How student teachers learn. A psychological perspective on
knowledge construction in learning to teach (dissertation). Maastricht: Shaker
Publishing.
Pander Maat, H. (2002). Tekstanalyse. Wat teksten tot teksten maakt [Textual analysis.
What turns text into text]. Bussum: Coutinho.
Pendlebury, S. (1995). Reason and story in wise practice. In H. McEwan & K. Egan
(Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning and research (pp. 50-65). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Peterson, P.L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T.P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teachers’ pedagogical
content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6 (1), 1-40.
Piaget, J. (1937). La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé
(The construction of reality in the child, Translation, M. Cook, 1971. New York:
Basic Books).
Piaget, J. (1974). La prise de conscience [The grasp of consciousness]. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Pi-Jen Lin (2002). On enhancing teachers’ knowledge by constructing cases in
classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 5 (4), 317-349.
PML (1998). Gemeenschappelijk curriculum PABO [Common Pabo curriculum].
Den Haag: Procesmanagement Lerarenopleiding.
Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of
cognition. In B. Biddle, T.L. Good & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), International
handbook of teachers and teaching, Vol.II (pp. 1223-1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
233
References
Richardson, V. (1989). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.Sikula
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York:
Macmillan.
Richardson, V. (1992). The agenda-setting dilemma in a constructivist staff development
process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 287-300.
Richardson, V. (2001) (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching. Fourth edition.
Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between
teachers’ belief and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American
Educational Research Journal, 28 (3), 559-586.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching 3rd ed. (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in
the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22.
Ruthven, K. (2001). Mathematics teaching, teacher education, and educational research:
Developing ‘practical theorising’ in initial teacher education. In F. Lin &
T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Selter, Chr. (1993). Eigen Produktionen im Arithmetikunterricht der Primarstufe [Own
productions in primary mathematics education]. Wiesbaden: Deutscher
Universitäts Verlag.
Selter, Chr. (2001). Understanding – the underlying goal of teacher education. RF4
designing, researching and implementing mathematical learning environments –
the research group ‘Mathe 2000’. In M. van den Heuvel, (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.
Shulman, L.S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching:
A contemporary perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching 3rd ed. (pp. 455-498). New York: Macmillan.
Shulman, L.S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review 57, 1-22.
234
Simon, M.A. (1995). Reconstruction mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist

perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26 (2), 114-145.
Simons, P.R.J. (1999). Transfer of learning: Paradoxes for learners. International Journal
of Educational Research. 31 (7), 577-589.
SLO (1993). Kerndoelen rekenen wiskundeonderwijs [Central goals primary
mathematics education]. Enschede: SLO.
SLO/VSLPC (1997). Startbekwaamheden leraar primair onderwijs. Deel 1:
Startbekwaamheden en situaties. [Starting competencies teachers in primary
education. Part 1: Starting competencies and situations]. Utrecht: APS.
Smith, R. (1992). Theory: An entitlement to understanding. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 22 (3), 387-398.
Sockett, H. (1989). Research, practice and professional aspirations within teaching.
Journal of Curriculum Studies 21, 97-112.
Sparks-Langer, G.M., Colton, A.B., Pasch, M., Simmons, J.M., & Starko, A. (1990).
Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it? Journal
of Teacher Education, 41 (4), 23-32.
Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D.K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility
theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel
(Ed.), Tenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375-383).
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Stipek, D.J., Givvin, K.B., Salmon, J.M., & MacGyvers, V.L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs
and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17, 213-226.
Straetmans, G., & Eggen, T. (2005). Afrekenen op rekenen: Over de rekenvaardigheid van
pabo-studenten en de toetsing daarvan [Counting on mathematics: On the
mathematical ability of pabo students and its assessment]. Tijdschrift Voor Hoger
Onderwijs [Magazine for Higher Education], 23 (3), 123-139.
Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education. A paradigm of
developmental research in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Streefland, L. (1993). The design of a mathematics course. A theoretical reflection.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25 (1/2), 1-7.
Struik, D.J. (1990). Geschiedenis van de wiskunde. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
Sullivan, P. (2002). Editorial: Using the study of practice as a learning strategy within
mathematics teacher education programs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education 5 (4), 289-292.
Terlouw, B. (2005). Met theorie verrijkte praktijkkennis [Theory-enriched practical
knowledge]. Veerkracht. Een tijdschrift voor leraren en opleiders primair
235
References
onderwijs [Resilience. A magazine for teachers and educators in primary

education], 2 (2), 22-25.
Thiessen, D. (2000). A skillful start to a teaching career: A matter of developing impactful
behaviors, reflective practices, or professional knowledge? International Journal
of Educational Research, 33, 515-537.
Tom, A.R., & Valli, L. (1990). Professional knowledge for teachers. In W.R. Houston
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 372-392). New York:
Macmillan.
Tough, A. (1971). The adult’s learning projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice
in adult learning. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Treffers, A. (1978). Wiskobas doelgericht [Wiskobas goal-oriented]. Utrecht: Instituut
voor Ontwikkeling van het Wiskunde Onderwijs.
Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions. A model of goal and theory description in
mathematics education: The Wiskobas project. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Treffers, A. (1991). Didactical background of a mathematics program for primary
education. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Realistic mathematics education in primary
school: On the occasion of the opening of the Freudenthal Institute. Utrecht:
Freudenthal Institute.
Treffers, A., & Goffree, F. (1985). Rational analysis of realistic mathematics education:
The Wiskobas programme. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th
conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (pp. 97-121). Universiteit Utrecht: Vakgroep OW&OC.
Treffers, A., & Moor, E. de (1990). Proeve van een nationaal programma voor het reken-
wiskundeonderwijs op de basisschool, deel 2 [Standards for primary mathematics
teacher education, part 2]. Tilburg: Uitgeverij Zwijsen.
Treffers, A., Moor, E. de, & Feijs, E. (1989). Proeve van een nationaal programma voor
het reken-wiskundeonderwijs op de basisschool, deel 1 [Standards for primary
mathematics teacher education, part 1]. Tilburg: Uitgeverij Zwijsen.
Tzur, R. (2001). Becoming a mathematics teacher-educator: Conceptualizing the terrain
through self-reflective analysis. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
4 (4), 259-283.
Uhlenbeck, A. M. (2002). The development of an assessment procedure for beginning
teachers of English as a foreign language (dissertation). Universiteit Leiden.
236
Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.),

Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 128-174). New York:
Academic Press.
Verloop, N. (1989). Interactive cognitions of student teachers. An intervention study.
Arnhem: CITO, National Institute for Educational Measurement.
Verloop, N. (1991). Praktijkkennis van docenten als deel van de onderwijskundige
kennisbasis [Teachers’ practical knowledge as a part of the knowledge base in
educational sciences; oration]. Oratie Rijks Universiteit Leiden.
Verloop, N. (1992). Praktijkkennis van docenten: Een blinde vlek van de onderwijskunde
[Teachers’ practical knowledge: A blind spot in educational sciences].
Pedagogische Studiën [Pedagogical Studies], 69 (6), 410-423.
Verloop, N. (1995). De leraar [The teacher]. In J. Lowyck & N. Verloop (Red.),
Onderwijskunde. Een kennisbasis voor professionals [Educational sciences.
A knowledge base for professionals]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Verloop, N. (1999). De leraar [The teacher]. Den Haag: NWO/PROO.
Verloop, N. (2001). Guest editor’s introduction. International Journal of Educational
Research, 35 (5), 435-440.
Verloop, N. (2003). De leraar [The teacher]. In N. Verloop & J. Lowyck (Red.),
Onderwijskunde. Een kennisbasis voor professionals [Educational sciences.
A knowledge base for professionals]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge
base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35 (5),
441-461.
Vermunt, J.D. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs
[Learning styles and guiding learning processes in higher education]. Lisse:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9 (3), 257-280.
Verschaffel, L. (1995). Beïnvloeden van leerprocessen [Influencing learning processes].
In J. Lowyck & N. Verloop (Red.), Onderwijskunde. Een kennisbasis voor
professionals [Educational sciences. A knowledge base for professionals].
Vygotskij, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
Walen, S.B., & Williams, S.R. (2000). Validating classroom issues: Case method in
support of teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3 (2),
3-26.
237
References
Watts, D. (1987). Student teaching. In L.G. Katz & J.D. Raths (Eds.), Advances in teacher
education. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Wubbels, T. (1992). Taking account of student teachers’ preconceptions. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 8 (2), 137-149.
Wubbels, T.H., Korthagen, F., & Brekelmans, M. (1997). Developing theory from
practice in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24 (3), 75-90.
Zanten, M. van, & Gool, A. van (Red.) (2007). Opleiden in geuren en kleuren. Bakens
voor rekenen-wiskunde & didactiek op de Pabo [Beacons for mathematics
teacher education at Pabo]. Utrecht/Enschede: Freudenthal Institute for Science
and Mathematics Education/ SLO.
Zanting, A. (2001). Mining the mentor’s mind. The elicitation of mentor teachers’
practical knowledge by prospective teachers (dissertation). Leiden: ICLON
Graduate School of Education, Leiden University.
Zanting, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J.D. (2003). Using interviews and concept mapping
to assess mentor teachers’ practical knowledge. Higher Education, 46, 195-214.
Zeichner, K.M. (1994). Conceptions of reflective practice in teaching and teacher
education. In G.R. Harvard & P. Hodkinson (Eds.), Action and reflection in
teacher education. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Zeichner, K.M., & Gore, J.M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W.R. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329-348). New York:
Macmillan.
Zeichner, K.M., & Liston, D.P. (1985). Varieties of discourse in supervisory conferences.
Teaching and Teacher Education, I, 155-174.
Zeichner, K.M., & Noffke, S.E. (2001). Practitioner research. In Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching. Fourth edition. Washington, D.C.: American
Educational Research Association.
Zeichner, K.M., Tabachnick, B.R., & Densmore, K. (1987). Individual, institutional and
cultural influences on the development of teachers’ craft knowledge. In J.
Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring Teachers’ Thinking. London: Cassell.
238
Appendices part I
Appendix 1 Fifteen signals of use of theory by student teachers
The tool
Each of the next fifteen signals of use of theory has been coupled with an example. The
examples can be considered as representative cases of a theory, with references to
sources of the theory cited.
1. While observing practical situations, student teachers can refer to the theory
that comes to mind.
Example: student teacher points to a teacher who interprets the product of 2 x 5
and, in doing so, employs the rectangle model (Treffers & De Moor, 1990, p. 75).
2. Theory is used to explain (as a means to understand) what occurred in the
practical situation observed.
Example: student teacher explains the method employed by the pupil who is
using base ten material as a working model (Gravemeijer, 1994, p. 57).
3. The student reflects the intention of the teacher or pupil(s) with the help of
theory.
Example: student teacher points out the ‘mirroring technique’ applied by the
teacher to help the pupil (Van Eerde, 1996, p. 143).
4. The student teacher substantiates an idea arising from observing a practical
situation.
Example: student teacher explains the process used by the teacher concerning
the transition from context to model, based on an idea about the teacher’s
opinion of contexts (Treffers et. al., 1989, p. 16).
5. The theory generates new practical questions.
Example: student teacher wonders at which level (stage) of learning
multiplication the pupils are (Goffree, 1994, p. 280).
6. Theory generates new questions about the student teachers’ individual notions,
ideas and opinions.
Example: in referring to the theory of the next zone of development, the student
teacher wonders whether she is approaching her pupils (during fieldwork) at the
appropriate level (Verschaffel, 1995, p. 154; Van Hiele, 1973, p. 101).
7. The student teacher can theoretically underscore his personal beliefs about an
actual practice situation.
Example: student teacher explains her opinion about a positive working
environment that according to her is created by the teacher and based on
classroom environment theory (Marx, De Vries, Veenman & Sleegers, 1995, p.
62; Lampert & Loewenberg Ball, 1998, p. 123).
239
Appendices
8. The student teacher estimates the practical knowledge of the teacher and
identifies its theoretical elements.
Example: student teacher describes the practical knowledge (of process
shortening) that, according to him, motivates the teacher to employ certain
actions (Gravemeijer, 1994, p. 58).
9. The student teacher reaches certain conclusions from his observations based on
theoretical considerations.
Example: student teacher reaches the conclusion that group work and
beginning with repeated counting better fit the foreknowledge and experience
of the children (Simons, 1999, p. 579; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen et al., 1998,
p. 60).
10. Making connections between practical situations in MILE and own fieldwork
experiences with the help of theory.
Example: student teacher establishes similarities between approaching a pupil
in MILE and a pupil in his/her own practical training group (Goffree, 1994, p.
211).
11. (Re)considering points of view and actions on the basis of theory.
Example: student teacher revises her opinion about a pupil’s approach to
multiplication, basing it on a fellow student's reflections on the theory behind
the strategy employed (Nelissen, 1987; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen et al., 2000,
p. 47).
12. Constructive analysis (= adapting given teaching material) that is underpinned
with theory.
Example: student teacher adjusts a given course by incorporating contexts that
provoke ‘didactic conflicts’ (Van den Brink, 1989, p. 203).
13. The student teacher shows his appreciation of theory.
Example: student teacher expresses her appreciation of theory when she is able
to explain the solution strategy employed by a pupil (Lampert & Loewenberg
Ball, 1998, p. 70).
14. Realizing the usefulness of theory as a tool for reflecting on actual practice
(‘reflection on action’).
Example: in a logbook, student teacher describes his modified views on theory
in favour of RME (Schön, 1983, p. 278; Korthagen, 1993; Verloop, 1995, p.
137).
15. Developing a personal theory to underpin his interpretation (creation) of a
practical situation.
Example: student teacher develops his/her own theory about open and closed
questions (Boekaerts & Simons 1993, p. 208; Von Glasersfeld, 1995, p. 192).
240
Appendix 2A The development and try-out of the ‘Concept list’ (short version)
The detailed development and background of the list of concepts has been described in
an extended Dutch version (appendix 2B) on the added CD-rom.
In both the small scale and large scale studies a ‘Concept list’ (see model next page) has
been filled in by the students at both the start and the end of the course. There are small
differences between the initial and final lists. Section 2.2 of the appendix 2B describes
the development of the idea that launched the design of the list of concepts, with an
initial description of its functions. The development of the first design is sketched, with
an example of the first version (section 2.3). This first version has been tried out with
four groups of second year students with a total of 63 students. The yield of that trial is
described in detail in section 2.4.
The final two sections of appendix 2B describe the changes in function and content of
the list of concepts for both the small scale study (section 2.5) and the large scale study
(section 2.6).
This is followed by – a part of – the final version of the final list of concepts used in the
final assessment of the large scale study, after which a quotation from the teacher
educators’ manual is given, containing the guideline for the introduction of the list of
concepts at the start of the course.
241
Appendices
Model of the ’Concept list’ in the final assessment of the large scale study
Name student:
Class:
Name Pabo:
The concepts given below are key concepts from the teaching method of learning to multiply.
You have already filled in the list at the start of the course to indicate which concepts did or did
not have a meaning for you and for which concepts you believed you knew a teaching narrative.
Now, at the end of the course, the question is to indicate which concepts have become better
known to you as a result of the course, and have gained enough meaning that you can relate a
teaching situation or a teaching narrative which will explain – to others as well – these concepts.
Use the list you filled in at the start of the course as a comparison.
In the list below, check off the concept if the answer is ‘yes,’ if not leave that line blank. Circle
one of the four categories in the third column. Do not work too fast and be conscientious; this is
not a test, but a determination of where you stand.
This concept has become The narrative is from:

more familiar for me. I 1=own teaching
can relate a teaching practice
narrative in which this 2=The Guide
concept has 3=magazine/book
Concept meaning/becomes clear. 4=instructions/
discussions at Pabo
Check the line below for
yes, or leave it blank Circle (possibly more Explanation
categories for each (optional)
concept)
1. adaptive teaching 1 2 3 4
2. anchor points 1 2 3 4
3. automation 1 2 3 4
4. ... 1 2 3 4
... 1 2 3 4
57. visualizing 1 2 3 4
58. working memory 1 2 3 4
59. rich problems 1 2 3 4
242
Procedure for using the ‘concept list’

The following procedure has been discussed during the teacher educators’ training day.
The list of concepts:
- Hand out the initial questionnaires and let the student teachers read the text from
appendix 1 (p. 33 of the manual). Then read the following text to them: “This is a
self-assessment, intended to gain a first impression of the topic of the course, how
much you already know and what you can still learn. For me (as a teacher and
researcher) it gives an insight into your starting situation so that I can take it into
account in discussions and supervizing.” It must be especially clear to the students
that this is a self-assessment; by pretending to know more than you actually do or
by filling it in inaccurately you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.
- Experience has taught that the concept ‘teaching narrative’ requires a clear
explanation. Give the following example of a teaching narrative for the concept
‘starting error’ (which is not part of this list). “Tom is 6 years old and is in grade
3. In his arithmetic notebook he has the problem 5 + 3 = 7. The teacher ask him
how he knows that 5 plus 3 is 7. ‘I use my fingers,’ Tom says and he counts on his
fingers ‘five, six, seven.’ Tom makes a starting error, he should have started with
6, not with 5.” Remind the students again that they must consider well before
placing checkmarks or encircling a choice.
- Go through the headers of the list one more time with the students. It may happen
that a student does know what a concept means, but has no teaching narrative for
it. Also, more than one category can be circled in the final column for each
concept.
- Have the students complete the list and hand it in, make copies (the originals are
for the researcher) and give the students back a copy; they can use it to make notes
during the course if they like.
(Quotation from the teacher educators’ manual, page 15; see also appendix 22 on
CD-rom)
243
Appendices
Appendix 3A Try-out of ‘The Theorem’ (short version)

The detailed development and background of this try-out has been described in an
extended Dutch version of this appendix on the added CD-rom (see appendix 3B).
To prepare for the small and large scale studies the activity ‘The Theorem’ has been
tried out with 63 second year students, in the same series of meetings as the try-out with
the lists of concepts.
The goal for the student teachers was to gain ‘theory-enriched practical knowledge’ on
the subject of multiplication. ‘Designing, defending and refuting a theorem’ teaches to
defend one’s opinions and allows the active acquisition of knowledge (Loughran, 2002).
The goal for the researcher was to find out which variant of that activity – having the
students formulate their own theorems or having the teacher educator present a ‘ready-
made’ theorem – would lead to the best result in terms of use of theory.
Appended is a description of the students’ assignment, titled ‘Designing, defending and
refuting a theorem’ included in the extended version of this appendix along with the
yield of and conclusion drawn from the try-out (appendix 3B, section 3.3).
244
Appendix 4 Cognitive network of student, constructed by Anne

From Anne’s research report: student’s times-table network for 5x8
My [= Anne’s; w.o.] interpretation.

This part of the times-table network is a bit more complicated than the previous part. You
can see that 5 x 8 = 8 x 5 = 40 is the centre that Donna takes as her starting point for these
three problems. Again, Donna starts with the reversing strategy and then uses the anchor
point 5 x 8 = 8 x 5 = 40. When she finds out that she is dealing with a problem from the
five-times table, she knows she can use 8 x 5 = 40. The next steps she takes are jumps of
five. Ahead or back on the number line. Or put differently: she uses the strategy ‘one time
5 more or less’ or even ‘two times 5 more or less.’ She herself [Donna; w.o.] calls them
jumps.
245
Appendices
Appendix 5 Two of Anne’s teaching narratives for theoretical concepts

If I know that one, I also know the other one
Teaching narrative for the concept ‘anchor point’
Today, grade 2 is introduced to a new table, the eight-times table. The teacher wants to
use cars with trailers as the context. A car with a trailer has eight wheels. This can be
seen clearly in the visual material. De question is how many tires the garage needs for a
certain number of cars and trailers. The teacher wants the children to find a solution for
the multiplications they do not yet know with the aid of the multiplications they do
know.
After the break the children enter the classroom. On their desk is a tray with all kinds of
cars with trailers. On the teacher’s desk there is also a toy car with trailer. The teacher
starts telling a story about a garage where they have to replace all the tires on this car.
He asks the children how many new tires the mechanic will need. The teacher asks both
for the answers and for the approach the children took. After that, he discusses which
times problems are suitable; 2 x 4, 4 x 2, 1 x 8.
Now the teacher tells them which table they will look at. He has written the eight-times
table on the blackboard without the answers. Now he asks the children which answers
they know already. They know 1 x 8. 2 x 8 is simple as well; 8 + 8. Mark knows another
problem; 5 x 8, because he already knows the five-times table very well. “You just
reverse it,” he tells the teacher, “it becomes 8 x 5 and that is 40.”
After all the problems the children know have been filled in, there are a few left. They
do not know 6 x 8 and 9 x 8. The teacher says the children should be able to find the
answers. “Try to look at the problems you do know. Then you can also do these.” The
children get to work. Lisa tells what she did: “I know 10 x 8, then 9 x 8 is a jump of 8
back. That is 80 - 8. 8 + 2 = 10 so 72.” Esther can calculate 6 x 8. “We already knew 5 x
8 together. That is 40, 40 + 8 is 48.” Together they have completed the eight-times
table, and they now continue working on several different assignments.
I do it like this… and I do it differently

Teaching narrative for the concept ‘strategy’
The teacher is sitting at the instruction table together with a group of four children. The
others are working independently on a task. The teacher wants to get an impression of
how the children solve a multiplication. This has been looked at with the whole group
before, but she is curious which strategies the children use by themselves. She uses the
six-times table for this; this table has not yet been treated in class. The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
10 times tables have. She uses the context of six large biscuits in a box. She asks a
246
number of different questions of the children, like “How many biscuits do I have if I
buy four boxes?” The children can work out the answer on their own. Afterwards they
explain how they did it. Chris says: “1 box is 6 and then another box is 6 + 6 is 12. Four
boxes is 12 + 12 = 24.” Hanneke starts: “1 box is 6, plus 6 is 12, plus 12 is 18, plus 6
is… 18 + 2 is 20, 20 plus 4 is 24.” “Hey,” says Chris, “I do it like this…” to which
Hanneke replies proudly “… and I do it differently.” “Did you use another way, Henk
and Marjolein?” the teacher asks. “Marjolein, how did you do it?” “Like Hanneke,
jumps of six.” “And you, Henk?” Henk says he just knew in his head with the problems.
The teacher helps him by asking what his first step was. “First I knew that the boxes is
twelve. Then I knew 4 boxes is 4 x 6. The reverse problem is 6 x 4 and I already knew
that. It is 24.”
After the discussion the teacher lists the strategies the children have used for herself.
Chris doubled 2 x 6, Hanneke and Marjolein started with 1 x 6 and took jumps of 6 to
get to 4 x 6 and Henk used the reverse rule. Henk turned the problem 4 x 6 into the
problem 6 x 4 from the four-times table which he already knew well. So the children
use doubling, shortened counting and reversing.
247
Appendices
Appendix 6 Anne’s reflective note for ‘the suitcase full of balls’

The children are given the arithmetic problem of the week. This is clearly linked to
current events. The children are offered a realistic situation; a suitcase which is filled
with balls and a letter from Saint Nicholas. This fits into realistic mathematics education
really well. It assumes that by having the children work within realistic situation they
will understand and apply problems better.
A larger degree of involvements is evoked, which stimulates the learning process. It is
clear from the sound level that the children join in enthusiastically. The teacher plays
into this well by looking what is inside the suitcase. She devotes a lot of attention and
time to the introduction of the problem, so that it leaves a lasting impression. By
referring back to the instruction in the letter to use the balls for arithmetic, the teacher
uses a good bridge to get to the real work.
She creates the problem through having to guess and not count one by one. How do you
know how many balls there are exactly. She does not let the children give their own
solutions. It is very good to actually do this, but there is a risk of missing the target (the
five-times table). The tubes that are shown give the solution for the problem in a very
natural way, as there is a boy who immediately mentions the problems in the table.
Here she leaves the children more freedom to solve the problem. One child counts 10,
20, 30, 40, 50. While the other counts with jumps of 5. By discussing these different
ways with the whole group, the different strategies are shown. Here the strategy of
shortened counting is applied in two different ways.
When all the balls have been placed in tubes on the edge of the blackboard, they count
the number of tubes with the class. The children are counting the balls with jumps of
five. The teacher stops them and repeats her question. I am glad to say she gets back to
that later, but now she has to stick to her own step-by-step plan to get to the
corresponding table problem. She wants to hear that problem first. You can see that the
boy who answers is already familiar with the way of saying it. You can also say that it
shows that he understands well what concrete situation goes with a table problem. He
knows that 20x5 implies 20 groups, tubes of five.
Next, they count together in the way the class originally started [jumps of 5; w.o.]. You
may ask if this is the right way. If you are working from the children’s point of view, it
would be good to first follow the children, the problem can be formulated after. The
only thing is that the emphasis will be on shortened counting as an activity, rather than a
strategy.
If you want to present shortened counting as a solution strategy for multiplication you will
have to start with the times problem. You will then use shortened counting to solve it,
counting with jumps of 5. Most likely this was her goal and she achieves it. You avoid the
248
children knowing the answer immediately, which gets the strategy across less well.
The context has been set up really well. Only she could have made the problem even
bigger and livelier by making it a real problem. For example, Saint Nicholas wants to
give a tennis ball to each child in the area. He wants to know how many tennis balls he
has in his suitcase. He wants to know if he has enough. He needs 75. Does he have
enough? Will he have any left? This gives the problem even more meaning.
249
Appendices
Appendix 7 Characteristics concept map
250
Appendix 8 Key questions for the final interview

Lists of concepts
Which concepts did you find out more about?
What additional things did you learn? (example/story)
Are there concepts of which you think now that you were wrong at the beginning of the
course to say that you either did or did not know them?
Final assessment: the suitcase full of balls

Where does this lesson fit into the method/learning trajectory for multiplication?
What would be your next step with/after this lesson, with these children?
Concept map
Can you explain the structure you used?
Can you give short examples for the ‘if---then’ arrows?
(if you do this as a teacher then...)
Which of these ten concepts do you think belong to the ‘suitcase lesson’?
Numeracy test
How did you do? What did you think? Give some thought to that (evoke inquiry).
Evaluation
What did you find difficult in the course?
The questionnaire mentions the concept theory a few times. What do you think of when
you hear the word theory? What do you think of theory?
Do you think there is theory in this course?
What do you think is an example of theory that should be part of learning to multiply?
251
Appendices
Appendix 14 Descriptive statistics of questionnaire large scale study (n = 256)

Std.
N Min. Max. Mean deviation
1. I found this course difficult/simple 252 1 5 3,17 0,80
2. The course is not/very useful for
256 1 5 3,59 1,03
my teaching practice
3. As a result of the course I know
nothing/everything about learning to 253 1 5 3,65 0,69
multiply
4. This course offered no/a lot of
254 1 5 3,59 0,82
theory
5. I did not/did know the theory that
249 1 5 2,80 0,83
was offered
6. After this course I do not/do have
256 1 5 4,02 0,81
a better understanding of practice
7. The course is boring/challenging 256 1 5 3,31 1,10
8. The course is vague/concrete 251 1 5 3,47 1,09
9. The course is theoretical/practical 252 1 5 3,47 0,92
10. The course does not/does make
you understand students’ behaviour 255 1 5 3,80 0,97
better
11. The course does not help/helps
me to supervize the students in my 254 1 5 3,61 1,13
practice class better
12. I can not see/see the point of
254 1 5 3,84 0,82
theory after this course
13. This course does not/does make
251 1 5 3,95 0,82
it clear that you need theory
14. Theory and practice are far
248 2 5 4,22 0,75
apart/have been integrated
Valid N (listwise) 229
252
Notes
1
‘Constructive coaching’ (Bakker et al., 2008) can be considered as a way of coaching that
teaching strategies matches with learning strategies (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999), for example by
using the principle of the zône of proximal development (Vygotskij, 1978).
2
In the same publication, (e.g., 1991, p. 100) Freudenthal shows the relationship between theory
and practice in mathematics education by intertwining observing, reflecting, mathematizing and
didactizing (cf. Oonk, 2005).
3
In his publication ‘Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures,’ Freudenthal (1983)
lays a theoretical foundation for ‘realistic teaching’ of mathematics. In chapter 4, after a
phenomenological reflection on number theories through history, he sketches the building blocks
for a didactical phenomenology of numbers and operations with numbers. Characteristic is his
view, that in teaching one should not so much try to find realizations that start from the number,
but that one has to look for phenomena that necessitate the mental object ‘number’. Number is a
‘thinking thing’ that, according to Freudenthal, students get a grip of through offering ‘multiple
embodiment’ in various situations. In the 1970s this was a view that went against the dominant
view of (isolated) development of concept.
4
Wiskobas stands for ‘Wiskunde op de basisschool’ (mathematics in primary school). At the time
(1971-1981) the Wiskobasteam had, as a part of the IOWO-team (‘Institute for the development
of mathematics education,’ the precursor of the Freudenthal Institute), the task of developing and
implementing mathematics education in primary school.
5
The ideas of the followers of associative psychology were mechanistic and atomistic in their
approach. According to them knowledge was caused by one or more sensory experiences. By
repeating mental experience over time, sensory information formed connections, was the idea.
The Brit John Locke with his ‘Association of ideas’ (1690) is seen as the founder of
associationism.
6
The Babylonians (ca. 3000 BC) have left clay tablets which among other things contained the
tables of multiplication from 1 x 1 up to 59 x 59 from their positional, sexagesimal (base sixty)
system. Egyptian writings (papyrus Rhind, ca. 2000 BC) show us multiplication tables that show
they calculated partly by heart, particularly through handy doubling and halving; they did not just
do this for whole numbers, but also for fractions and decimal numbers. Probably the natural
development of multiplication, including the accompanying (mathematical) development of
language – the so-called ‘practical character’ of multiplication – gave no cause to take up the
development of a mathematical foundation for the numerical system. That foundation was in fact
not laid until about two thousand years later, by Euclid (ca. 300 BC).
7
Freudenthal says (1984a, p. 122): Multiplication is at first repeated addition, and this repeated
addition can be structured very efficiently by pair collection within the rectangular model –
253
Notes
product within set theory, partly to calculate amounts as products. However, this model is
insufficient. Not insufficient mathematically (...). But insufficient didactically, because a
mathematically obvious restructuring does by no means have to occur within learning processes –
either spontaneous or encouraged – and, if it does occur, does not have to be conscious enough to
be made explicit and be available.
8
That the criticism did exist, can be seen among others in publications from the wellknown Dutch
pedagogue Ligthart (1859-1916) and from the researchers Brownell and Chazal (1935). Ligthart
felt that the then-current approach to education – and not just of mathematics – had deteriorated to
lifeless imitating, copying of reasoning and memorization.‘Learning through experience, learning
by doing, learning with empathy,’ was Ligtharts’ credo (De Jong, 1996, pp. 282-284). He stood
for learning in a physical and mental interaction between child, environment and teacher,
allowing the child to actively acquire the new material. The influence of American pedagogue and
philosopher Dewey (1859-1952) can be recognized in these ideas. De Jong writes that Ligthart
learned about Dewey’s work in 1908 through the book ‘Méthodes Americaines d’education
générale et technique’ by Belgian author Omer Buyse, and recognized his own ideas in Deweys
work, sometimes in great detail. There was only one of Dewey’s axioms he disagreed with: the
recapitulation theory, according to which students would have to relive events from history to
become interested in current culture. Ligthart did not believe in this idea. It was better for
didactical reasons to take a starting point as close as possible to the environment of the child,
rather than to go back two thousand years. Brownell and Chazal studied different ways of adding
and subtracting. They concluded that ‘drill activities’ have little effect if not preceded by
understanding of what has to be learned.
9
Lankford, 1974; Erlwanger, 1975 and Codd, 1981.
10
He supports the view of Lesh and Landau (1983) that the clinical interview gives a more
complete view of the development of mathematical notions and processes in children and does
not agree with some researchers who claim that children are on the whole unwilling to relate their
thoughts (Ter Heege, 1986, p. 31).
11
Among others, Ter Heege (1986) refers to the work of Ebbinghaus – with his influential
publication ‘Über das gedächtnis’ from 1885, in which he gives much attention to the laws of
association, Bartlett (1932), who makes a distinction between reconstruction and reproduction,
and knowledge, and Van Parreren (1964), on among other things functional and maneuverable
knowledge. Furthermore, he cites the researchers Brownell and Chazal, who conclude that ‘drill
activities’ have little effect if not preceded by understanding, Thorntons (1978) on applying
mental strategies on their own by children and Baroody (1985) in relation to the dynamic
cognitive network.
12
TAL means Tussendoelen Annex Leerlijnen (A Learning-Teaching Trajectory with
254
Intermediate Attainment Targets). The publication is the output of the TAL-project, initiated by
the National Department of Education, Culture and Science. It has been executed by a group of
thirteen experts of the Freudenthal Instituut in cooperation with the Netherlands Institute for
Curriculum Development (SLO) and the National Centers for School Improvement (CED).
13
According to Ter Heege (1986, p. 110), the division between reproduction and reconstruction
comes from the psychologist Bartlett. Treffers & De Moor (1990, pp. 72, 87) refer to Baroody
(1985, pp. 83-98) for that. Baroody uses these concepts when he discusses dynamic (knowledge)
networks.
14
In the TAL-brochure (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen et al., 1998, p. 63) an example that gives off
such a signal is included. It shows how the table of eight can be reconstructed and subsequently
reproduced in a process of shortening and memorizing. An analogous example is given in De
Proeve (Treffers & De Moor, 1990, p. 76) which in its turn is derived from the theory of Ter
Heege (1985). Next the example from the TAL brochure (p. 63).
‘Table of eight’
1 x 8 to be known [weetje]
2 x 8 to be known (‘the double’ 8 + 8); or through switching (8 x 2)
3 x 8 through 2 x 8 + 8 (‘one time more’); or through switching (8 x 3)
4 x 8 double of 2 x 8, or 5 x 8 - 8 (‘one time less’); or through switching
5 x 8 half of 10 x 8 = 80; or through switching
6 x 8 through 5 x 8 (‘one time more’); or through switching; or doubling (3 x 8 + 3 x 8)
7 x 8 through 5 x 8 + 2 x 8, of 6 x 8 + 8 (‘one time more’)
8 x 8 various, will be a ‘known’ quickly
9 x 8 10 x 8 - 8 (‘one time less’); or through switching
10 x 8 ‘known’
12 x 8 an inquiry problem…
In many of the above cases, access through other tables is possible through the commutative
property: 3 x 8 through 8 x 3 if that is already known; 4 x 8 through 8 x 4, and so on.
A signal regarding influences from earlier theories on learning and memory can be found in ‘De
Proeve,’ in a reference to Van Parreren and to (via) Ter Heege’s work. The TAL brochure
contains no references to these theories, only a general comment on the necessity to integrate the
content component with cognitive, social and affective-emotional development (p. 75).
15
We consider practice as a situation, (learning) environment or domain with materials, tools and
actors in which professional actions occur, that is to say adequate action based on (practical)
knowledge.
16
Here the concept of paradigm is interpreted according to the views of Kuhn, namely the
paradigm of a scientific community (Kuhn, 1970, a.o. p. 210). This to distinguish it from the
255
Notes
meaning Freudenthal gives it: the paradigm as a representative example of a phenomenon, a

concept or a theory (Freudenthal, 1984b, p. 102; Goffree en Dolk, 1995, p. 114).
17
Ter Heege talks in various terms about making the connection between practice and theory
(among others in 1986, p. 5, 170). On page 5 he says: “There is a didactical gap [between theory
and practice] that will be bridged with the development of learning materials for elementary
multiplications.”
18
Much is being written and said about the complexity of learning and teaching mathematics.
Lampert (2001) makes the concept of ‘complexity’ concrete and debatable.
19
Boersma and Looy describe a practical theory as the knowledge that describes actions in
specific practices and provides guidance for those actions (Boersma and Looy, 1997, p. 16). [Note
that these researchers designate theory as knowledge].
20
For example the environment Ter Heege created: a challenging, open discussion situation about
multiplication with student Johan.
21
Heard from A. Treffers at HKRWO (Historische Kring Reken- en Wiskundeonderwijs –
Historical Circle Mathematics Educations) Symposium VIII, May 25, 2002 in Utrecht.
22
Verschaffel uses the adjective ‘powerful’ in the meaning of ‘efficient,’ in the sense that a strong
learning environment will lead to efficient acquisition of knowledge and skills.
23
As from 06-06-2003 the MILE project (meanwhile in version 4) is executed under government
of ‘The association MILE2’ (Den Hertog, 2006).
24
Oonk, W. Verhalen van reken-wiskundeonderwijs in groep 4 [Telling stories about grade 2],
This book functioned as a sourcebook for helping student teachers to find an appropriate research
question.
25
De Wereld in Getallen [‘The World in Numbers,’ one of the current Dutch teachers guides and
textbooks].
26
By the Dumb August approach the teacher pretends to be quasi-stupid in order to evoke
interaction in Class.
27
Some teachers use free of charge packing materials as egg boxes for grouping on base ten.
28
During this so-called ‘game of concepts’ the students discussed, under the direction of the
teacher educator, the question of whether there was a demonstrable connection between six given
theoretical concepts (context, informal procedure, thinking model, anchorpoint, structure and
strategy) and four practical situations. The game element was that each student attempted to
defend his or her choice of a concept – written on a colored card – in the plenary session.
29
The group work was partly stimulated by thinking of, formulating and discussing a ‘theorem’
based on joint observation of a practical situation. There is an assumption that such activities lead
to ‘ownership’ of knowledge that is directly linked to one’s own experience (Loughran, 2002; see
also appendix 3AB).
256
30
For instance: “Try to recall what you were thinking” and “Say ‘stop’ when you want to react.”
31
This is a selection of ten from the 59 concepts that occurred in the course. The selection has
been made by the researcher based on his assessment regarding an optimal data yield (selection
criteria: theoretical ‘load’ of the concepts, coherence and use in the meetings).
32
Anne is a fictive name.
33
The reckon reck is a variation on the traditional abacus and is used in realistic mathematics
education (Heuvel-Panhuizen, van den (red.), 2001).
34
In the zero-version, there were five categories, but upon consideration ‘prediction’ was
included with response.
35
As well as his own interpretation of Van Hiele’s (1973) division in levels for thinking
respectively reasoning in mathematics, Freudenthal also formulated levels in use of language,
with someone’s choice of language being an expression of that person’s level of thinking. An
example of the latter is the indication at different levels of the location of a thing or a person by
describing the location (active, demonstrative use of language), by using concepts of orientation
such as left, right, front, back (active or fact-establishing relative use of language), or by using
coordinates (fact-establishing, functional use of language) (see also Van Dormolen 1982, p. 148).
36
This comparison is based on data from the CBS [Central Statistics Bureau] and the Ministry of
Education (OCW).
37
Drs. K. Olofsen, co-author of the publication ‘Gecijferdheid’ (Faes et al., 1992); the other
judge was drs. K. Tjon Soei Sjoe.
38
This concerns the reflective note for the final assessment. For the initial assessment the
description for a situation was considered as a meaningful unit.
39
For instance, words such as ‘furthermore’ or ‘also’ are often indications that a sentence should
be added to a preceding sentence or paragraph.
40
Indicator words are usually marks (connecting words, lexical signals) of coherent relations in a
text (Pander Maat, 2002); they may give an indication for the type of description being used. It
depends on the meaning within the given context whether such a word actually gives an
indication and to what degree it does so.
41
Reflective, contemplative descriptions by the students are often accompanied by a rise in level
for the use of theory.
42
A statement that is seen as unlikely is a statement by a student about a practical situation that is
judged to be almost impossible by the expert who judges it, such as a student stating that the
teacher ‘apparently feels that the number line is not useful for what is being taught in this lesson,’
while there is no indication that the teacher holds this opinion.
43
Dr. R. Keijzer and the researcher.
44
The score list (appendix 16) contains general pedagogical and pedagogical content concepts.
257
Notes
Students also often use certain concepts more than once in their reflection. For that reason a
distinction has been made between the total number of general pedagogical and pedagogical
content concepts and the number of different general pedagogical and pedagogical content
concepts. The general total has also been determined for both groups.
45
From our experiences with the student teachers in the small scale study, we know that
‘characteristic dominance’ of theory use in relation to one of the four categories exists.
46
In general, over the last years many mathematics teacher educators in the Netherlands are
concerned about – probably related – phenomena such as workload, the decreasing amount of
contact time and the decreasing attention to mathematics education in the curricula of their
teacher training college (Keijzer & Van Os, 2002).
258
Curriculum vitae
Wil Oonk (1940) ging na zijn voltooiing van de HBS-B opleiding in 1957 naar de
Kweekschool voor Onderwijzers en behaalde daar in 1959 en 1960 de akten voor
onderwijzer, respectievelijk volledig bevoegd onderwijzer. Na de vervulling van zijn
militaire dienstplicht in 1962, ging hij werken in het lager onderwijs in Enschede en
Muiderberg en was leraar wiskunde aan het Woltjer Gymnasium te Amsterdam. In
avondstudie behaalde hij de akten Wiskunde MO-A en MO-B.
Zijn betrokkenheid bij de nieuwe ontwikkelingen in het reken-wiskundeonderwijs voor
de basisschool leidde in 1971 tot zijn benoeming als docent aan de reguliere en Montes-
sori dag- en avondopleiding van de Gemeentelijke Pedagogische Academie te
Amsterdam, voorganger van de tegenwoordige Pabo van de Hogeschool van
Amsterdam. Hij werkte daar als opleider, als leidinggevende van de vakgroep wiskunde
& didactiek en als cursusleider van de part-time lerarenopleiding Wiskunde L.O. In die
hoedanigheden was hij lid van diverse landelijke ontwikkelen adviesgroepen en
examencommissies, onder andere de ontwikkelgroep lerarenopleidingen (OGLO), de
veldadviescommissie Wiskunde & Informatica (VALO) van de SLO en de
staatsexamencommissie Wiskunde L.O. Ook werkte hij mee aan de ontwikkeling van
het standaardwerk ‘De Proeve’ voor de opleiding rekenen-wiskunde & didactiek op de
Pabo. Verder gaf hij mede leiding aan de ontwikkeling en uitvoering van studiedagen
voor pabodocenten wiskunde & didactiek en was betrokken bij internationale projecten.
Van 1996 tot 2001 was hij als lid van het landelijk kernteam MILE gedetacheerd bij het
Freudenthal Instituut, waar hij na zijn pensionering is blijven werken als gast-
onderzoeker.
In het najaar van 2003 verbleef hij op uitnodiging van de School of Education
(Universiteit van Michigan) gedurende vier maanden in Ann Arbor. Hij werkte daar als
opleider en participeerde in het ontwikkelen onderzoeksteam van Deborah Ball.
Wil Oonk is auteur van publicaties op het gebied van rekenen-wiskunde & didactiek.
Tegenwoordig geeft hij mede leiding aan de landelijke ‘Kerngroep Opleiders’ voor dit
vakgebied en aan een project voor de vernieuwing van het reken-wiskundeonderwijs in
Suriname. Verder is hij redactielid van het ‘Tijdschrift voor nascholing en onderzoek
van het reken-wiskundeonderwijs’ en eindredacteur van een uitgave i.o. voor rekenen-
wiskunde & didactiek op de Pabo.
259
260
Dankwoord
Een eerste woord van dank verdient eigenlijk de pedagoog en filosoof Dewey (1859-
1952). Zijn werk koos ik in 1960 als onderwerp van mijn examenwerkstuk voor de ‘akte
volledig bevoegd onderwijzer’, gefascineerd als ik was door zijn vooruitstrevende
ideeën over het bij elkaar brengen van theorie en praktijk in het onderwijs.
Enkele decennia later had ik het voorrecht kennis te mogen maken met het op integratie
van theorie en praktijk gerichte curriculum van de School of Education van de
universiteit van Michigan. In het bijzonder inspireerde het werk van de hoogleraren
Magdalene Lampert en Deborah Ball mijn collega’s en mij tot het ontwikkelen van
MILE voor de Pabo’s in Nederland. Die bron van inspiratie werkte nog in een ander
opzicht door. Op één van de studiereizen naar Ann Arbor ontstond het idee voor dit
onderzoek. Ik ben Magdalene en Deborah zeer erkentelijk voor hun gastvrijheid tijdens
mijn bezoeken aan Ann Arbor en de collegiale en persoonlijke wijze waarop zij hun
expertise met mij wilden delen.
In de eerste fase van mijn onderzoek was het Mileteam – met Maarten Dolk, Willem
Faes, ons helaas veel te vroeg ontvallen, Fred Goffree, Han Hermsen en later Jaap den
Hertog en Chris Rauws – een klankbord voor mijn ideevorming. Dat gold in het
bijzonder voor Fred Goffree in zijn functie als begeleider van het onderzoek.
Het eerste exploratieve onderzoek heb ik uitgevoerd op de Pabo van de Hogeschool van
Amsterdam, waar ik toen nog werkzaam was. Ondanks de inbreuk op het werkklimaat
door allerlei fusieperikelen in die tijd, voelde ik me daar omringd door veel fijne
collega’s. Zonder iemand tekort te willen doen, noem ik hier Ger de Haan als hun
representant, de ‘Theo Thijssen’ onder hen.
In totaal hebben 398 studenten aan de vier verschillende onderzoeken deelgenomen.
Bijzondere vertegenwoordigers van die groep zijn Dieneke Blikslager en Hayet de Bont,
die als ware pioniers de spits hebben afgebeten.
Vanaf die eerste momenten tot en met het vierde en laatste onderzoek konden studenten
profiteren van de expertise van de ‘Mile-leraren’ Minke Westveer en Willie van
Ouwerkerk.
De studenten vormden de doelgroep van mijn onderzoek. Maar zonder de betrokkenheid
en de belangeloze inzet van hun opleiders was het onderzoek niet mogelijk geweest. Zij
moesten de onderzoeksbijeenkomsten inpassen in de bestaande programma’s en
bovendien bracht het onderzoek veel extra werk met zich mee. Mijn dank gaat uit naar
de volgende opleiders en hun Pabo’s, c.q. Hogescholen: Frits Barth (Stenden
Hogeschool, Leeuwarden), Hanneke Beemer (Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven), Jos van
den Bergh en Frans Van Mulken (Avans Hogeschool, Breda), Nico den Besten
(Hogeschool Driestar Educatief, Gouda), Mat Bos en Mark Sanders (Hogeschool de
Kempel, Helmond), Gert Gelderblom (Gereformeerde Hogeschool, Zwolle), Riny
261
Kollöffel (Hogeschool van Amsterdam), Ad Peijnenburg en Eric Ansems (Fontys
Hogeschool, Den Bosch), Jan Haarsma (Chr. Hogeschool Windesheim, Zwolle), An te
Selle (Stenden Hogeschool, Meppel), Jan Stapel (Hogeschool INHolland, Dordrecht),
Belinda Terlouw (Katholieke Pabo Zwolle) en Marc van Zanten (Hogeschool Edith
Stein, Hengelo).
Kenneth Tjon Soei Sjoe (Hogeschool van Amsterdam) liet van meet af aan zijn
interesse voor mijn onderzoek blijken door het stellen van indringende vragen; die
leidden vrijwel altijd tot interessante en vruchtbare discussies.
Annette Markusse en Nico Olofsen (IPabo Amsterdam en Alkmaar) hebben hun
deskundigheid met volle overtuiging en enthousiasme ingezet voor de try-out en de
uitvoering van het kleinschalige onderzoek; zelfs tot in ‘de laatste uren’ hebben ze mijn
onderzoeksactiviteiten ondersteund, in professioneel en persoonlijk opzicht.
Met Ronald Keijzer (IPabo en Freudenthal Instituut) heb ik vele uren gediscussieerd
over het analyse-instrument en ook in andere opzichten stond hij me bij. Ik heb veel
profijt gehad van zijn inbreng en genoten van de samenwerking met hem.
Het bestuur en het managementteam van het Freudenthal Instituut ben ik zeer
erkentelijk voor het feit dat zij mij na mijn pensionering de gastvrijheid schonken om
door te gaan met het onderzoek. Al sinds 1971 heb ik een band met het Freudenthal
Instituut, eerst vanuit ‘het onderwijsveld’, later als gedetacheerd werknemer en nu als
gast-onderzoeker. Ook in deze werkomgeving ben ik bevoorrecht door de contacten met
sympathieke collega’s, creatieve mensen met passie voor de lerende mens en een schat
aan expertise op het gebied van ontwikkelen en onderzoeken van wiskundeonderwijs.
Die werksfeer wordt mede bepaald door de plezierige, dienstbare opstelling van het
ondersteunend personeel. Wat de ondersteuning voor mijn onderzoek betreft, gaat mijn
dank speciaal uit naar één van hen, Nathalie Kuijpers, voor haar gedegen aanpak van het
vertaalwerk en de opmaak van mijn proefschrift.
In de afgelopen jaren was ik regelmatig te gast bij de ICLON-onderzoeksgroep in
Leiden. Ik heb veel geleerd van de vaak stevige discussies in de sfeervolle groep van
onderzoekers uit diverse disciplines. Een bijzonder woord van dank richt ik tot één van
hen, Ben Smit, die me op vele momenten met raad en daad heeft bijgestaan.
Ik heb vanzelfsprekend veel te danken aan mijn promotoren. Koeno Gravemeijer stapte
zonder aarzelen in de rijdende trein en inspireerde me met zijn ‘theorie-geleide’,
vakinhoudelijke impulsen. Mijn eerste promotor, Nico Verloop, schonk me van meet af
aan zijn vertrouwen. Zijn begeleiding had voor mij het karakter van wetenschappelijk
in- en uitzoomen. Met zijn scherpe analyses en gedetailleerde annotaties stimuleerde hij
me om te filteren en te focussen.
De begeleidingsgesprekken heb ik steeds ervaren als mijlpalen in mijn
onderzoeksproces.
262
Een voortdurende, positieve respons op mijn werk was er vanuit de thuisbasis. Carla,
Lars en Monique luisterden, dachten mee en discussieerden soms met me op het
scherpst van de snede. De logeerpartijen van mijn kleinzoons Douwe en Job waren de
mooiste onderbrekingen die ik me wensen kon.
Vervuld van dankbaarheid denk ik aan mijn ouders, die dit zo graag hadden
meegemaakt. Gelukkig zijn mijn broers Jan en Gerrit hun goede vertegenwoordigers.
Ten slotte een ode aan Nanny. Zij is mijn steun en toeverlaat. Dat ik zo intens van het
onderzoek heb kunnen genieten is vooral aan haar te danken.
263
Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching
PhD dissertation series
Hoeflaak, A. (1994). Decoderen en interpreteren: een onderzoek naar het

gebruik van strategieën bĳ het beluisteren van Franse nieuwsteksten.
Verhoeven, P. (1997). Tekstbegrip in het onderwijs klassieke talen.
Meijer, P. C. (1999). Teachers’ practical knowledge: Teaching reading
comprehension in secondary education.
Zanting, A. (2001). Mining the mentor’s mind: The elicitation of mentor
teachers’ practical knowledge by prospective teachers.
Uhlenbeck, A. M. (2002). The development of an assessment procedure for
beginning teachers of English as a foreign language.
Oolbekkink-Marchand, H.W. (2006). Teachers’ perspectives on self-regulated
learning: An exploratory study in secondary and university education.
Henze-Rietveld, F. A. (2006). Science teachers’ knowledge development in the
context of educational innovation.
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. D. (2006). The learning portfolio as a tool for
stimulating reflection by student teachers.
Meirink, J.A. (2007). Individual teacher learning in a context of collaboration
in teams.
Nijveldt, M.J. (2008). Validity in teacher assessment: An exploration of the
judgement processes of assessors.
Bakker, M.E.J. (2008). Design and evaluation of video portfolios: Reliability,
generalizability, and validity of an authentic performance assessment for
teachers.
Oonk, W. (2009). Theory-enriched practical knowledge in mathematics teacher
education.

Theory-Enriched Practical Knowledge in Mathematics Full Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory-Enriched Practical Knowledge in Mathematics Full Text

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory-Enriched Practical Knowledge in Mathematics Full Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory-enriched practical knowledge in mathematics

Version: Corrected Publisher’s Version

mathematics teacher education

Title: Theory-enriched practical knowledge

ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching

Print: Mostert & Van Onderen! Leiden

© 2009, Wil Oonk

mathematics teacher education

ter verkrijging van

de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden,

volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties

te verdedigen op dinsdag 23 juni 2009

klokke 13.45 uur

1.2 Purpose and relevance

automatically to student teachers’ integration of theory and practice. Acquiring a teacher’s

1.3 Research questions

The underlying research question was:

1.4 Nature of the study

1.5 Outline of the thesis

(2.4) finally pointed specifically to the situation in primary mathematics teacher

2.2 Orientations in teacher education programs

Developmental, the Social Reconstructionist, and the Generic Reflection Tradition.

2.3 The concepts of theory and practice in teacher education

2.3.1 Theory in teacher education

2.3.2 Practice in teacher education

2.3.3 The knowledge base of the (prospective) teacher

2.3.4 Teacher practical knowledge

2.4 The relationship between theory and practice in teacher education

same learning environment all kinds of content-related and organizational components

2.5 Theory and practice in primary mathematics teacher education in the

2.5.3 New developments

decided to develop an environment for student teachers in the Netherlands similar to

2.6 Characteristics of a domain-specific instructional theory. Implications for

2.6.1.3 Selection of the theory to analyze

2.6.2 The theory of learning and teaching to multiply

Situations (manifestations) of the multiplication 3x4 or 2x3x4 are for example:

In 1998, developers at the Freudenthal Institute distinguished three types of structures in

Euclid says about that among other things:

(a1, b3) (a2, b3) (a3, b3) (a4, b3)

Learn the two-times table by heart

figure 2.1 A page from the textbook

- the symbols +, x and = ;

The change from 1970 onwards: a new theory

2.6.3 Characteristics of the theory of learning and teaching to multiply

The ‘truth’ of theory

2.6.3.2 Extrinsic characteristics

Adoption of the theory

2.6.4 Focal points for theory in mathematics teacher education

Characteristics of the theory Focal points for theory in mathematics teacher

2.7 The learning environment

2.7.1 Orientations for designing learning environments

2.7.2 Design research

When designing learning environments in primary teacher education, there is an attempt

Putnam, 1996; Herrington et al, 1998; Leinhardt, 1988; Tzur, 2001).

3.2 Prior development and research

3.2.1 Developing good practice

L.3 Reflection. Learning mathematics is stimulated by reflection. Reflection is, as it

- While exploring the context of a problem the non-mathematical aspects mentioned

3.2.2 Good practice for teacher education