framework for analysis

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (2005) 8:197–221 Ó Springer 2005
DOI 10.1007/s10857-005-0852-6
MOHAN CHINNAPPAN and MICHAEL J. LAWSON
A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS’ GEOMETRIC

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND GEOMETRIC KNOWLEDGE
FOR TEACHING
ABSTRACT. Current reform-driven mathematics documents stress the need for

teachers to provide learning environments in which students will be challenged to
engage with mathematics concepts and extend their understandings in meaningful ways
(e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000, Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council). The type of rich learning
contexts that are envisaged by such reforms are predicated on a number of factors, not
the least of which is the quality of teachers’ experience and knowledge in the domain of
mathematics. Although the study of teacher knowledge has received considerable
attention, there is less information about the teachers’ content knowledge that impacts
on classroom practice. Ball (2000, Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247) sug-
gested that teachers’ need to ‘deconstruct’ their content knowledge into more visible
forms that would help children make connections with their previous understandings
and experiences. The documenting of teachers’ content knowledge for teaching has
received little attention in debates about teacher knowledge. In particular, there is
limited information about how we might go about systematically characterising the key
dimensions of quality of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching and connec-
tions among these dimensions. In this paper we describe a framework for describing
and analysing the quality of teachers’ content knowledge for teaching in one area
within the domain of geometry. An example of use of this framework is then developed
for the case of two teachers’ knowledge of the concept ‘square’.
KEY WORDS: framework for geometric knowledge mapping, geometric knowledge,

mathematics teacher knowledge for teaching, teacher education, teachers’ knowledge
deconstruction
INTRODUCTION
A principal theme in current reform-driven mathematics documents is

the need for teachers to provide learning environments in which stu-
dents will be challenged to engage with mathematics concepts and
extend their understandings in meaningful ways. Recent discussions
of the role of the mathematics teacher emphasise the importance of
teachers helping students to develop knowledge structures that will
198 MOHAN CHINNAPPAN AND MICHAEL J. LAWSON
allow the student productively to explore a suitable range of mathe-

matical problems. The sense of this perspective is clearly articulated
in the recommendations, such as that of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (1989, p. 128), that there is a need for
teachers to ‘shift from dispensing information to facilitating learning’.
Knapp (1997) views the adoption by teachers of this shift in concep-
tualisation of teaching as one of the central planks of the broad
reform movement in mathematics and science teaching. One part of
this movement is the specification of the crucial role that teachers
and their knowledge play in influencing the knowledge and under-
standings constructed by students. A critical assumption made in
development of the agenda for reform is that the teacher should
have access to a well-developed, good quality, body of mathematical
content knowledge. In this study we address the issue of how to cha-
racterise the quality of a teacher’s mathematical content knowledge.
The purpose of this study was twofold. First, we develop a frame-
work for identifying dimensions of quality in teachers’ content
knowledge for geometry and teaching of a concept in geometry. Sec-
ond, we use this framework to describe the knowledge provided by
two teachers who completed a number of tasks that were designed to
access their knowledge of this concept.
Teacher Knowledge and Mathematics Teaching

Recent research about development of teachers’ competence in mathe-
matics has identified three major components of teachers’ knowledge
base which permit them to perform their role effectively: Mathematics
content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and the blend of knowl-
edge of content and pedagogy. Mathematical content knowledge
includes information such as mathematical concepts, rules and associ-
ated procedures for problem solving. Pedagogical knowledge refers to
teachers’ understanding of their students, and the processes involved in
teaching. The blend of content and pedagogical knowledge includes
understandings about why some children experience difficulties when
learning a particular concept while others find it easy to assimilate,
knowledge about useful ways to conceptualise and represent the chosen
concept (Feiman-Nemser, 1990), the quality of explanations that teach-
ers generate prior to and during instruction (Leinhardt, 1987), and per-
ceptions about the nature of mathematics. This blend has also been
labelled as pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). In recent
years, researchers interested in improving children’s mathematical
GEOMETRIC KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING 199
performance have argued that the quality of teachers’ own knowledge

has a strong influence on how that knowledge is accessed and exploited
during planning for a lesson and instruction (Clark & Peterson, 1986;
Lawson & Chinnappan, 1994; Schoenfeld, 1992).
While the study of teacher knowledge has received considerable
attention, there is less information about teachers’ content knowledge
that impacts on classroom practice. In highlighting this issue, Ball
(2000) made the distinction between ‘knowing how to do mathematics
and knowing it in ways that enable its use in practice’ (p. 243). Ball
suggested that teachers’ need to ‘deconstruct’ their content knowledge
into more visible forms that would help children make connections
with their previous understandings and experiences. The following
quote adumbrates the issue.
‘Understanding the use of mathematics in the work of teaching is critical area ripe
for further examination. It is not only what mathematics teachers know but also
how they know it, and what they are able to mobilise mathematically in the course
of teaching’ (Ball, Lubienski & Mewborn, 2001, p. 451).
The documenting of teachers’ content knowledge for teaching has
received little attention in debates about teacher knowledge. In partic-
ular, there is limited information about how we might go about cha-
racterising the qualities of this knowledge in a systematic manner. In
this paper, we describe a framework designed to allow us to undertake
such a characterisation. In so doing we examine the issue of ‘how they
know it’ that Ball et al. (2001) drew attention to.
Geometric Knowledge
Students’ understandings of geometry have received considerable
attention in most curriculum documents, and this area is regarded as
providing important foundations for appreciation of other mathemat-
ics topics such as algebra. K-12 mathematics curriculum documents
(Board of Studies, 2002; National Council of Teachers of Mathemat-
ics, 2000) have identified geometric knowledge under various themes
such as spatial concepts, attributes of 2-dimensional (2-D) and 3-
dimensional (3-D) shapes, plane geometry, deductive geometry and
coordinate geometry. All these areas involve spatial thinking and use
of conventions in geometry diagrammatic representations. Vinner and
Dreyfus (1989) suggested that formal concept definitions and images as
provided in the curriculum may be different from images of the con-
cept that individual students develop. In a traditional classroom,
teachers may focus on the former at the expense of the latter, which
could include individual students’ idiosyncratic ways of understanding

geometry concepts.
In their analysis of perception of geometric figures, Gray, Pinto,
Pitta and Tall (1999) highlighted the power of language in helping
learners to make hierarchical classifications. They suggested that
‘through verbal discussion, instruction and construction, the child may
begin to see hierarchies with one idea classified within another, so that
a square is a rectangle is a quadrilateral’ (p. 112). Thus, the language
used by a teacher plays a central role in the development of under-
standings about 2-D shapes and their relations to other shapes.
From the teaching point of view, current models of embedded
learning emphasise not only properties of shapes but also the identifi-
cation of these shapes in an array of real-life contexts. For example,
teachers’ content knowledge about 2-D shapes would involve not only
descriptions about features of parallelograms but also the construction
of parallelograms using pattern blocks, and the awareness of use of
these shapes in real life activities. Teachers must also be able to articu-
late the relationships between parallelograms and other 2 and 3-D
figures, such as rectangles, triangles, rhombus and quadrilaterals in
general. That is, teachers need to bring a level of representational flu-
ency to the teaching of 2-D shapes. This fluency, which should include
language that is associated with 2-D shapes, can be argued to reflect
teachers’ geometric knowledge for teaching. In order to improve our
sense of what content knowledge matters in teaching geometry, we
would need to identify the ‘critical components’ of the deconstructed
knowledge referred to by Ball (2000). In the first instance, this requires
a fine-grained analysis of not only the content of geometric knowledge
but also its deconstruction and reorganisation which is important for
accessing and making concepts visible to students.
Geometric Knowledge Connectedness

It is generally accepted that, all other things being equal, a teacher
with a better quality knowledge base will be more able to assist stu-
dents than one with lesser quality knowledge (Grossman, 1995;
Munby, Russell & Martin, 2001). Researchers have emphasised the
importance of recognising the connected nature of the teacher’s knowl-
edge base. Robinson, Even and Tirosh (1992) suggested that in order
to understand the depth of teachers’ knowledge and understanding it
was necessary to examine the network of interconnected schemas and
procedures that form the knowledge base. Schoenfeld (1988)
observed that development of mathematical thinking requires not only
mastering various facts and procedures, but also understanding con-

nections among them, and suggested that there is value in providing
detailed descriptions of the structures that support such thinking. As
yet, we have very few detailed discussions of the ways in which the
quality of connectedness of elements of teacher knowledge can be
investigated and represented.
The starting point for our attempt to represent the quality of math-
ematics teachers’ knowledge of content was Mayer’s (1975, p. 529)
notion of knowledge connectedness. Mayer described the accumulation
of new information in long-term memory as adding new nodes to
memory and connecting the new nodes with components of the exist-
ing network. Internal connectedness refers to the degree to which new
nodes of information are connected with one another to form a single
well-defined structure or schema. This sense of connectedness refers
both to the presence of nodes related to a schema and to the quality
of the relationships established among those nodes. The broad notion
of quality here can be related, in part, to what Anderson (2000) refers
to as the strength of a memory trace. Seen in this way, the stronger
the connections among the nodes in a particular schema, the better is
the quality of that structure. Mayer (1975) referred to external con-
nectedness as the degree to which newly established knowledge struc-
tures are connected with structures already existing in the learner’s
knowledge base. For example a teacher might be expected to relate a
schema for proportion with schemas for ratio or fraction.
One important dimension related to the quality of that structure.
Is the identification of what connections are present in a knowledge
structure. Other things being equal, the more comprehensive the con-
nections in a knowledge structure are, the more ‘rich’ or more elabo-
rated is the structure, the more useful it will be in problem solving
(Anderson, 2000). However, it is also apparent that the nature of the
connections within a knowledge structure, not just the number of
connections, is also important. Some time ago Bruner (1966) referred
to knowledge representations as having degrees of ‘power’, and Witt-
rock (1990) has more recently described both student and teacher
understandings as having ‘generative’ capacity. Both power and gen-
erative capacity draw attention to the quality of the connections in a
knowledge structure. The more powerful and more generative a struc-
ture, the more widely it can be applied in problem solving (Bruner,
1966). So we might expect different individuals to have connections
between proportion and ratio or fraction that differ in power. In sim-
ilar vein, we might expect a student’s new schema for proportion
to have both a certain quality in its internal structure (internal
connectedness) and a certain quality in its connections to related

schemas (external connectedness). This analysis of connectedness was
used by Chinnappan (1998a, b) who argued that the linking of the
different pieces of knowledge of geometry and trigonometry reflect
deeper and richer understandings.
The above discussion relating to the quality of connections in a
knowledge representation omits the question of how to describe such
quality. In developing the framework discussed below, we have set out
one way in which we think the quality of a knowledge structure re-
lated to mathematical content knowledge can be described. We have
used the notions of internal (within-schema) and external (between-
schema) connectedness for representing the structural dimensions of
teachers’ knowledge and have defined specific features of those struc-
tures as indices of quality. These notions provide a way to represent
the complexity of geometric knowledge base in a manner that focuses
on the state of organisation of that knowledge.
Representation of Geometric Knowledge Structure in Maps

As the study of dimensions of teachers’ geometric knowledge for
teaching involves the examination and specification of schemas and
relationships, we need tools that will help us to represent the organisa-
tional features of that knowledge. An intuitively appealing and effec-
tive procedure for representing knowledge structure is that known as
concept mapping. The concept map has emerged in a number of forms
in the literature of educational research, though the term is most com-
monly associated with the work of Joseph Novak and his colleagues in
the science education program at Cornell University (e.g., Novak,
1990; Novak & Gowin, 1984). In establishing this representational for-
mat, Novak drew extensively on the descriptions of learning that had
been developed by Ausubel (1968). The establishment of meaningful
relationships among concepts was contrasted by Ausubel with rote
learning in which concepts were not embedded in rich conceptual net-
works, but were left relatively unelaborated and conceptually isolated
within the broad conceptual structure. In the Ausubelian view, the
growth of knowledge was characterised by the gradual development of
more complex and more differentiated structures organised in a hierar-
chical pattern. The different parts of this structure could be related, or
integrated, through the establishment of propositional links. The hier-
archical structure of a concept map was seen by Novak as instantiat-
ing the process of knowledge growth that Ausubel termed
subsumption.
Concept maps, in general, are graphs, or networks, consisting of

nodes and labelled lines (Lawson, 1994). The nodes are used to indi-
cate concepts, or categories, while the lines correspond to a relation
between pairs of concepts. The label on the line tells how the two con-
cepts are related. Shavelson, Lang and Lewin (1993) referred to this
relation as a proposition and argued that concept maps represent
important aspect of learner’s propositional knowledge in a domain.
A major difference among the various types of concept maps is
their basic structure and the degree of control one wishes to impose in
constructing the maps. A hierarchical concept map is better suited to
assessing concepts that are organised in a top-down fashion, where the
top-level of the map shows the most inclusive and subsumptive con-
cept. However, if one is interested in elucidating multiple links among
concepts or among concept clusters, and the integration of this infor-
mation in the generation of explanations involving analogies and/or
metaphors, then a web-like structure will be more appropriate (Beiss-
ner, Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993). Furthermore, the structural analy-
sis of forms of spatial representation carried out by Novick and
Hurley (2001) suggests that a network structure can provide flexibility
in representation of direction of relationships and of linking of units
that are not available with matrix or hierarchy formats. It is for this
reason that we have used a network structure for the concept maps in
our framework.
Concept mapping techniques have also been argued to be appropri-
ate for representing complex interrelationships among schematised
knowledge within and between domains (Jonassen, Beissner & Yacci,
1993). A number of recent studies have used concept maps to assess
conceptual understanding in mathematics and science (Coleman, 1993;
Laturno, 1994; Markman, Mintzes & Jones, 1994; Williams, 1998). In
this project, we have attempted to realise more of the potential of
mapping representations to provide indices of the quality of teacher’s
geometric knowledge and, to some extent, the transformation of this
knowledge for practice. In doing this we are not intending to suggest
that we have captured an enduring representation of an individual tea-
cher’s knowledge base. We assume that all knowledge bases are in a
constant state of evolution, so that what we are representing is con-
ceptual space that has been activated across the times of our interac-
tion with the participants. In addition we have chosen to use the term
‘schema’ as the basic organisational unit within the map rather than
‘concept’. In doing this we are following the use of schema proposed
by Anderson (2000), that we see as allowing for representation of
declarative, procedural and conditional characteristics of a category

than does the label ‘concept’. The schema is seen to be composed of
relationships among a number of features.
METHOD
Participants
The teachers whose geometric knowledge is the subject of this report
were two of five experienced teachers recruited for a larger project,
along with five novice teachers. The experienced teachers were selected
using two criteria: first, they had at least 15 years of mathematics
teaching experience at the high school level; and second, they were all
recommended by their peers or professional subject associations as
exemplary teachers. The maps developed for this report were based on
the knowledge exhibited by two teachers, Gary and Sue. In addition
to having 20 years of teaching experience, Gary was the head of the
mathematics department at his high school in an Australian capital
city and was also involved in the writing of mathematics textbooks for
high school students. Sue was one of the senior mathematics teachers
in a private girls’ school in a different capital city.
The teachers were interviewed individually during school hours and
their responses were audio-taped and videotaped for later transcrip-
tion. They were told that the purpose of the study was to find out
what teachers know about topics in geometry and about the teaching
of these topics.
Procedure
Three interviews were conducted with each participant, each lasting
about 1 h. The interview schedule allowed each participant multiple
opportunities to access knowledge and provided a range of activities
for prompting such access. Throughout the interviews, the teachers
were reminded also to consider geometry knowledge that was relevant
to their teaching. During the first interview the teacher was asked to
talk about a list of focus schemas in the areas of geometry, trigonome-
try, and coordinate geometry that were relevant to the school curricu-
lum and their teaching. In the first instance teachers were asked to talk
about the concept of square (focus schema 1) and their understandings
about the teaching and learning a square. As this was a free recall ses-
sion we asked questions such as: ‘Tell me what you know about
square’ and ‘Tell me how you would teach square to your students’.
The teachers were invited to use diagrams to explain their thoughts if
they wished to do so. Following teachers’ responses to square, the
teachers were asked similar questions about 12 other focus schemas
(squares, rectangles, lines, similar triangles, congruent triangles, paral-
lel lines, area, coordinates, triangles, right-angled triangles, regular
hexagons, regular octagons, circles). All 13 focus schemas were
required to solve the four problems given to the teachers during the
second interview.
During the second interview, the teachers were asked to think aloud
as they solved four problems. The problem-solving activity was in-
cluded because we anticipated that the application of knowledge to a
problem might lead to activation of knowledge additional to that
accessed in the first free-recall interview. Two of the problems involved
the use of knowledge related to the focus schema square. When the
teachers indicated that they had completed a solution they were asked
if the problem could be solved in any other ways. They were also asked
to comment on any feature of their solution that could be related to
the way their students would solve these problems. For example, teach-
ers were asked, ‘How would you expect your students to tackle this
problem’, ‘What type of difficulties would you expect your students to
experience if they are given these problem, Why?’ The above prompts
were expected to elicit teachers’ further understandings about how their
students would approach the problem thus providing data about how
teachers integrate knowledge about focus schemas (from Interview 1)
and the use of these schemas in a problem situation.
The format for the final interview was a series of probing ques-
tions designed to give the teacher the opportunity to access relevant
knowledge that had not been activated in the previous two inter-
views. For example, in a discussion with a teacher who had not yet
mentioned symmetry, we might have commented; ‘You haven’t said
anything about symmetry of a square yet’. Or if a particular rela-
tionship had not been discussed we asked: ‘How are these two con-
cepts related?’
The activities in the three interviews were designed to provide good
estimates of the teachers’ knowledge in the area of geometry and
knowledge for teaching geometry. We can never be certain that we
have tapped all that a teacher might have constructed and decon-
structed about a specific topic. However, we argue that the use of the
free-recall, problem solving and detailed probing activities did provide
a good estimate of the functionally available knowledge of geometry
and for teaching geometry.
In addition to the experienced teachers recruited for the project,

information was also sought from an academic mathematician. This
mathematician was a member of a university mathematics department
whose area of professional expertise was geometry. The focus of our
interview with this mathematician was generation of a list of features
and relationships for each of the focus schemas that could be used as
a guide in evaluating the degree of completeness and accuracy of a
teacher’s geometry knowledge base. It is important to note that this
information provided by this academic mathematician was not used as
a template or a scoring rubric.
Map Structure
We adopted a simple form of representation for the node-link struc-
ture for the maps that can be used to identify teachers’ knowledge of
geometry (KG) and knowledge of geometry for teaching (KGT). The
boxes and ovals, or nodes, in the maps indicated schemas and fea-
tures, and the lines joining the boxes/ovals showed that a relationship
was expressed between a schema and features, or between schemas.
We identified four areas of KG and KGT about the focus schema and
the relations that had been built around that schema.
1. The defining features of the focus schema (Defining Features)
The term ‘defining features’ is used here to refer to necessary prop-
erties of the focus schema. For example, in the case of square, these
features are that the sides are equal, all the interior angles are equal,
and the opposite sides are parallel.
2. The related features of the focus schema (Related Features)
Related features of the focus schema include information that one
could derive by going beyond the basic defining properties of the
schema. For instance, information about the formula for determin-
ing the area of a square would fall into this category of related
features.
3. Relationships between the focus schema and other schemas (Other
Schemas)
In addition to information that was activated about a particular fo-
cus schema, teachers would also make links between the focus sche-
ma and other geometric figures, such as the connection between a
square and a rhombus.
4. Other representations of the focus schema (Applications)
In this section of the map we considered the different representations
of the focus schema, such as analogies, metaphors, illustrations or
real life examples. For example, the idea that some floor tiles are
square in shape, or that tessellation of tiles is used in tiling an area,
falls into this category of information.
The above-mentioned four areas reflect the complex structure of fo-
cus concepts such as that of square that evolves from single words
that Gray et al. (1999) refer to in their analysis of role of language in
perceptions about shapes. Defining and related features are related to
the notion of concept images (Vinner & Dreyfus, 1989). The frame-
work shows emergence of hierarchies that emanate from use of key
words such as square. Gray et al. (1999) suggest that the mental ima-
ges and physical objects that are supported by the linguistic descrip-
tions could evolve in a ‘more pure and imaginative way’.
Structure of Mapping Template

The template for our map is shown in Figure 1. Information related to
the defining features of the focus schema was recorded in the bottom
left corner, and elaborations on these features (related features) were
recorded in the lower right section of the map. D1 refers to defining
feature 1 of the schema. D11 shows features arising from D1 and so
on. In the bottom right section, R11 shows schemas emanating from
related feature, R1. Links to other schemas were recorded on the up-
per right part of the map and are indicated by nodes labelled as S1,
S21 and so on. Information relating to applications and alternative
representations was included in the top left part of the map, so that
A1 is used to depict instances of teachers using other representations
for, or applications of, the focus schema. Where relationships were de-
scribed by the teachers, labels were included on the line joining a pair
of schema, or on the line between a schema and feature. Arrows on
lines were used to show the direction of relationship of one node to
another noted by the participant. If there were instances of links be-
tween nodes in related and other schemas, these were indicated by
lines with appropriate arrows. Such links are not shown in Figure 1.
Analysing the Maps

We have proposed that the connectedness of knowledge can be
described both in terms of the number of knowledge components pres-
ent, as well as in terms of the qualitative relations that exist among
the knowledge components. The scope, or range of knowledge, can
be seen as a quantitative feature of a knowledge base that reflects
A21 S21 S22
A1 A2 S1 S2
Other
Applications
Schemas
FOCUS
SCHEMA
Defining Related
Features Features
D1 D2 R1 R2
D11 D12 R11 R12
D111 D112 R111 R112
D1111 D1112 R1111 R1112
Figure 1. Map template for representing connectedness.
teachers’ knowledge of geometry (KG). The characteristics of the

organisation of the knowledge base, which require more qualitative
judgements, are chosen to represent the depth of elaboration of the
knowledge structure. The depth of elaboration is used as a measure
of teachers’ knowledge of geometry for teaching (KGT) because we
contend that the elaborations constrain teachers to reflect on their

content knowledge and deconstruct them in ways that their students
could relate to.
The basic units of analysis used to construct the maps were nodes
and links. Nodes were established for all schemas associated with geo-
metric terms and for all the features associated with these terms that
were mentioned by the participant during the interviews. The partici-
pating teachers did not play any role, either in the construction or the
revision of the maps. That is, the construction of the concept maps for
each of the participating teachers was based solely on data generated
during the three interviews. Data from each of the teacher interviews
were compared in order to ensure that what was said in the nodes and
links were correct. The reliability of this process was established by
consensus using two coders.
In Figure 1, the within-schema links refer to connections among the
Defining features and those among the Related features of square. The
between-schema links refer to links between the focus schema for
square and Other schemas. The following measures were derived for
each map.
Quantity
We interpreted quantity as having two sub-categories: (a) Number of
nodes, and (b) Number of links. The concept maps were analysed in
two ways in order to generate values for ‘Number of nodes’ and
‘Number of links’ listed in Table I. First, we considered nodes that ap-
peared on the first layer away from the focus concept. For example, in
the case of Gary’s concept map (Figure 2), nodes with labels ‘Angles’
and ‘Sides’ were deemed to be located in the first layer, as these had
the first direct link to our focus concept, ‘Square’. We then counted
the number of nodes that evolved from each of these Layer 1 nodes,
and added one more for the starting node. This procedure yielded the
result 5 for both ‘Angles’ and ‘Sides’ for Gary. Only nodes at the first
layer were considered in this analysis. A similar procedure was fol-
lowed for the counting of links, which included the link from the focus
concept to the layer one node in question. Again, for Gary we ob-
tained 5 links for ‘Angles’ and ‘Sides’.
Cross-links made between Defining and Related features were also
identified. In Gary’s map there were three cross-links between Related
features and the Sides node and the score of 3 is shown under Cross-
linking in Table I. This analysis of the concept map in order to gener-
ate values for quantitative indicators of knowledge connectedness was
TABLE I 210
Within-Schema Indicators of Knowledge Connectedness
Quantitative Qualititative indicators

indicators
Integrity Connectedness
Number Number Complete- Accu- Depthc Branc- Cross- Complexity of relationships

of nodes of links nessb racyb hingb linking
Simple Moderate Complex
Teachera G S G S G S G S G S G S G S G S G S G S
Defining features
Angles 5 4 5 4 L3 L3 M M 0 0 0 5 4
Sides 5 5 5 5 L3 L3 M M 3 1 0 5 5
Subtotal 10 9 10 9 H H H H 0 0 10 9 0 0
Related features
Area 2 2 2 2 L2 L2 L L 0 0 0 0 2 2
Perimeter 2 2 L2 L 0 0 2
Symmetry 10 3 10 3 L3 L3 H L 0 0 0 0 9 3 1
Tessellation 1 1 L1 L 0 0 1
MOHAN CHINNAPPAN AND MICHAEL J. LAWSON
Diagonals 1 2 L1 L 0 0 0 0 1 1
Subtotal 15 6 15 7 H H 14 6 1 1
Applications 0 0 0 0
Total 25 15 25 16 3 1 0 0 24 15 1 1
a
G=teacher Gary; S=teacher Sue.
b
For Integrity and branching H=High rating.
c
For depth L1, L2, L3=Level 1 ratings, Level 2 ratings, Level 3 ratings.
Sides are Congruent Parallelogram

has Right
is a subset of angled
triangle
Quadrilateral is a
Rhombus
has does not have
not necessarily Right
angles
Isosceles
Sides right
angled
triangle
Polygon
are
is a
is half of Rectangle
Equal is a
length is a subset of is a subset of
is not a
SQUARE
has
has has
has 2
has Reflection
Angles symmetry has
has Area
Sides
lines of
is symmetry number
has
are
are sum formed by
Rotation
symmetry side
number Equal squared number
number length formed by
has Perpendicular
Perimeter lines
Equal
360
degrees is 4
order
bisect
each Diagonals
4 4
Opposite Tessellates
sides
90 are 4 times number Opposite
degrees side 4 sides
parallel
2
Figure 2. Connectedness map for teacher Gary.
also applied to between-schema knowledge components and the results

of this are shown in Table II.
Quality
The quality of the concept maps was analysed for the two broad
dimensions of integrity and connectedness. Integrity was analysed in
terms of (a) completeness and (b) accuracy. A judgement of integrity
here is not an absolute judgement about what a teacher knows, but
was seen more functionally as a rating of the knowledge that the tea-
cher was prompted to access by the range of specific research proce-
dures used here. A rating of ‘High’ for completeness indicated the
presence of all defining features. A rating of ‘Moderate’ for complete-
ness was assigned if one defining feature was missing and a rating of
‘Low’ was given if more than one defining feature was missing.
Accuracy refers to the degree of correctness of the information pro-
vided by teachers. Information that is not correct may be manifested in
various forms. An incorrect piece of knowledge could be a misconcep-
tion (McKeown & Beck, 1990) or it could be ‘garbled’ (Perkins & Sim-
mons, 1988). For example, if a teacher could not differentiate between
the lines of symmetry in a square and a rhombus this would be a case
of a misconception. If there was no evidence of garbled knowledge or
TABLE II 212
Between-Schema Indicators of Knowledge Connectedness
Quantitative indicators Qualititative indicators
Integrity Connectedness
Number Number of Accuracyb Depthc Branc- Cross- Complexity of relationships

of nodes links hingb linking
Simple Moderate Complex
Teachera G S G S G S G S G S G S G S G S G S
Layer 1 Schema
Quadrilateral 3 3 L3 1 3
Rhombus 4 1 7 2 L3 L1 L 1 3 1 4 1
Polygon 1 1 L1 1
Isoc rt triangle 3 4 L2 L 1 3 1
Right angle
Rectangle 1 1 2 2 L1 L1 1 2 1
Right triangle 3 3 L2 L 1 2 1
Face 2 2 L2 2
Total 12 7 17 9 H H 3 1 3 2 7 5 7 2
MOHAN CHINNAPPAN AND MICHAEL J. LAWSON
a
G=teacher Gary; S=teacher Sue.
b
For Integrity and branching H=High rating.
c
For depth L1, L2, L3=Level 1 ratings, Level 2 ratings, Level 3 ratings.
misconceptions a rating of ‘High’ was given for accuracy. ‘Moderate’

and ‘Low’ ratings were assigned for one, or more than one instance, of
misconceptions or garbled knowledge respectively.
Connectedness was represented by four sub-categories: (a) depth,
(b) branching, (c) cross-linking and (d) complexity of relationships.
Depth refers here to the extension of connections in a concept map in
vertical directions along a single path. Within-schema depth is a mea-
sure of the degree of vertical connection in a schema. We refer to this
spread as occurring over different vertical layers of the nodes in the
concept map. Between-schema depth is a measure of vertical connec-
tions among schema. Links made over more than two layers were as-
signed a rating of ‘Level 3’ for depth; those across two layers and at a
single layer being scored as ‘Level 2’ and ‘Level 1’ respectively on this
measure.
Branching is a measure of the number of paths associated with a
Layer 1 node. If there was evidence of branching from a node at a sin-
gle layer a rating of ‘Low’ was assigned. Branching at two layers and
at more than two vertical layers was assigned ratings of ‘Medium’ and
‘High’ respectively. Cross-linking is a measure of horizontal linking
between branches from a node or between sections of the map. The
scores for cross-linking represent the number of cross-links among fea-
tures for the within-schema scoring or from other schemas to features
of the focus schema in the between-schema ratings.
The complexity of a stated label for a relationship was also rated.
If the description of the label showed evidence of elaboration, or of bi-
directionality, it was rated as ‘Complex’. Elaboration here refers to
any specification of the nature of a relationship between nodes that
went beyond definition or allocation of membership. If there was no
evidence of elaboration of the relationship, a rating of ‘Moderate’ was
given for complexity. A ‘Simple’ rating indicated presence of a
link that was implied. Parallel scoring systems were used for all
between-schema measures, except completeness because the extent of
between-schema links is open ended.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Teachers’ Concept Maps

As shown above, all four dimensions of our framework describe as-
pects of KG but it is the quality of elaboration within each component
that qualifies as KGT. Figures 2 and 3 show the maps that were con-
structed for the focus schema of square for the two teachers, Gary and
Cube
Rhombus Right angled

triangle of
can be
Face
Rectangle
is not a
is a is related to is
is a
SQUARE
has
has
has
has
Angles
Sides Line/
reflection
has symmetry
are number are Area
has
is
Equal
has
Side Lines of
Equal 4 has bisects squared symmetry
each number
4 Diagonals
90 Opposite 4
degrees sides
are
Parallel
Figure 3. Connectedness map for teacher Sue.
Sue. A first impression is that Gary accessed a larger number of con-

nections involving squares, as shown by comparison of the number of
arrows emanating to and from the focus schema. Comparison of the
lower halves of the two figures shows that the difference between the
teachers was associated with the accessing of related features of
square. Gary’s output contained more nodes and links for the related
features. The same pattern was apparent in the upper right section of
the figures. Again Gary made more connections to other schemas. As
shown by the blank section in the upper left corner of both figures, in
the activities engaged in here, neither teacher made any statements
that referred to applications or examples.
Gary’s map suggests that he not only has a well-developed under-
standing about the properties of square and also has an extensive
network of connections between squares and other geometrical fig-
ures. He was able to highlight differences and similarities that exist
between square and related figures. For example, he represented a
square as a polygon, as a quadrilateral and made explicit its relation-
ship to an isosceles right-angled triangle. He identified bi-directional
relationships between square and rhombus and square and rectangle.
In contrast, Sue’s map contained fewer such connections to other
schemas. Nevertheless both teachers have built up a considerable
amount of KG.
The same general comment applies to the related features section of

the two maps. Gary showed that the symmetry of a square could be
identified in more than one way. This understanding of symmetry is
extended to his observations that squares tessellate. Again this section
of Sue’s map was less developed. Scoring of the two maps provided a
more detailed account of the differences in the output of the two
teachers.
Within-Schema Ratings
Results of the analysis for the focus schema of square in terms of
quantity and quality are provided in Tables I and II. Table I con-
tains data on indicators that were internal to the concept of square,
links that indicated within-schema organisation. Gary’s concept map
contained a total of 10 nodes related to the defining features of the
focus schema, and 15 nodes associated with the related features.
Analysis of the number of links among these nodes also showed sim-
ilar scores for defining and related features. The number of nodes
and links in Sue’s map was similar for the defining features, but low-
er for the related features. In terms of the estimates provided by our
analysis Gary’s knowledge of square was more extensive than Sue’s.
However, both teachers have constructed KG that shows the links
between language and images that children need to learn about 2-D
shapes.
In the qualitative analysis there were high ratings for integrity in
the within-schema sections of both teachers’ maps and the ratings for
depth were similar for the two maps. In Gary’s representation of sym-
metry there was a greater extent of branching than that produced by
Sue. This suggests that this is a more elaborated chunk of knowledge
for Gary indicating a higher level of deconstruction of content knowl-
edge to KGT. However, the lack of cross-linking between these two
branches of symmetry indicates that there seems to be little integration
between knowledge about line symmetry and rotational symmetry.
Overall, Gary’s map showed more cross-linking, though none of the
cross-links was explicitly labelled by either teacher. The complexity of
the labels used by the teachers to describe within-schema relationships
was also similar, with most relationships being rated as moderate,
indicating lack of elaboration of these relationships. Here one can de-
tect room for further developments of Gary’s KGT.
Between-Schema Ratings
Table II shows the ratings given to the teachers’ knowledge about
relationships between square and other schemas. Scores were derived
for each of the schemas in the first layer of nodes extending from the
focus schema (Layer 1 Schemas). The quantitative analysis showed
that Gary again accessed a larger number of nodes than did Sue and
established a greater number of links among these nodes. Of these, the
highest number of links and nodes accessed by Gary involved the
rhombus schema, suggesting the development of mature KGT in this
area. For both teachers the relationships established were accurate.
With regard to between-schema connectedness, with one exception, the
ratings for both teachers were generally lower than was the case for
their within-schema representations. For both, the depth ratings in the
between-schema analysis were lower on average and there was less evi-
dence of branching. In Gary’s map the links with greatest extent of
depth and branching were those between square and rhombus, rhom-
bus and parallelogram, and rhombus and quadrilateral, thus indicating
the clustering of these schemas.
Gary provided more instances of complex labelling of relationships
than did Sue, though there was no instance where such descriptions in-
volved extensive elaboration. For example, Gary mentioned that an
isosceles right-angled triangle is half of a square. However, he did not
go further and discuss the implications of such relationships in using
or deriving, say, Pythagoras’ theorem, or trigonometric ratios. These
extended connections and elaborations constitute features of well-
developed KGT. Both teachers made explicit links between features of
square and other schemas, with Gary making more of these links than
Sue. In addition, Gary explicitly linked the square with quadrilateral
and rhombus schemas, and linked the latter to the isosceles right-an-
gled triangle schema.
The scoring of the maps provided the detail supporting the inter-
pretation derived from visual inspection of the maps. The specifica-
tion of qualities of the maps allowed us to make judgements that
were not just quantitative ones. Thus, through use of the scoring
system, we were able to make clear that not only did Gary’s output
show a more extensive network of linked nodes, but that more of
the nodes in his map were linked by complex relationships. This
relational information contained in related features and related sche-
mas might be called upon during teaching for problem solving. Our
analysis suggests that in a problem where relationships between, say
a square and isosceles triangles, or between a square and a quadri-
lateral, needed to be ascertained, Gary would more readily access
such knowledge than would Sue because of the better state of his
KGT.
CONCLUSION
We contend that the design of the analytical procedure for making

judgements about the quality of teachers’ knowledge is soundly based,
and that the indicators we have developed represent important fea-
tures of KG and KGT in a small area of geometry.
The analysis shows that Gary has a rich set of connections with
evidence of complex differentiation among schemas, and within the fo-
cus schema in some instances. Overall, his knowledge has high integ-
rity and shows evidence of substantial branching in certain areas. In
the between-schema analysis, about half of the relations that were dis-
cussed by Gary were complex in nature. The within-schema analysis
provided less evidence of cross-linking between branches than might
have been expected for an experienced teacher, though there was such
cross-linking in other parts of his map. For instance, as shown in Fig-
ure 1, Gary discussed area, perimeter, rotational symmetry and reflec-
tion symmetry. He did not, however, discuss relationships between the
two types of symmetry, area and perimeter. The effects of different
transformations on attributes of square could be expected to be a to-
pic of questions from some students. Further, concepts of symmetry
and transformations could be discussed in terms of matrix representa-
tions and coordinates. This is an important area of learning mathe-
matics that would help students draw more complex links among 2-D
figures and other topics in school curriculum. Thus, Gary could
deconstruct his content knowledge to a higher degree than was evident
in this analysis.
We suggest that this mapping procedure is useful for purposes
where the systematic characterisation of teachers’ KG and KGT is re-
quired. There are other implications of this analysis. The comparison
of the output of the two teachers in this study does suggest that the
knowledge bases they could call upon in their teaching are quantita-
tively and qualitatively different. We have, for purposes of illustration,
focussed only on representation of one focus schema. However, if the
patterns reported here were confirmed for other schemas in this part
of mathematics, it seems clear that the knowledge resources available
to Gary, and so to his students, would be richer than those in Sue’s
case. Clearly, we do not want to extend the province of this claim
unreasonably. There are many other factors associated with effective
teaching than the quality of the teacher’s content knowledge base and
we make no claims in this regard about the two teachers discussed
here. However, we do suggest that the lack of integration between the
different branches of schema knowledge of teachers could impact on

their teaching, in that they and their students might not draw out
important distinctions and similarities between key knowledge schemas
in classroom interchanges.
Although the focus of the analysis in this paper has been on one
simple concept we do not think that the analytical procedure we have
described is limited to use with such concepts, nor is it limited to the
field of geometry. It is important to note that even when the concept
of square was the focus of discussion, the teachers also accessed
knowledge of more complex geometric schemas, such as symmetry
and congruence, and that these could be represented in the analysis.
The reason for our focus on relatively simple figures arose from the
objectives of our larger project in which we have also examined the
understandings of the students being taught by the teacher partici-
pants.
In the present study, we attempted to generate estimates of quality
of teachers’ knowledge of this part of geometry and for teaching
geometry by inviting the participants to discuss their understandings in
three different but related contexts. However, observing the same
teachers in action might enrich further these data about knowledge for
teaching geometry. In that case, it should not be assumed that obser-
vation of teachers in action would necessarily result in accessing by the
teachers of different sets of knowledge from that accessed using tasks
such as the ones involved in this study. The knowledge access process
depends in part on the cues provided by the situation and it could be
the case that the teaching situation is less rich in cues than say, the
problems and question probes used in this project. For students, it is
clear that they can leave much of their available knowledge inert, dur-
ing problem solving (Watson & Lawson, 1995), and the same may
happen with teachers if lessons did not involve a degree of problema-
tising of the content. So there is some interesting further research to
be undertaken in observing teachers’ knowledge access while they are
teaching.
We contend that the system of analysis used in this study takes us
beyond that used in other studies that have employed concept map-
ping or similar graphical systems as a means of representing knowl-
edge states. The current system takes us beyond the point reached by
Williams’ (1998) study in mathematics, enabling us to present a more
detailed and differentiated description of the dimensions of a teacher’s
knowledge base for subject matter content and the teaching of this
content. The indices used in the framework provide a way to make
more specific statements about a teacher’s ‘depth of understanding’.

Overall, our experience with this procedure suggests that there is value
in pursuing Mayer’s (1975) distinction between internal and external
connectedness in order to make judgements about the qualitative fea-
tures of a knowledge network.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by a grant from the Australian Research

Council. The authors acknowledge the involvement of the cooperating
teachers and academics associated with this project. The extensive
involvement of Rod Nason and Martin Lambert in data preparation is
greatly appreciated.
NOTES
In the top right-hand corner of Figure 2, two attributes of Other Schemas appear in
circles, while the remaining ones are in ovals. This is due to the technical feature of
the software which was used to construct the map. We do not attribute any signifi-
cance to the ovals and circles.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications 5th edn. New York:
Worth Publishers.
Ball, D.L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching
learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.
Ball, D.L., Lubienski, S.T. & Mewborn, D.S. (2001). Research on teaching
mathematics: The unresolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 433–456). 4 Washington:
American Educational Research Association.
Beissner, K.L., Jonassen, D.H. & Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Using and selecting
graphic techniques to acquire structural knowledge. ERIC Document No.
ED362151.
Board of Studies (2002). K-10 Mathematics Syllabus. Sydney: Department of
Education and Training.
Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.
Chinnappan, M. (1998a). Schemas and mental models in geometry problem solving.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 201–217.
Chinnappan, M. (1998b). The accessing of geometry schemas by high school
students. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10, 27–45.
Clark, C. & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–297). New York: Macmillan.
Coleman, E. (1993). Inducing a shift from intuitive to scientific knowledge with
inquiry training. In M. Polson (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference
of the Cognitive Society (pp. 347–352). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alterna-
tives. In W.R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds), Handbook of research on
teacher education (pp. 212–233). New York: Macmillan.
Gray, E., Pinto, M., Pitta, D. & Tall, D. (1999). Knowledge construction and
divergent thinking in elementary and advanced mathematics. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 38, 111–133.
Grossman, P.L. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L.W. Anderson (Ed.), International
encyclopaedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 20–24). 2 Kidlington Oxford,
UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Jonassen, D.H., Beissner, K. & Yacci, M.A. (1993). Structural knowledge:
Techniques for conveying, assessing, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Knapp, M.S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the maths and science classroom:
the dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 67, 227–266.
Laturno, J. (1994). The validity of concept maps as a research tool in remedial
mathematics. In D. Kirshner (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual meeting of
the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 60–66). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University.
Lawson, M.J. (1994). Concept mapping. In T. Husén & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),
The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1026–1031).
Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Lawson, M.J. & Chinnappan, M. (1994). Generative activity during geometry
problem solving: Comparison of the performance of high-achieving and low-
achieving students. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 61–93.
Leinhardt, G. (1987). The development of an expert explanation: An analysis of a
sequence of subtraction lessons. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 225–282.
Markman, K.M., Mintzes, J.J. & Jones, M.G. (1994). The concept map as a research
and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 31, 91–101.
Mayer, R.E. (1975). Information processing variables in learning to solve problems.
Review of Research in Education, 45, 525–541.
McKeown, M. & Beck, I. (1990). The assessment and characterisation of young
learners knowledge of a topic in history. American Educational Research Journal,
27, 688–726.
Munby, H., Russell, T. & Martin, A.K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it
develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 877–904).
4 Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.
Novak, J. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful device for science education. Journal of
Research in Science Education, 27, 937–949.
Novak, J. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Novick, L.R. & Hurley, S.M. (2001). To matrix, network or hierarchy: That is the
question. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 158–216.
Perkins, D.N. & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative
model for science, math and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58,
303–326.
Robinson, N., Even, R. & Tirosh, D. (1992). Connectedness in teaching algebra: A
novice-expert contrast. In W. Geeslin & K. Graham (Eds), Proceedings of the
psychology of mathematics education conference, PME-XVI (pp. 258–265).
Durham, New Hampshire: PME.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of
‘well taught’ mathematics classes. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving,
metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In Grouws A. Douglas (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New
York: Macmillan.
Shavelson, R.J., Lang, H. & Lewin, B. (1993). On concept maps as potential
‘authentic’ assessments in science: Indirect approaches to knowledge representa-
tion of high school science. ERIC Document, No. ED367691.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching. In
M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on research in teaching (pp. 3–36). 3 New York:
MacMillan.
Vinner, S. & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function.
Journal for Research for Mathematics Education, 20, 356–366.
Watson, K.L. & Lawson, M.J. (1995). Improving access to knowledge: The effect of
strategy training for question answering in high school geography. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 65, 97–111.
Williams, C.G. (1998). Using concept maps to assess conceptual knowledge of
function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 414–421.
Wittrock, M.C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational
Psychologist, 24, 345–376.
Faculty of Education Mohan Chinnappan

University of Wollongong
Wollongong, NSW, 2522,
Australia
E-mail: [email protected]
Flinders University Michael J. Lawson

framework for analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

framework for analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

framework for analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (2005) 8:197–221 Ó Springer 2005

MOHAN CHINNAPPAN and MICHAEL J. LAWSON

A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS’ GEOMETRIC

ABSTRACT. Current reform-driven mathematics documents stress the need for

KEY WORDS: framework for geometric knowledge mapping, geometric knowledge,

A principal theme in current reform-driven mathematics documents is

allow the student productively to explore a suitable range of mathe-

Teacher Knowledge and Mathematics Teaching

performance have argued that the quality of teachers’ own knowledge

could include individual students’ idiosyncratic ways of understanding

Geometric Knowledge Connectedness

mastering various facts and procedures, but also understanding con-

connectedness) and a certain quality in its connections to related

Representation of Geometric Knowledge Structure in Maps

Concept maps, in general, are graphs, or networks, consisting of

declarative, procedural and conditional characteristics of a category

In addition to the experienced teachers recruited for the project,

Structure of Mapping Template

Analysing the Maps

A21 S21 S22

D11 D12 R11 R12

D111 D112 R111 R112

D1111 D1112 R1111 R1112

Figure 1. Map template for representing connectedness.

teachers’ knowledge of geometry (KG). The characteristics of the

contend that the elaborations constrain teachers to reﬂect on their

Quantitative Qualititative indicators

Number Number Complete- Accu- Depthc Branc- Cross- Complexity of relationships

Simple Moderate Complex

Sides are Congruent Parallelogram

Figure 2. Connectedness map for teacher Gary.

also applied to between-schema knowledge components and the results

Quantitative indicators Qualititative indicators

Number Number of Accuracyb Depthc Branc- Cross- Complexity of relationships

Simple Moderate Complex

misconceptions a rating of ‘High’ was given for accuracy. ‘Moderate’

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Teachers’ Concept Maps

Rhombus Right angled

Figure 3. Connectedness map for teacher Sue.

Sue. A ﬁrst impression is that Gary accessed a larger number of con-

The same general comment applies to the related features section of

We contend that the design of the analytical procedure for making

diﬀerent branches of schema knowledge of teachers could impact on

more speciﬁc statements about a teacher’s ‘depth of understanding’.

This research was funded by a grant from the Australian Research

Faculty of Education Mohan Chinnappan

Flinders University Michael J. Lawson

You might also like