Educ Stud Math (2009) 72:379399

DOI 10.1007/s10649-009-9204-2

The challenge of self-regulated learning in mathematics

teachers' professional training
Bracha Kramarski & Tali Revach

Published online: 17 July 2009

# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This study investigated mathematics teachers' professional knowledge among

elementary school teachers exposed to a professional training program that either supported
self-regulated learning (SRL) or offered no SRL support (no-SRL). The SRL support was
based on the IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning method that directs students'
attention to understanding when, why, and how to solve problems (Kramarski and Mevarech,
Am Educ Res J 40:281310, 2003). Sixty-four Israeli elementary teachers participated in a
month-long professional development program to enhance mathematical and pedagogical
knowledge. The course was part of a 3-year professional development program sponsored by
the Israeli Ministry of Education. This mixed-method study included quantitative assessments
of teachers' professional knowledge in mathematical problem solving for an authentic task
based on Program for International Student Assessment's framework (Program for
International Student Assessment, 2003) and in lesson planning, as well as qualitative
interviews and videotaped observations of two teachers. Results indicated that teachers in the
SRL program outperformed those in the no-SRL program on various problem solving skills
(e.g., reflection and conceptual mathematical explanations) and lesson planning (e.g., task
demands and teaching approach). Videotaped observations of actual teaching indicated that
the SRL-trained teacher demonstrated more teaching practices that aimed to promote students'
understanding and better supported students' regulation of their own learning, compared to
the no-SRL-trained teacher. We discuss educational and practical implications.
Keywords Mathematics teachers . Professional knowledge . Authentic tasks .
Lesson planning . SRL support . Class observations

1 Introduction
Standards of mathematics education have emphasized the importance of engaging students
in meaningful learning as part of a coherent curriculum for developing problem solving,
B. Kramarski (*) : T. Revach
School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
e-mail: kramab@mail.biu.ac.il

380

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

mathematical reasoning, and communication. These standards suggest the use of tasks
based on authentic situations and a variety of representations (National Council of Teachers
of MathematicsNCTM, 2000; Program for International Student AssessmentPISA,
2003), thus raising challenges for teachers' training goals concerning their professional
knowledge (e.g., Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; NCTM, 2000; Putnam & Borko, 2000). In
essence, these goals maintain that teachers must cope with the complex, multilayered,
dynamic process of teaching mathematical knowledge:
By mathematical knowledge for teaching we mean the mathematical knowledge used to
carry out the work of teaching mathematics. Examples of this work of teaching include
explaining terms and concepts to students, interpreting students' statements and
solutions..., using representations accurately in the classroom, and providing students
with examples of mathematical concepts, algorithms, or proofs. (Hill et al., 2005, p.373)
Moreover, it is suggested that training should not be limited to transmitting subject
matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge using predefined, fixed methods (i.e., a
teacher-centered approach), but rather should challenge teachers to shift toward studentcentered teaching that encourages knowledge construction through self-regulated learning
(SRL). Learners are self-regulated to the degree that they are active participants in their own
learning process. Self-regulated learners are good metacognitive strategy users. They plan,
set goals, select strategies, organize, self-monitor, and self-evaluate at various points during
the process of acquisition (e.g., Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000).
Research has shown that teachers in high-SRL classrooms encourage student-centered
learning, in which knowledge typically develops out of students' needs and interests (Perry,
Phillips, & Hutchinson, 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000). In the context of mathematical
classrooms, students are challenged to solve the tasks, to conceptualize their own opinions,
and to adapt strategies to task demands. Educators and researchers believe that the ability to
produce students who are self-regulated during learning is tied to the teacher's own selfregulation in two ways. First, teachers must be able to achieve SRL for themselves (i.e., the
learner's perspective). Second, teachers must be able to understand how to help their students
achieve SRL (i.e., the teacher's perspective). Such research demonstrated that elementary
teachers do not spontaneously acquire optimal SRL; thus, they often lack knowledge and skills
regarding what strategies to use and when and how to use these strategies in their own learning
and in their students' learning (e.g., Putnam & Borko, 2000; Randi & Corno, 2000). SRL may
be developed through teachers' participation in programs that provide opportunities to attain
SRL for themselves (learner's perspective) and for their students (teacher's perspective;
Kramarski, 2008; Kramarski & Michalsky, 2009; Perry et al., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000).
In view of the challenges inherent in shaping mathematics teachers' professional knowledge,
our study addressed two research questions: (1) How can mathematics teachers' professional
knowledge (mathematics and pedagogy) be promoted? and (2) How does SRL support in
professional development programs affect such knowledge? In our mixed-method study, we
measured teachers' professional knowledge on problem solving tasks, interviewed them, and
observed their actual teaching. We next elaborate on teachers' professional knowledge and
then discuss an SRL-supporting model for mathematics learning and teaching.
1.1 Professional knowledge
According to Shulman and his colleagues (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Hill et al., 2005;
Grossman, 1995; Shulman, 1986), subject matter and pedagogical content are the two

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

381

primary domains in teachers' professional knowledge. In our study, based on the PISA
(2003) framework, subject matter knowledge refers to mathematical problem solving of
authentic tasks. Authentic tasks employ realistic data that often provide rich information
about the described problem and ask problem solvers to use different representations and
approaches (see an example in Section 2.3.1). According to PISA, engagement in authentic
problem solving requires understanding of three mathematics skill areas: reproduction,
connection, and reflection. Reproduction skills apply routine algorithms and technical skills
(e.g., How much money does each child save...?). Connection skills build on standard
problem solving translation and interpretation (e.g., Find an algebraic expression...).
Reflection skills require some insight about processes needed to solve a problem (e.g.,
Take one view and estimate which savings plan is more profitable). Pedagogical content
knowledge in our study refers to planning and implementing instruction of authentic
mathematics tasks to foster students' learning process. Planning requires teachers' highorder thinking skills and creation of new SRL-stimulating components in pedagogical
contexts (Zohar & Schwartzer, 2005).
1.2 Self-regulated learning support
A number of researchers have argued that several key factors support SRL through
metacognitive instruction, including embedding metacognitive instruction in the subject
content matter to ensure connectivity; informing learners about the usefulness of
metacognitive activities to make them exert the initial extra effort; prolonged training to
guarantee the smooth and maintained application of metacognitive activity (Veenman,
Bernadette, Van Hout-Wolters & Afflerbach, 2006, p. 9). These researchers emphasized the
generality of metacognitive skills and the importance of extensive practice followed by
explicit guidance in the classroom. In particular, researchers (e.g., Zimmerman, 2000) have
suggested the utility of structured metacognitive self-questioning that focuses on promoting
learners' understanding of the task, planning, and reflecting on strategy application before,
during, and after the learning task process. For example, the explicit self-questioning
strategy of what, when, why, and how helps learners select a specific self-regulatory
strategy, approach, or response within learning (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Schoenfeld,
1992).
As such, the present study's underlying argument was that schoolteachers would attain
more mathematical and pedagogical knowledge immediately after the study, and in a
follow-up test with familiar and novel tasks, if they mastered a metacognitive model
focusing on what, when, and why, certain strategies should (or should not) be applied,
discussed teaching techniques aimed to promote students' understanding, and reflected on
students' thinking. We also assumed that using the metacognitive model to discuss SRL for
learning and teaching would enhance teachers' SRL processes in actual classroom practice.
Our qualitative methods aimed to tap teachers' beliefs and reflective discourse concerning
processes that promote mathematical understanding in actual teaching. Following these
assumptions and previous findings, the present study compared school teachers who were
exposed to SRL supported by metacognitive questioning (SRL group) and teachers who
received no direct SRL support (no-SRL group). We investigated both teacher groups': (a)
mathematical knowledge of authentic problem solving skills, (b) pedagogical knowledge in
lesson planning, (c) follow-up mathematical and pedagogical knowledge at the end of the
year, and (d) brief interview and observed actual practice with regard to mathematical
understanding and SRL processes.

382

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

2 Method
2.1 Participants
Participants were 64 elementary school teachers, from 27 urban schools participating in a 3year professional development program sponsored in different centers by the Israeli
Ministry of Education to enhance teachers' mathematical and pedagogical knowledge.
Program participants were assigned to groups by a Ministry inspector. Each group had 30
35 teachers from the same geographical area who were in the program's second year. Each
center was required to train the teachers according to the government's mathematics
curriculum (numbers and operations, data, patterns, proportion, space, and shapes), but
pedagogical approaches could be selected by each center's instructors. Both mathematical
and pedagogical knowledge were assessed annually by the Ministry.
Our participants comprised two of these groups, both assigned to the same center. We
randomly assigned one group (n=34 teachers) to the SRL support condition and the other
group (n=30 teachers) to the no-SRL condition. No significant differences emerged
between the two groups prior to the program in any of the following teacher variables: age,
years of experience in teaching mathematics, or mathematical and pedagogical knowledge
as assessed by the Ministry of Education in the first year.
2.2 Professional training program
2.2.1 Shared structure and curriculum
Teachers in both groups (SRL, no-SRL) were exposed to four weekly 4-h workshops during
1 month at the beginning of the second academic semester (16 total hours of training).
Workshop aims were (a) to foster teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching and (b) to
practice pedagogical means for enhancing mathematical understanding (Hill et al., 2005).
Teachers were exposed to the new standards for early ages' curriculum (problem solving,
mathematical reasoning, and communication) as an integral part of facilitating students'
mathematical understanding (NCTM, 2000). During training, teachers practiced algebraic
ideas including symbols, algebraic expressions, finding patterns, and using various
representations like words, expressions, tables, and pictorial symbols (i.e., shapes). Practice
related to authentic contexts (PISA, 2003). A sample training task is provided in
Appendix 1.
All four workshops in both groups contained the same structure. First, the instructor
presented the lesson's subject and contents to the in-service teachers. Second, the teachers
practiced knowledge collaboratively in pairs. Practice was based on (a) task solutions of
various complexities requiring comprehension of mathematical knowledge and pedagogical
episodes and (b) analysis and evaluation of lesson plans or video-captured lessons. Third,
each pair presented their summary of the task solution or lesson evaluation to the class
using an overhead projector, addressing any difficulties that arose. Finally, teachers
participated in reflective discourse regarding interpretation of mathematics ideas and
pedagogical events, understanding difficulties, and raising solutions and good explanations for problems. As part of their training, teachers conducted their actual school lessons
while practicing various mathematical and pedagogical activities with their students and
then, in the following workshop, reflected on and discussed their experiences with their
peers.

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

383

2.2.2 Expert instructors' background and training

Each group received training from one of two female expert instructors. Both
instructors held an MA degree in mathematics education, had 10+years of teaching
experience, and were considered experts in pedagogical development and training
programs. Both instructors had participated as trainers in previous workshops. They
had experience in teaching mathematics according to the new standards, particularly in
leading mathematical discussions in the class using a student-centered learning
approach.
For this study, each instructor was trained separately in a 1-day 5-h seminar at the
university. One training hour focused on ways to encourage a positive workshop climate
(e.g., debriefing procedures, reflection, and communication techniques). The other 4 h
focused on mathematical and pedagogical tasks to be implemented in the workshops. The
instructor assigned to the SRL workshops practiced exercises and tasks using an SRL
approach (see the next section), whereas the other instructor was exposed to these tasks
without SRL training.
2.2.3 SRL support group
Teachers in this group were exposed to SRL support based on the IMPROVE
metacognitive self-questioning model (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Mevarech &
Kramarski, 1997). In previous applications for school students, the model utilized a series
of four metacognitive self-guided questions on comprehension, connection, strategy, and
reflection. In the present study, the model was expanded to incorporate two perspectives of
SRL for teachers: as a learner and as a teacher. In both perspectives, teachers used the
metacognitive self-guided questions before, during, and after the solution process, whether
that solution involved a task or lesson planning. Table 1 presents the IMPROVE model for
teachers in both the learner perspective (i.e., regarding solving problems) and the teacher
perspective (i.e., in planning lessons using those problems).
The comprehension questions prompted teachers to reflect before solving a problem or
planning a lesson. Connection questions prompted teachers to identify similarities and
differences between problems, explanations, or lessons that teachers had already used or
planned and to explain why. Strategic questions prompted teachers to consider which
strategies were appropriate for solving or teaching the given problem/task and why.
Reflection questions prompted teachers to self-regulate their problem solving and lesson
planning.
The metacognitive questions were embedded in the SRL-supported teachers' workshop
materials. The teachers were encouraged to use them explicitly in solving their tasks, when
providing explanations, and in conducting team and class discussions. Teachers answered
the metacognitive questions in writing. The instructor also explicitly presented and
discussed research findings about the effects of IMPROVE on students' problem solving,
mathematical reasoning, and SRL. In class, the instructor also discussed with teachers how
to use metacognitive self-questioning during learning and teaching.
2.2.4 The no-SRL group
Teachers in this group were not exposed to SRL support. They practiced the same
tasks with the workshop materials. The instructor discussed the main research

384

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

Table 1 The IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning model for supporting teachers in both perspectives,
as a learner and as a teacher
IMPROVE questioning

Learner's perspective

Teacher's perspective

Comprehension
questions

What is the problem about?

What is the goal or main

idea of the lesson?

Structure of the task

Identify

Demonstrate

Type of problem

Lessons topic

Mathematical terms
The givens

Mathematical knowledge
Explanations needed in the lesson

The question
Connection questions

What is the similarity or the

difference between the two
problems/explanations?

What is the similarity or the

difference between the two
lessons/examples?

Focusing on prior
knowledge

Why?

Why?

Write down your reasons

Write down your reasons

What strategy/tactic/principle
can be used and how in order
to solve the problem/task?
Why?

What strategy/tactic/principle can

be used and how in planning/
teaching the lesson?
Why?

Strategic questions

Declarative (what),
procedural (how),
conditional (why)

Write down your reasons

Write down your reasons

Reflection questions

Do I understand?

Which difficulties am I expecting

in the lesson?

Monitoring and
evaluationduring
and after the process

Is the solution reasonable?

How can I achieve my goals

in the lesson?

What is a good mathematical

argument?

What is a good mathematical

argument?

Can I solve the task differently?

Are the students engaged in the

lesson?
Can I plan the task differently?

literature on principles and standards of mathematical reasoning and teaching to

promote young children's understanding as presented in Table 2. Teachers worked
cooperatively and participated in reflective discourse focusing on (a) enhancing
mathematical understanding by using problem solving and reasoning, (b) teaching
methods, and (c) pedagogical considerations of their actual experiences with their
students. The trainer explained that by sharing methods, discussing written work, and
reflecting on problems and solutions, teachers could improve understanding of goals for
student learning. The instructor also discussed with teachers how to implement such
principles in the class.
2.2.5 Supervision of workshops
During the period of the study, the authors visited all of the workshops and observed how
teachers engaged in required activities. Particular attention was paid to the requirements of
solving problems cooperatively and participating in reflective discourse. Observations in

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

385

Table 2 The no-SRL group training program in learning and teaching mathematics
Principles in learning and teaching mathematics
Problem solving

Structure of the task

Representations of the tasks (verbal, numeric, algebraic and graphic)
Ways of solutions

Mathematical reasoning

Low/high level of skills (e.g., procedural vs. conceptual)

Explanations
Examples of good arguments

Teaching methods

Cooperative learning
Sharing knowledge

Pedagogical considerations

Goals of teaching and learning

Student/teacher center learning
Reflective discourse
Students difficulties
Expected mathematical errors
Task demands (e.g., levels of thinking)

both groups indicated that all teachers engaged in cooperative learning, and a high
percentage of teachers (85%) were involved in reflective discourse.
2.3 Measures
Three quantitative measures assessed all teachers' professional knowledge (mathematical
knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and a follow-up). To deepen understanding of the
quantitative findings, we then qualitatively analyzed two teachers' actual practice and
prelesson interviews (one teacher per group).
2.3.1 Teachers' mathematical knowledge assessment
To assess teachers' mathematical knowledge, they were asked to solve two authentic tasks,
one at pretest and one at posttest. The two tasks, which differed in context and required
knowledge, derived from the PISA (2003) recommendation for mathematical problem
solving to target reproduction, connection, and reflection skills. The pretest apple tree
task described an orchard planted by a farmer and asked teachers to find change patterns
and relationships by comparing the growth of apple trees planted in a square pattern and
conifer trees planted around the orchard's edge. Relationships were manipulated in various
representations, including graphical, tabular, and symbolic. Of the task's seven items,
teachers were asked to explain their reasoning on five items.
The seven-item posttest (see below) was a savings plan task that assessed reproduction
skills (using items 2 and 4), connection skills (items 1 and 3), and reflection skills (items
57). Items 12 assessed skills to which teachers were already exposed during training,
whereas items 37 assessed new linear graph skills that teachers had not practiced (Fig. 1).
The posttest money-saving task
Shai and Mayan received pocket money from their parents. Each day Shai received 1
New Israeli Shekel (N.I.S) and Mayan received 2 N.I.S. Before the parents started

386

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

Money (in New Israeli Shekels)

16
14

II

12
10

8
6
4
2
0

Number of days
Fig. 1 Money saved by girl I vs. girl II during the time period

giving this allowance to the girls, Shai had saved 4 N.I.S and Mayan didn't have any
money.
1) If X represents the number of days, find an algebraic expression for the money that
each girl saved. Explain your reasoning.
2) How much money would each girl have after 3 days and after 10 days? Show your
work.
The following figure represents the pocket money of each girl during the time
period.
3) Which line (Girl I or Girl II) represents Shai's or Mayan's pocket money? Explain your
reasoning.
4) What can you say about the intersection point of the two lines?
5) Until the fourth day, is the change rate of money saved by Girl I bigger/smaller than or
equal to the change rate of money saved by Girl II? Explain your reasoning.
6) After the fourth day, is the change rate of money saved by Girl I bigger/smaller than or
equal to the change rate of money saved by Girl II? Explain your reasoning.
7) Which savings plan is more profitable? Explain your reasoning.
Pretest and posttest scoring was the same. For each item, teachers received a problem
solving score of either 1 (full correct answer) or 0 (incorrect answer; total range 07). In
addition, for items that asked for explanation, teachers also received a mathematical
explanation accuracy score: either 1 (correct argument) or 0 (incorrect argument; total range
05). These scores were translated to percentages. In addition, on the posttest, we analyzed
the quality of the mathematical arguments based on PISA's (2003) suggested criteria (see
examples in Appendix 2). Thus, for all items except items 2 and 4, teachers also received
an explanation quality score of 0 (no mathematical argument, e.g., providing information
without explanation), 1 (a procedural argument, e.g., providing numerical examples or
computation processes with minor explanations), or 2 (a conceptual argument, e.g.,
providing a logicformal mathematical explanation based on mathematical terms and
representations with regard to generalizations and conclusions). Two judges, experts in

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

387

mathematical education, coded all participants' explanation quality. Interjudge reliability

coefficients, calculated for the same 30% of the arguments coded, ranged from 0.86 to 0.90
for the three argument quality levels.
2.3.2 Teachers' pedagogical knowledge assessment
Prior pedagogical knowledge At the beginning of the study, we administered a 12-item pretest
adapted from Teo, Chua, Cheang, & Joseph (2007) to all teachers. The test covered
pedagogical issues from the elementary level teaching unit on numbers, operations, and basic
algebraic reasoning, including (a) using representations for explanation purposes, (b)
analyzing cognitive demands of mathematical tasks for learners' understanding, and (c)
taking appropriate action regarding children's learning difficulties and misconceptions
(example on Appendix 3).
For each item, teachers received a score of either 2 (full answer), 1 (partial answer), or 0
(incorrect answer) and a total score ranging from 0 to 24. We translated the scores to
percentages. Cronbachs alpha reliability of the test coefficient was 0.86.
Posttest pedagogical knowledge To evaluate teachers' posttest pedagogical knowledge, we
analyzed teachers' lesson plan for their students based on the money-saving task that they had
just completed during the posttest assessment. Teachers were asked to build their planning
using three categories: task demands, task design, and teaching approach.
For each of the three categories, teachers received a score of 3 (full use of all three
elements in the category), 2 (use of only two elements), 1 (use of only one element), or 0
(no elements; total range 09). The three task demands elements were clarity of task's goal,
students' prior knowledge and skills, and students' difficulties in solving the task. The three
task design elements were use of at least two representations (e.g., tables, graphs, symbols),
one high-order problem solving skill (e.g., connection, reflection), and one type of
didactical material (e.g., embedding colors in the task). The three teaching approach
elements for promoting students' understanding refer to student-centered learning that asks
for conclusions, explanations, and diverse paths to a solution. The same two judges as
above coded the lesson plans for all participants (see Appendix 4 for sample lesson plan
and scoring). Interjudge reliability coefficients, calculated for the same 30% of the lesson
plans coded, ranged from r=0.86 to 0.88 for the three categories.
2.3.3 Follow-up mathematical and pedagogical test
The annual Israeli Ministry of Education end-of-year teacher assessment, administered
5 months after the intervention, assessed a large range of mathematical and
pedagogical knowledge tasks that differed from those used in the training program.
The mathematical test (25 open items) assessed procedural and problem solving skills
in algebraic and arithmetic topics. The mathematical pedagogical test (12 open tasks)
assessed various pedagogical skills referring to the same mathematical topics, like
suggesting a way to explain the topic, identifying students' errors and explaining
reasons for them, identifying and analyzing alternative problem solving strategies,
building connections between math concepts, and using different representations and
demonstrations to teach a mathematical concept (see examples in Appendix 3). The
Ministry follow-up test provided two total scores in percentages for each teacher: on
mathematical knowledge and on pedagogical knowledge.

388

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

2.3.4 Assessment of actual teaching practice

Teaching in practice was assessed after completion of the posttests via qualitative analysis
of a double videotaped lesson (90 min) for each of two female teachers, one from each
training group (SRL and no-SRL), while each taught the money-saving task in her
classroom. Both teachers were selected randomly from a group of teachers that were similar
in their years of experience in teaching and in their pretest mathematical and pedagogical
knowledge measures. The school students from both grade 5 classrooms had similar
background variables: mean age of 10.8 years, similar gender distribution (49:51% for
boys/girls), middle socioeconomic status, and similar mathematics achievements (M=72/
73; SD=13.8/14.1, for the two classes). One stationary camera on a tripod was focused on
the teacher for the entire lesson.
Videotapes were transcribed and analyzed for two teaching dimensions: promoting
student understanding and supporting an SRL teaching approach. The first dimension
was coded for three teaching criteria that promoted students' (a) discovering
conclusions, (b) providing explanations, and (c) high-order thinking (e.g., connecting
between representations and generalizing a pattern). Teaching to promote understanding
was assessed along a continuum from high conceptual understanding (three criteria met)
to low procedural understanding (zero criteria met). The second dimension was coded for
three teaching criteria that supported a student- vs. teacher-centered SRL approach.
Student-centered learning focused on students' (a) self-opinions and conclusions, (b)
active problem solving (e.g., presenting paths to a solution), and (c) class discourse (e.g.,
referring to others' solutions). Teacher-centered learning referred to activating these
criteria by the teacher. The two dimensions are illustrated below (see Section 3.2) in two
transcripts referring to the question Which savings plan is more profitable? in an SRLsupport and a no-SRL class.
2.3.5 Brief interview before the videotaped lesson
Before videotaping the lesson, teachers were asked three questions in a short (20 min)
interview to (a) describe their beliefs regarding teaching and learning mathematics, (b)
identify which difficulties they expected to encounter in the classroom while teaching the
savings plan lesson, and (c) explain how they planned to cope with these difficulties.
Teachers' statements made during their brief interviews will be presented to substantiate
analysis of the two dimensions of actual teaching practice.

3 Results
3.1 Teachers professional knowledge
3.1.1 Teachers mathematical knowledge
Table 3 presents the mean scores, adjusted mean scores, standard deviations, F values, and
effect sizes (ES) for teachers' problem solving skills and explanation accuracy in the
money-saving task, by treatment group (SRL/no-SRL) and time (pretest/posttest).
Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that, before the study, the two treatment groups
did not significantly differ in their problem solving skills on the authentic task (Table 3).
However, the posttest multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with the

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

389

preknowledge test as covariant indicated that teachers in the SRL group significantly
outperformed their peers in the no-SRL group. Further, ANCOVA results indicated
significant intergroup differences on the total problem solving score and on two problem
solving skills, connection and reflection, but not on reproduction skills. The greatest
difference between the teacher groups was exhibited for reflection, which is the highest
order skill of problem solving (PISA, 2003).
3.1.2 Mathematical explanation quality
Regarding mathematical explanation accuracy, ANCOVA results (Table 3) indicated
significant differences between the two groups' provision of mathematical explanations.
Chi-square analysis for quality of arguments on the open items indicated significant
differences between the two training programs. Significantly more teachers provided
conceptual arguments in the SRL program than in the no-SRL program (68.7% vs. 29.8%,
respectively; 2(2)=15.89, p<0.01), whereas significantly more teachers in the no-SRL
program provided procedural arguments than in the SRL program (47.8% vs. 12.7%,

Table 3 Means, adjusted means, standard deviations, F values, and ES on teachers' problem solving of
authentic task, by treatment group (SRL vs. no-SRL) and time (pretest/posttest)
SRL support (n=34)

No-SRL (n=30)

Pre

Pre

Post

Post

F (3, 60)=0.32, p>0.05

F (3, 60)=12.87, p<0.001

Total problem solving

M
80.77

88.58

Adjusted M

87.74

SD

12.76

82.25

76.79

F (1, 61)=14.25, p<0.0001

75.67

ES=1.09

7.56

10.96

10.78

87.58

92.35

88.02

F (1, 61)=3.04, p>0.05

89.28

ES=0.08

Reproduction skills
M

94.40

Adjusted M
SD

87.68
2.96

2.81

5.86

Connection skills
M
76.62

92.41

75.83

87.34

F (1, 61)=5.68, p<0.02

Adjusted M

92.27

87.29

ES=0.59

SD

2.51

15.21

7.94

15.97

8.61

82.16

85.47

84.39

63.04

F (1, 61)=36.89, p<0.0001

62.83

ES=1.25

Reflection skills
M
Adjusted M
SD

85.64
14.22

11.83

12.80

17.91

Mathematical explanation accuracy

M
56.53
72.36

55.34

57.14

F (1, 61)=18.45, p<0.0001

57.12

ES=1.06

Adjusted M
SD

72.30
21.41

13.96

15.64

14.31

Range 0100. ES was calculated as SRL group mean minus no-SRL group mean, divided by the standard
deviation of the no-SRL score
ES effect sizes, SRL self-regulated learning

390

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

respectively; 2(2)=19.24, p<0.001). No significant differences emerged between the

treatment groups on providing no mathematical arguments (SRL 22.4%, no-SRL 25.3%;
2(2)=0.87, p>0.05).
3.1.3 Teachers pedagogical knowledge
Table 4 presents means, adjusted mean scores, standard deviations, F values, and ES for
teachers pedagogical mathematics knowledge, by treatment group. ANOVA results
indicated no significant differences before the study between the two treatment groups in
teachers prior pedagogical knowledge. However, the posttest MANCOVA results with the
preknowledge test as covariant indicated that teachers in the SRL group significantly
outperformed their no-SRL peers. Further ANCOVA results indicated intergroup differences on two of the lesson planning categories for promoting student understanding, task
demands and teaching approach, but not on task design.
3.1.4 Follow-up Ministry of Education mathematical and pedagogical test
ANOVA results indicated significant differences between the two groups at the follow-up
interval. The SRL-support teachers outperformed the no-SRL teachers on mathematical
knowledge (SRL: M=87.70, SD=7.56; no-SRL: M=75.66, SD=10.11; F (1, 62)=30.30,
p<0.01; ES=1.19) and on pedagogical knowledge (SRL: M=83.97, SD=15.65; no-SRL:
M=68.69, SD=14.46; F (1, 62)=11.46, p<0.01; ES=1.06).

Table 4 Means, adjusted mean, standard deviations, F values, and ES of teachers' pedagogical mathematics
knowledge, by treatment group (SRL vs. no-SRL)
SRL support (n=34)

No-SRL (n=30)

66.00
15.30

67.20
15.70

Prior pedagogical knowledge

M
SD

F (1, 62)=1.23, p>0.05

Planning a lesson

F (3, 60)=19.17; p<0.0001

Task demands
M

79.74

63.45

F (1, 61)=5.68, p<0.01

Adjusted M

80.04

62.42

ES=0.54

SD

24.05

30.45

M
Adjusted M

80.17
81.06

74.38
75.41

SD

22.13

25.03

91.32

68.14

F (1, 61)=9.76, p<0.01

Adjusted M

90.87

68.59

ES=0.79

SD

20.67

29.28

Task design
F (1, 61)=0.48, p>0.05
ES=0.23

Teaching approach

Range 0100. ES was calculated as SRL group mean minus no-SRL group mean, divided by the standard
deviation of the no-SRL score
ES effect sizes, SRL self-regulated learning

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

391

3.2 Actual teaching practice

Results for actual practice are presented using two randomly selected transcripts (one per
group; students' names were changed to preserve anonymity), analyzing them for the two
teaching dimensions (promoting mathematical understanding and supporting SRL), and
substantiating analysis with interview responses.
3.2.1 Videotape transcript of SRL-supported teacher
General description of the class The teacher had written a note on the blackboard
listing four possible mathematical representations: verbal, tabular, graphic, and
symbolic. She explained how to insert data into the table. She encouraged students
to work in pairs and gave each student a worksheet with the IMPROVE metacognitive
questions. After students solved the task, the teacher held a discussion with them
about their conclusions:
1
2

3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

Teacher. Listen each to other. Yair, what is your opinion about the question:
Which savings plan is more profitable? Explain your conclusion.
Yair. We know that Shai increased her money each day by 1 shekel, and Mayan
increased her money by 2 shekels. I found [points at the table] that from the fifth day
Mayan began to save more money each day.
T. Can we reach the same conclusion by observing the graphs [I and II]? What do you
say, Yael?
Yael. It seems that Mayan's graph [II] is higher than Shai's graph [I] after the fifth day.
T. [Asks the whole class] What are your conclusions regarding the first four days?
Dan. Shai's money saving was bigger [looks at the graph]...The graph is higher.
T. You see, our conclusion depends on the time interval at which we compare both
plans. We can find the savings plan pattern by looking at the data in the table or on the
graph.
T. OK! Who saved more after two weeks? Show your work in different ways.
[Students work]
Peled. Shai will save only 18 shekels (4+14=18).
Tal. What about Mayan?
Yaron. Mayan saved more. We found from the table that she saved 28 shekels.
Neta. Our solution is the same. Mayan saved 2 shekels each day; after 2 weeks she
will save 2*14=28.
T. How can we get the same conclusion from the graph?

3.2.2 Videotape transcript of No-SRL teacher

General description of the class The teacher prepared a table on the blackboard with three
columns (days and savings plans for Shai and Mayan) and encouraged students to take part
in a whole-class discussion regarding the problem solving process. She asked students to
help her complete the data for seven saving days and asked for conclusions:
1

Teacher. What is the conclusion? What happened in the first three days? And after
the fourth day? Look at the table at each time interval.

392

2
3

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

Le. Shai saved more in the beginning and after the fourth day Mayan saved more.
T. [Immediately, summarizing the conclusion in her words.] You see, it depends on the
interval of time for which we compare both plans. [After a silence] Now, you can write
the correct conclusion.
T. Let's see what we can learn from another representation of the data - the graph.
Graph I and Graph II represent the amount of money in the saving plan of each girl
over 7 days. Look at the graphs and find the amount of money each girl saved on Day
2 and Day7.
Tami. On the second day, the first girl saved 6 shekels and the second girl saved 2
shekels.
Ran. On the seventh day, the first girl saved 11 shekels and the second girl saved 14
shekels.
T. Can you tell me which girl's plan is described in each graph?
Gili. It seems that Graph I describes Shai's plan and Graph II describes Mayan's plan.
T. Show me, how much did each girl save on the fourth day?
Dana. [looks at the graph] 8 shekels.
T. Correct, we can also see from the graphs that both girls received the same amount of
money on the fourth day. [Points to intersection point on graph] The table and the
graph provide the same conclusions.

3.2.3 Videotape analysis of two teaching dimensions

Dimension I: teaching to promote student understanding (conceptual/procedural) Teachers
from both groups emphasized in their interviews the importance of promoting students'
understanding (e.g., I believe in developing students' conceptual understanding and not
technical understanding). They emphasized the importance of challenging students'
mathematical explanations to promote better understanding (e.g., It's important for each
student to be able to explain his or her solution).
Indeed, the transcript in Section 3.2.1 shows that the SRL-trained teacher created a
conceptual thinking climate in the class. Most conclusions were discovered by students
rather than given as information by the teacher (e.g., lines 2, 4, 6, 12). Students provided
answers with explanations (2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12). For example, Yair included in his answer an
explanation regarding the differences between the two savings plans. Students' attention
was shifted to high-order thinking by connecting between representations (3, 6, 7, 13) and
generalizing the savings plan pattern (after 2 weeks; 12). In contrast, the no-SRL teacher's
transcript in Section 3.2.2 shows that students were mainly exposed to a procedural learning
approach. Most conclusions were discovered and summarized by the teacher (3, 11).
Students provided answers without explanations (2, 5, 6, 8, 10), and they were asked loworder thinking questions (1, 4, 9) instead of ones that generalize patterns.
Dimension II: using an SRL-supported approach (student-/teacher-centered learning) In
their interviews, each teacher mentioned the same expected difficulties in their planned
lesson using different representations and finding the pattern. However, differences
emerged between the two teachers in how they planned to cope with these difficulties.
The SRL-trained teacher explained in her interview that she planned to talk with the
students about how to approach the problem, and to use the metacognitive
questions. She suggested that she would encourage them to solve the problems in

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

393

pairs but also to reach personal conclusions. In contrast, the no-SRL-supported

teacher planned to solve the task together in the whole class and discuss the main
issues with the students. She suggested that they would first analyze each saving
plan with a table and then connect it to the graphs.
Indeed, the videotape transcript in Section 3.2.1 demonstrated that the SRL-supported
teacher exhibited a more student-centered learning approach to help students solve
problems. She emphasized the importance of personal opinions and conclusions (1), and
she encouraged students to become active in solving the task (1, 2, 8). The transcript
illustrates that the teacher asked students to listen to each other (1) and called them
directly by name (1, 2). The teacher involved seven different students by inviting them to
become active in solving the task (vs. five students involved by the no-SRL teacher). She
also asked them to adopt a metacognitive approach by showing their work in different
ways (8). Finally, the transcript illustrates that students participated in discourse by
referring to other solutions (10, 12). In contrast, the teacher from the no-SRL group
exhibited a more teacher-centered approach. The transcript in Section 3.2.2 illustrates that
she directed her students to find the solution look at the table (1). She drew conclusions
herself (3, 11), failed to leave students time to think (3), and did not ask for explanations
(3, 9). Students mostly answered teachers' questions and did not refer to peers' answers.

4 Discussion
The present study aimed to address the role of SRL support on elementary teachers
professional knowledge (mathematical and pedagogical) and actual practice (promoting
students' mathematical understanding and SRL).
4.1 Professional knowledge
The current study demonstrated that teachers who were trained while exposed to SRL
support with IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning outperformed their peers in
mathematical knowledge (solving and explaining problems) and pedagogical knowledge (planning lessons and accounting for pedagogical considerations). These
intergroup differences emerged both immediately and on a delayed test, on familiar
and on novel tasks. Several possible reasons may be considered for the beneficial
effect of SRL support on teachers' knowledge. First, making SRL explicit with
IMPROVE when, why, and how questions can help teachers to think about the
mathematical steps they need to take in their work, access and interact with the content's
functionality, think about the deeper concepts and structure of disciplinary relations, and
avoid superficial details. When all types of questioning (comprehension, connection,
strategic, and reflection) are combined, a mental representation is constructed that
supports mathematical problem solving (e.g., Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003). Perhaps
such construction enables teachers to better link theoretical knowledge (i.e., mathematics)
and practical knowledge (i.e., pedagogy) in familiar and novel tasks (Kramarski, 2004;
Kramarski, Mevarech & Arami, 2002; Kramarski & Michalsky, 2009; Kramarski &
Zoldan, 2008; Schoenfeld, 1992).
Second, the explicit opportunity to elaborate on different perspectives of problem
solving, as both learners and as teachers, appeared to lead teachers to focus more on deep
understanding of task demands and on a student-centered teaching approach in their lesson

394

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

planning. These findings are in line with previous studies that emphasized the importance
of using self-questioning in multiple perspectives in learning and teaching. For example,
Kramarski, Mevarech & Liberman (2001) found that students who were exposed to two
perspectives of IMPROVE-based metacognitive training (multilevel metacognitive training
in teaching both English and mathematics) significantly outperformed their peers who were
exposed to only one perspective of IMPROVE-based metacognitive training (unilevel
metacognitive training only in teaching mathematics). The stronger effects of the multilevel
metacognitive method were observed on students mathematical problem solving, provision of
explanations, and activation of metacognitive processes while solving mathematical problems.
4.2 Actual practice (promoting students' mathematical understanding and SRL processes)
Interviews indicated that both teachers exhibited similar beliefs regarding the need to
develop conceptual understanding. They also were aware of the same possible
mathematical difficulties that students could encounter in the lesson they intended to
implement. However, they planned different teaching approaches (student- and teachercentered) to cope with these difficulties. The transcripts revealed that in contrast to the
SRL-supported teacher, the no-SRL teacher's actual teaching did not match her beliefs
regarding the need to foster students' understanding. She mostly emphasized procedural
understanding without utilizing students' explanations. This gap occurred notwithstanding
both teachers' exposure to student-centered workshops based on reflective discussions
guided by experienced trainers. The finding that only the SRL-supported teacher planned
and implemented such a student-centered approach in class suggests that teachers'
professional training that emphasizes sharing of methods, discussion of written work,
reflection on problems, and solutions based on standards in mathematics learning does not
sufficiently ensure that teachers understand how those standards benefit performance.
However, IMPROVE metacognitive support seemed sufficiently robust to affect the
observed teachers actual practice in a short time. This conclusion may be explained by the
findings of an SRL-supported group advantage in mathematical and pedagogical
knowledge at the end of the study, which may have better enabled teachers to link
theoretical knowledge with actual practice.
4.3 Limitations, implications, and future research
This study potentially offers contributions to theoretical research examining the role of
SRL support in mathematical professional development; nevertheless, we recognize
several inherent limitations. First, the present implementation of each support by only
one group and the observation of one actual teaching lesson from each group could be
confounded with the instructional support. To strengthen our current claims, we
propose that further research should examine the effects of SRL support on larger
samples of teachers and should expand observations of teachers' class practice. Second,
we investigated effects of an SRL approach on mathematics problem solving of authentic
tasks (PISA framework) and lasting effects for novel tasks in mathematics (follow-up
test). However, the summarized follow-up scores did not show the differential effects of
SRL support on each topic and kind of task. To generalize the present findings, we
suggest that future studies should follow-up further on the long-term effects of SRL
support by explicitly investigating teachers' professional knowledge on various topics and
tasks constructed on the basis of different conceptual frameworks. These tests should be
implemented at different time intervals (e.g., 1 or 2 years after intervention).

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

395

Finally, our study investigated the relations between SRL support and cognitive
variables in professional development (mathematical and pedagogical knowledge). The
findings indicated that the reflective discourse in the no-SRL support was fruitful only for
the reproduction and connection skills but not for the reflection skills that were reduced at
the end of the study. Perhaps, the reduction in the high-order thinking skills is related to
teachers' self-efficacy and motivation of solving tasks in novel contexts (pretest vs.
posttests) that demand high-order thinking skills. Future research should be conducted to
investigate this proposed relation between affective variables and teachers professional
development (Farmer, Gerretson & Lassak, 2003).
Although we acknowledge some limitations in this study, the results support
recommendations to capitalize on SRL support in professional development training in
order to enhance learning opportunities in mathematics instruction (e.g., NCTM, 2000).
The present research findings add complementary perspectives to the literature on teachers'
professional knowledge, by connecting teachers' mathematical and pedagogical knowledge
with actual teaching under SRL support. However, our study does not supply data about
student outcomes obtained by the currently participating teachers. Future studies would do
well to examine the assumption that teachers' SRL is extremely important to their success in
teaching (Perry et al., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000). Toward this end, teachers with varying
levels of SRL should be observed, and the data should be connected to students'
understanding, achievement data, activities, intellectual curiosity, and attitudes toward
mathematics. Furthermore, taking into account the complex nature of professional
development in the mathematical area (Hill et al., 2005), it may be useful to pay attention
to the measurement of quality in assessing professional knowledge, using different kinds of
complementary methods and different styles of coding. Offline (questionnaires) and online
(actual teaching) methods such as thinking aloud, observations, and interviews, besides single
code or rubric styles of coding, may shed further light on the benefits of SRL support.
In conclusion, we underscore the need to further investigate how to challenge elementary
teachers professional knowledge with SRL support in professional training programs. As
Shulman & Sparks (1992) argued, the continual deepening of knowledge and skills is an
integral part of any profession. Teaching is no exception. The current work is a step in that
direction.

Appendix 1
Sample authentic task from the in-service teachers' training workshops
The parking lot task
Dan and Dina need to park their cars in a public parking lot. There are two parking lots
nearby. Read the signs at the entrance to the parking lots:
Tel Aviv Parking Lotevery hour costs 6 shekels.
My Parking Lotentrance costs 20 shekels + 2 shekels per hour.

&
&
&
&

Assume Dan needs to park for 4 h and Dina needs to park for 7 h. Which parking lot
should each of them pick?
Explain the factors that guide Dan and Dina in their choices.
Find an algebraic expression that represents the total cost for each parking lot. Explain
in detail.
List guidelines for choosing a parking lot so that it costs the least amount possible.
Explain.

396

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

Appendix 2
Mathematical explanation quality: sample teacher arguments for the response Mayan's plan was
more profitable (on the reflective open opinion item Which savings plan is more profitable?)
Examples of no argumentation (score=0):

&
&

We can see from the figure and from the number values.
She saves more money each day.
Examples of procedural argumentation (score=1):

&

After the fourth day, Mayan's money increases more than Shai's money. On the fifth
day, Mayan's money increases by 1 NIS; on the sixth day, the amount increases by 2
NIS; on the seventh day, the amount increases by 3 NIS; and on the eighth day, it
increases by 4 NIS, etc.
From the table below, we can see differences in the amounts of money that increase
each day: Mayan's money increases by 2 NIS and Shai's by 1 NIS.

&

Money saved

Day
1

Mayan

10

12

14

Shai

10

11

Examples of conceptual argumentation (score=2):

&
&

We can see in the figure that the slope in Mayans line is steeper than Shais.
The change rate of Mayans savings plan is greater. From the fifth day, Mayans savings
plan money is larger than Shais in spite of the advantage that she hadmoney on hand
at the beginning of the savings program.

Appendix 3
Sample items from the two tests: (a) pedagogical prior knowledge test and (b) the annual
Israeli Ministry Education mathematical and pedagogical knowledge test
1. Pedagogical prior knowledge test (using representations for explanation purposes)
When 23 is divided by 4, three possible answers are given
(a) 5.75
(b) 5 34
(c) 5 with remainder 3
For each of them, write one story problem for which that answer is most appropriate.
2. The annual mathematical knowledge test:
Task 1: Argument: The sum of a two-digit number and a number with the same digits
written backwards is divisible by 11.
(a) Provide an example in support of this argument
(b) Prove the argument

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

(c)

397

Is this argument true for the sum of a three-digit number and a number with the same
digits written backwards? If so, prove this. If not, supply a counter-example

Task 2:

a1=b+2=c5=d+10 (a, b, c, d0)

Which of the parameters a, b, c, and d is the biggest one? Explain.

Task 3:

A student received the following exercise: 12 15 K and answered

312
5

Is the answer correct?

&
&

If the student was right, how could you explain his answer to the rest of the class?
If the student was wrong, how should you explain his mistake to him?

Appendix 4
Sample lesson plan for the money-saving task (with scoring)
1. Task demands
Goal of the lesson: Grade 5 students should learn to generalize mathematical properties
by using different representations like tables and graphs.
Prior knowledge: The lesson is based on students' knowledge about organizing data in a
table and presenting data in a graph. In addition, I think that students should be able to draw
conclusions from data presented in a table and graph and to explain their reasoning with
conceptual terms.
Learning difficulties: I expect some difficulties in administering the task in grade 5, like
reading/comparing data from two lines on the same graph, relating to each one on the same
axes, obtaining conclusions, and finding generalizations.
Scoring: This teacher received a score of 3 for this category of the plan: The planning
referred to all three elements of the task's demands: clear learning goals, prior knowledge,
skills, and expected difficulties with regard to interpreting the two lines on the figure.
2. Task design
The task: Shai and Mayan received pocket money from their parents. Each day, Shai
received 1 NIS and Mayan received 2 NIS. Before the parents started giving an allowance
to the girls, Shai had saved 4 NIS and Mayan did not have any money. The following is the
graph that represents the money savings in two colors (attaches graph with a red line
depicting girl I and a blue line depicting girl II).
1.
2.
3.

Which graph represents Shais savings? Explain.

Which graph represents Mayans savings? Explain.
From the graph, is there a day that both girls save the same amount of money?

4.
5.
6.

If the answer is yes, indicate which day and the amount of money?
If the answer is no, explain the reason?

Write the data in a table.

Calculate the amount of money that each girl will receive after 3 days.
Find a pattern that calculates the money each girl saved (represents the amount of
days).

398

7.
8.
9.
10.

B. Kramarski, T. Revach

Write an exercise for Shais savings plan after 3 days. Explain.

Write an exercise for Mayans savings plan after 3 days. Explain.
How much money will each girl receive after 10 days? Show your work.
Which savings plan is more profitable? Explain.

Scoring: This teacher received a score of 3 for this category of the plan: The planning
referred to all three elements of the task's design: using diverse representations (tables,
graphs, and a pattern expression), various problem solving skills (e.g., reproduction,
connection, and reflection), and didactical considerations for presenting the task, such as
using different colors for the figure.
3. Teaching approach
The lesson aims to foster all students' understanding by integrating questions with
different levels of difficulty (e.g., item 3 vs. 10) and by asking students to draw conclusions
(e.g., item 10). Special emphasis is given to the requirement for explaining students'
mathematical reasoning (five out of ten items).
Scoring: This teacher received a score of 2 for this category of the plan because she
referred to engagement of students in understanding and her questions required students to
draw conclusions and to explain their reasoning. However, no specific emphasis was placed
on the third element of identifying different paths to the solution (e.g., show your work in
different ways).

References
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: testing policy hypotheses from a national commission
report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 515.
Farmer, J., Gerretson, H., & Lassak, M. (2003). What teachers take from professional development: Cases
and implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(4), 331360.
Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers' knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of
teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 2024). Tarrytown: Pergamon.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on
student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371406.
Kramarski, B. (2004). Making sense of graphs: Does metacognitive instruction make a difference on
students mathematical conceptions and alternative conceptions? Learning and Instruction, 14, 593619.
Kramarski, B. (2008). Promoting teachers' algebraic reasoning and self-regulation with metacognitive
guidance. Metacognition and Learning, 3(2), 8399.
Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effect of
cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281310.
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive training on solving
mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225250.
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Liberman, A. (2001). The effects of multilevel- versus unilevelmetacognitive training on mathematical reasoning. Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 292300.
Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, M. (2009). Investigating preservice teachers' professional growth in selfregulated learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 161175.
Kramarski, B., & Zoldan, S. (2008). Using errors as springboards for enhancing mathematical reasoning with
three metacognitive approaches. Journal of Educational Research, 102(2), 137151.
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). Improve: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in
heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 365394.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Reston: Author.
Perry, N. E., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring student teachers to support self-regulated
learning. Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 237254.

Math teachers' self-regulation and professional knowledge

399

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544555.
Program for International Student AssessmentPISA. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow:
Further results from PISA 2000. Paris: Author.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research
on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 415.
Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651685). Orlando: Academic.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense
making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 165197). New York: MacMillan.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary
perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (3rd
ed., pp. 336). New York: MacMillan.
Shulman, L. S., & Sparks, D. (1992). Merging content knowledge and pedagogy: An interview with Lee
Shulman. Journal of Staff Development, 13(1), 1416.
Teo, S. K. L. T., Chua, K. G., Cheang, K., & Joseph, K. Y. (2007). The development of diploma in education
student teachers mathematics pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics, 5(2), 237261.
Veenman, M. V. J., Bernadette, H. A. M., Hout-Wolters, V., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and
learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 314.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 8291.
Zohar, A., & Schwartzer, N. (2005). Assessing teachers' pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching
higher order thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 15951620.