The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States
Abstract
Chinese students typically outperform U.S. students on international comparisons of mathematics competency. Paradoxically, Chinese teachers receive far less education than U.S. teachers--11 to 12 years of schooling versus 16 to 18 years of schooling. Studies of U.S. teacher knowledge often document insufficient subject matter knowledge in mathematics. But, they give few examples of the knowledge teachers need to support teaching, particularly the kind of teaching demanded by recent reforms in mathematics education. This book describes the nature and development of the "profound understanding of fundamental mathematics" that elementary teachers need to become accomplished mathematics teachers, and suggests why such teaching knowledge is much more common in China than the United States, despite the fact that Chinese teachers have less formal education than their U.S. counterparts. The studies described in this book suggest that Chinese teachers begin their teaching careers with a better understanding of elementary mathematics than that of most U.S. elementary teachers. Their understanding of the mathematics they teach and--equally important--of the ways that elementary mathematics can be presented to students, continues to grow throughout their professional lives. Teaching conditions in the United States, unlike those in China, militate against the development of elementary teachers' mathematical knowledge and its organization for teaching. The concluding chapter of the book suggests changes in teacher preparation, teacher support, and mathematics education research that might allow teachers in the United States to attain profound understanding of fundamental mathematics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x · Cited by 12,604
Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special?
Loewenberg Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008) · Journal of Teacher Education · doi:10.1177/0022487108324554 · Cited by 5,388
Effects of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312042002371 · Cited by 2,812
Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Activation in the Classroom, and Student Progress
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831209345157 · Cited by 2,100
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737024002081 · Cited by 1,688
Metadata
- Authors
- Ma, L., & Ma, L.
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 1999-06-12
- OpenAlex
- W4210905880
- Cited by
- 1,342
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 28.03
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781410602589
- The paper
- Ma, L., & Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States. Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602589
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.