Revealing Implicit Knowledge of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers in Lesson Planning: Knowledge of Infinity

Ruya Savuran 1 * , Mine Isiksal-Bostan 1
More Detail
1 Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Middle East Technical University, TURKEY
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp. 269-283.
Published: 03 March 2022
OPEN ACCESS   1526 Views   776 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


The study aims to explore how pre-service mathematics teachers reveal their knowledge of infinity during the lesson planning process in the context of limit. Specifically, we adopted the dimensions of mathematics teachers’ specialized knowledge, which are related to mathematical knowledge and its relation with teaching. We conducted an exploratory case study design in a two-cycle lesson planning process with three senior pre-service mathematics teachers. The findings indicated that in the first planning process the participants did not use infinity as a way of thinking, rather they focused on paradoxes and potential infinity. After they taught their lesson plan, they started to think about the complexity of infinity not only in the context of limit but also in the concept itself during the lesson planning process. The findings did not cover the knowledge of infinity; rather, they yield important implications for lesson planning process to reveal teachers’ knowledge for teaching.


Savuran, R., & Isiksal-Bostan, M. (2022). Revealing Implicit Knowledge of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers in Lesson Planning: Knowledge of Infinity. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 269-283.


  • Aliustaoglu, F., & Tuna, A. (2021). Examining the pedagogical content knowledge of prospective mathematics teachers on the subject of limits. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(6), 833-856.
  • Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
  • Bozkus, F., Ucar, Z. T., & Cetin, I. (2015). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin sonsuzluğu kavrayışları [Middle school students’ understanding of infinity]. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education], 6(3), 506-531.
  • Carrillo-Yañez, J., Climent, N., Montes, M., Contreras, C., Flores-Medrano, E., Escudero-Avila, D., Vasco, N. Rojas, D., Flores, P., Aguilar-Gonzalez, A., Ribeiro, M., & Munoz-Catalan, C. (2018). The mathematics teacher’s specialized knowledge (MTSK) model. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 236-253.
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.
  • Date-Huxtable, E., Cavanagh, M., Coady, C., & Easey, M. (2018). Conceptualisations of infinity by primary pre-service teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(4), 545-567.
  • Delgado-Rebolledo, R., & Zakaryan, D. (2020). Relationships between the knowledge of practices in mathematics and the pedagogical content knowledge of a mathematics lecturer. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(3), 567-587.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
  • Hart, L. C., Alston, A. S., & Murata, A. (2011). Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education. Springer.
  • Jirotková, D., & Littler, G. (2004, 14-18 July). Insight into pupils’ understanding of infinity in a geometrical context [Paper presentation]. 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 97-104), Bergen, Norway.
  • Kajander, A., & Lovric, M. (2017). Understanding and supporting teacher horizon knowledge around limits: A framework for evaluating textbooks for teachers, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(7), 1023-1042.
  • Kidron, I., & Tall, D. (2015). The roles of visualization and symbolism in the potential and actual infinity of the limit process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88, 183-199.
  • Kim, D.-J., Sfard, A., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2005). Students’ colloquial and mathematical discourses on infinity and limit. In H. L. Chick, & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (201-208). PME.
  • Kolar, V. M., & Čadež, T. H. (2012). Analysis of factors influencing the understanding of the concept of infinity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80, 389-412.
  • Lakoff, G., & Núnez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books.
  • Lewis, C. C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Research for Better Schools, Inc.
  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018). Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Training Secondary Mathematics Curriculum. Ankara, Turkey.
  • Monaghan, J. (2001). Young people’s ideas of infinity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 239-257.
  • Montes, M. A. Carrillo, J., & Ribeiro, C. M. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge of infinity, and its role in classroom practice. In P. Liljedahl, S. Oesterle, C. Nicol, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (vol. 4, pp. 234-241). PME.
  • Montes, M., & Carrillo, J. (2015). What does it mean as a teacher to ‘know infinity’? The case of convergence of series. In K. Krainer, & N. Novotná (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 9 (pp. 3220-3226). ERME.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
  • Ni Shuilleabhain, A. (2016). Developing mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in lesson study: Case study findings. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 5(3), 212-226.
  • Rock, T. C., & Wilson, C. (2005). Improving teaching through lesson study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 77-92.
  • Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(3), 255-281.
  • Rusznyak, L., & Walton, E. (2011). Lesson planning guidelines for student teachers: A scaffold for the development of pedagogical content knowledge. Education as Change, 15(2), 271-285.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  • Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. NCTM.
  • Umugiraneza, O., Bansilal, S., & North, D. (2018). Investigating teachers’ formulations of learning objectives and introductory approaches in teaching mathematics and statistics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(8), 1148-1164.
  • Wijeratne, C., & Zazkis, R. (2016). Exploring conceptions of infinity via super-tasks: A case of Thomson’s Lamp and Green Alien. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 42, 127-134.
  • Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and method. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • Yopp, D. A., Burroughs, E. A., & Lindaman, B. J. (2011). Why it is important for in-service elementary mathematics teachers to understand the equality .999 … = 1. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30, 304-318.
  • Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Meeting the challenges of mathematics teacher education through design and use of tasks that facilitate teacher learning. In B. Jaworski, & T. Wood (Eds.), The mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional, Vol. 4, of T. Wood (Series Ed.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education (pp. 93-114). Sense Publishers.