Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Prospective teachers’ noticing: A literature review of methodological

approaches to support and analyze noticing
Julie M. Amador a, *, John Bragelman b, Alison Castro Superfine c
a
University of Idaho, 1031 N. Academic Way Coeur d’Alene, ID, 83814, United States
b
University of North Georgia, United States
c
University of Illinois at Chicago, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

Researchers studying noticing are divergent in their data collection and analysis methods.

Researchers studying noticing adopted or adapted one of two common frameworks.

Most researchers collected noticing data over one semester; common data types are writing and video.

Many researchers found mixed or neutral outcomes for developing prospective teacher noticing.

Different time durations were provided for learning with measurement at different intervals.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This systematic literature review highlights consistencies and differences in methodological processes of
Received 19 February 2020 research focused on prospective teacher noticing. Six-hundred-eleven articles were initially identified;
Received in revised form 43 of those were analyzed in depth. Of the anaylzed articles, researchers primarily used one of two
2 October 2020
frameworks for noticing (i.e. Professional Noticing or Learning to Notice). Despite some methodological
Accepted 1 December 2020
similarities, researchers used different time durations for learning experiences and measured noticing at
Available online 30 December 2020
different intervals. Analysis of study results indicate that many researchers found mixed or neutral
participant outcomes for developing noticing. Researchers using the Learning to Notice Framework re-
Keywords:
Noticing
ported positive results more often than researchers using the Professional Noticing Framework.
Prospective teacher © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Methodology
Literature review
Learning
Mathematics

Researchers and teacher educators are increasingly recognizing conceptualized in different ways, but generally includes attention
the affordances of teacher noticing to support students’ thinking. In to and interpretation of students’ thinking, resulting pedagogical
mathematics, in particular, research on teacher noticing includes decisions, and the relation between those interpretations and
studies focused on noticing across the spectrum of teachers’ pro- broader principles of teaching and learning (Jacobs, Lamb, &
fessional learning, spanning from teacher preparation coursework Philipp, 2010; van Es & Sherin, 2008). As Jacobs and Spangler
to professional development experiences for practicing teachers (2017) argue, expertise in noticing is paramount to detect and
(see Schack, Fisher, & Wilhelm, 2017; Sherin, Jacobs, & Philipp, make sense of instructionally important features in the mathe-
2011). A recent systematic review of mathematics education liter- matics classroom, as “the act of focusing attention on and making
ature found teachers’ noticing to be one of the most common sense of situation features in a visually complex world” is a
theoretical frameworks used in the field (Stahnke, Schueler, & necessary skill for teachers (2017, p. 771).
Roesken-Winter 2016). In such literature, noticing is Over the past two decades, numerous researchers have worked
to better understand teachers’ noticing and have focused on sup-
porting the development of teacher noticing (Schack, Fisher, &
Wilhelm, 2017; Sherin et al., 2011; Stahnke et al., 2016). Among
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jamador@uidaho.edu (J.M. Amador).
these studies, there have been considerable differences in how

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103256
0742-051X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

noticing is both developed and measured, in particular the meth- experience, and c) the data collection timescale, meaning the
odological processes researchers employ to collect and analyze data length of time for data collection, and d) the study outcomes,
on teacher noticing. For example, some researchers have published broadly speaking. The review of literature will answer the following
frameworks for learning to notice (i.e. van Es, 2011) while others questions:
have articulately described noticing as a professional practice and
disaggregated levels for proficiency of noticing (i.e. Jacobs et al., 1) How have researchers measured noticing of prospective teach-
2010). The burgeoning quantity of studies on teacher noticing ers as reported in research?
have been met with a paucity of research that examines how these a. What are the frameworks used to describe and analyze
studies are similar or different, including the methodological ap- noticing?
proaches researchers assume as they focus on noticing. Indeed, the b. What are the timescales used to support noticing and collect
research methods and frameworks employed in such studies shape data on noticing?
the outcomes of scholarship on teacher noticing. Thus, our aim in 2) What are commonalities and differences among methodologies
this literature review is to advance our collective understanding of studies on noticing with the prospective teacher population?
about teacher noticing in order to generate promising pathways a. How do these commonalities and differences relate to study
forward for future research on noticing, studies that are generative findings?
and build on each other in systematic ways. And while studies of
noticing have focused on teachers in different disciplines (e.g., We discuss the implications of this literature review for
science, literacy), we focus on teacher noticing research in mathe- designing learning experiences to support noticing and discuss the
matics as there is a large and established research base in this field implications for research on prospective teacher noticing moving
that goes back at least two decades (e.g. Mason, 2002). As such, the forward. As researchers assume varying definitions and processes
research base in mathematics provides a foundation for conducting for noticing, this review aims to provide the teacher education field
similar reviews in other disciplines where the study of teacher with a clear articulation of researchers’ foci when studying noticing
noticing has only more recently emerged. and what might be productive directions for future research on
In this literature review, we focus specifically on studies prospective teacher noticing.
involving prospective teacher noticing and pay particular attention
to the methodological approaches utilized in these studies. We 1. Context and purpose
focus on prospective teacher noticing because, as novices, pro-
spective teachers often lack the same wealth of experience and To review the literature, we considered the developing base of
expertise that practicing teachers bring to their noticing in the research on noticing in mathematics education. Arguably, the most
classroom (Huang & Li, 2012). Yet, noticing “is a learnable practice” noted or referenced works have been those of Mason (2002; 2011),
(Jacobs & Spangler, 2017, p. 772), with researchers demonstrating van Es and Sherin (2002; 2006; 2008), and Jacobs et al. (2010).
improvements in prospective teacher noticing in as little as one Recognizing that the most recent research on noticing has some
semester, for example (e.g., Star & Strickland, 2008). As such, re- connection to one of these works, or to all of them, we were
searchers have employed a range of different data collection and interested in synthesizing work on noticing to draw conclusions
analytic processes, and have designed and engaged prospective about how noticing is studied in the field of mathematics educa-
teachers in vastly different learning experiences (e.g., analysis of tion. We contend that teacher educators, or those working with
video, animation creation) that are implemented across different teachers, would benefit from understanding the interventions,
timespans (e.g., unit of study spanning a few weeks, an entire ac- programs, learning experiences or processes that are most salient
ademic year). At the same time, researchers have adopted different to support the learning of noticing. Yet, with various teacher edu-
data collection and analytic processes to describe prospective cators supporting professional learning on noticing in various ways
teacher noticing (e.g. studies that last a semester, studies that focus and then measuring noticing with unique approaches, researchers
on one point in time, etc.), with considerable differences in data vary in the extent to which they are systematic in the ways noticing
points even within the same type of learning experiences and is supported and measured. This is in part due to the variations in
timespans (e.g., pre-to post-across a semester, pre-to post-across a contexts and intended learning outcomes, but still points to the
multi-day unit; a single snapshot within a lesson). Such differences necessity to better understand the outcomes, given certain mea-
in methodological approaches make it challenging for researchers sures. The goal is to illuminate consistencies that may be prevalent
to compare results across studies. And while a majority of such among studies to provide future direction for both research and
studies draw on particular frameworks for teacher noticing (i.e., practice around noticing.
Jacobs et al., 2010; Mason, 2002; 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2006;
2008), it is not uncommon for researchers to take liberty with 1.1. Lineage of research on noticing
definitions and sequences, slowly losing fidelity to the original
authors’ initial point and purpose, and contributing to greater To provide a brief lineage of the research on noticing, many
variation in the scholarship on prospective teacher noticing. Thus, would contend that the roots of noticing stem from work on pro-
we argue that as a field we are limited in our ability to build on past fessional vision (Goodwin, 1994). Goodwin (1994) described pro-
research on prospective mathematics teacher noticing in genera- fessional vision as the precision of a person in a specific domain to
tive ways in the absence of a systematic review and analysis of articulate aspects of that profession, such as an archaeologist who
existing research. would use profession-specific language to describe soil. This is in
We conduct a systematic review of the data analysis processes contrast to someone outside of the archeology field describing soil.
used in the literature on prospective teacher noticing to synthesize Extrapolated to the teaching profession, those with a parallel
methodological dimensions of research on noticing; a task that has argument contend that teachers should be sensitized to notice
yet to be undertaken, even with the prominence of noticing features within the classroom that are most salient to support
research in teacher education. The intent is to examine the methods students’ development (Mason, 2002, 2011). Building from the
used to obtain data on prospective teacher noticing. Specific work that delineates experts from novices, Mason (2002) argued
attention is given to: a) the noticing frameworks researchers use, b) professionals need to overcome habituations and increase sensi-
the learning experience timescale, meaning length of the learning tivity to distinguish intentional noticing from ordinary noticing. At
2
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

a similar time, van Es and Sherin (2002) drew on Berliner (1994) in Mathematics Education (JRME) for articles on prospective teach-
and Frederiksen (1992) to describe noticing as identifying what is ers, mathematics, and noticing. We singled out this journal because
important about a classroom situation, making connections be- it was one of two most cited and respected journals in mathematics
tween specific actions and broader principles of teaching and education by a substantial margin (Williams & Leatham, 2017) and
learning, and using what is known to reason about interactions. As of the two, has published the most studies on noticing. This review
their research on teacher noticing progressed (van Es & Sherin, of JRME was done as a check to ensure our main search process was
2006, 2008), the definition of noticing was further refined, culmi- comprehensive. The search covered articles written in English and
nating in van Es’s (2011) published framework for Learning to Notice published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or monographs. We
mathematical thinking. van Es (2011) included a focus on what and did not include books or book chapters because of variability in
how teachers notice, extrapolated across four different levels of review and acceptance processes. We confined our search to
expertise with descriptors for all. Around the same time, Jacobs 2000e2017 because research on noticing particularly emerged
et al. (2010) published a seminal piece in which they coined the around 2002 (van Es & Sherin, 2002). The entire search returned
term Professional Noticing of Children’s Mathematical Thinking. They 611 articles.
argued that noticing included attending to children’s mathematical
thinking, interpreting that thinking, and making decisions to 2.2. Selection of articles
respond on the basis of that thinking. Jacobs et al. (2010) described
teacher noticing as limited, lacking, or robust as a means to char- Three steps were taken to select relevant articles from the initial
acterize differences in the aforementioned three part process of result for our review. First, the title or abstract of the article had to
attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond. have a variant of the words mathematics or noticing, to ensure the
Along with these works, some researchers have developed their overall focus the article was consistent with our intent. Second, the
own frameworks (e.g. Kilic, 2018; Meikle, 2014; Son, 2013) while article had to report empirical research that was conducted in a
others have modified existing definitions or frameworks for mathematics methods or mathematics content course in a post-
noticing (e.g. Callejo & Zapatera, 2017). The need for modifications secondary institution. Finally, the article had to address the
has stemmed from new findings about teacher noticing, such as the development or measurement of noticing. Two researchers
difficulty in separating attending and interpreting (Castro Superfine, reviewed all 611 search results for compliance with the afore-
Fisher, Bragelman, & Amador, 2017) and the inclusion of evidence mentioned criteria. To do this, each researcher went through
as a form of productive noticing (Phelps-Gregory & Spitzer, 2018; approximately 300 articles to initially identify whether mathe-
Spitzer, Phelps, Beyers, Johnson, & Sieminski, 2011). The variation matics or noticing was present in the title or abstract. In cases
in frameworks used has given rise to questions about methodo- where it was present, the researcher read the paper to determine
logical decisions. As a result, the purpose of this systematic litera- whether or not this study was in a mathematics content or methods
ture review was to reorient the field on teacher noticing across course and whether or not the research focused on the develop-
framings, methods, analysis, and context. Even more, the purpose ment or measurement of noticing. In instances that were unclear,
was to explicate the nuances that are present in the multitude of the second researcher read the manuscript and the two researchers
empirical studies on prospective teacher noticing to provide a way met to reconcile differences; this process supported the researchers
to describe and discuss differences in studies. If, as a field, the intent to come to a shared understand about the criteria (validity). This
is to support prospective teacher noticing, teacher educators need review resulted in 47 articles that fit the criteria. These articles
awareness of the divergence within the existing studies. Awareness became the focus for the present review.
of existing studies and their coordination would provide teacher
educators the language and understanding necessary to make 2.3. Analysis of the articles
intentional decisions for future learning experiences about how
noticing is taught and measured. The review of the research articles involved four phases: initial
analysis of a subset of the articles (phase one), initial analysis of all
2. Method articles (phase two), additional data screening (phase three), and
focused analysis on data collection and analysis (phase four).
Recognizing the importance of studying the noticing practices of Phase one. To analyze the 47 articles, each of the three authors
prospective teachers, we were aware of the many variants in how independently read and analyzed three of the articles for the
noticing is both taught and measured. Specifically, we were inter- following data: (a) research questions, (b) outcome, (c) outcome
ested in better understanding the variations in the measurement of explanation, (d) course, (e) participant description, (f) artifacts in
noticing. Consequently, we conducted a systematic review of the intervention, (g) artifacts for measurement, (h) instrument, (i) in-
literature using a research synthesis process (Booth, 2016) to pro- strument depth, (j) timescale, (k) coding framework, (l) coding
vide insight about the use of various analytic processes for method, (m) noticing focus, and (n) how noticing develops. Table 1
assessing noticing of prospective teachers. includes brief descriptors and examples of these categories. These
categories were selected because we considered them exhaustive
2.1. Literature search in capturing the essence of the studies under focus. All findings
were recorded with tables.
Two researchers conducted a literature search consulting ERIC Phase two. The three authors then met to compare and discuss
using the following search terms “preservice teachers”, “prospec- our entries for each category and to discuss the level of depth
tive teachers”, “PSTs”, “new teachers”, “beginning teachers”, necessary for the contents of each category. This process focused on
“methods course”, “content course”, “teacher preparation” or “PTs” ensuring descriptors for each category was sufficiently nuanced.
AND “mathematics” “maths”, or “math” AND “noticing”, “Profes- After reconciling the decisions made for the first three articles, the
sional Noticing”, “notice”, “attend”, or “interpret”. This resulted in remaining articles were divided and each author was responsible
136 unique searches. We then consulted JSTOR and the National for reading and noting the categories for 16 articles. In assigning the
Council of Teachers of Mathematics Publication search (NCTM, articles, we ensured that we did not review any articles for which a
2019) using the terms “preservice” AND “mathematics”, AND particular author on this paper was the author on the paper being
“noticing”. We then searched every issue of the Journal of Research analyzed.
3
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

Table 1
Coding categories and descriptions.

Coding Category Description

Research Questions Verbatim Research Questions

Outcome Descriptor serving as simplification of results (e.g. negative, positive, mixed, weak/moderate/high (if statistics were used))
Outcome Explanation Explanation of the outcome identified in preceding category
Course Description of context for participants (e.g. methods course, content course, field experience)
Participant Description Number of participant, grade level band descriptor (e.g. 24 prospective elementary teachers)
Artifacts in Intervention Descriptor of what the participants did or took part in (e.g. videocase, coursework, lesson study meetings)
Artifacts for Measurement Descriptor of the artifact collected for data analysis (e.g. transcript of meetings, written reflections, pre-post interviews)
Instrument Descriptor of instrument (e.g. interview protocol, discussion prompts, planning forms)
Instrument Depth Descriptor of instrument (e.g. 30 question interview protocol, 5 discussion prompts, planning form focused on students’ thinking)
Timescale Length of time between measurement or duration of measurement (e.g. semester, pre-post)
Coding Framework Framework from literature that was used in coding (e.g. Learning to Notice, Pedagogical Content Knowledge)
Coding Method Descriptor of how the researchers code noticing (e.g. capability, pre-post change, overall)
Noticing Focus Descriptor of aspect of noticing that is the focus (e.g. attending and interpreting, agent, and topic)
How Noticing Develops Descriptor of means by which noticing develops (e.g. trajectory, fluidity, shifts in moments)

Phase three. After this initial analysis, two authors then Framework, authors used Anghilerio (2006) for scaffolding prac-
analyzed the 47 articles again, this time to institute another cycle of tices, Mathematically Significant Pedagogical Opportunities
data screening to ensure the captured articles were empirical and (MOSTs) (Leatham, Peterson, Stockero, & Van Zoest, 2015), Peda-
focused on prospective teacher noticing (note: earlier screenings gogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986), and questioning
were to determine if an article was empirical/not empirical, but (Moyer-Packenham & Milewicz, 2002). Fig. 1 shows the data
those reviews did not specify that the empirical nature had to be screening and analysis process to this point in the review processes,
with the prospective teacher audience and noticing). The popula- orienting on research that adhered to or explicitly modified either
tion under study could include participants who were not pro- the Learning to Notice Framework (van Es, 2011) or the Professional
spective teachers (e.g. practicing teachers) in addition to the Noticing of Children’s Mathematical Thinking Framework (Jacobs
prospective teachers, but had to include prospective teachers, in et al., 2010).
part. This resulted in 43 articles. From the 43 articles, two of the framework categories (See
Phase four. Once the 43 focal studies were identified, articles Figure 1, right) included articles that were specific to noticing:
were then analyzed again for specifics about the data collection and Learning to Notice and Professional Noticing of Children’s Mathe-
analysis. Articles were analyzed for: (a) coding framework or matical Thinking. The frameworks researchers used within “other
analysis process, meaning did researchers mention a specific specific framework” were not specific to noticing. For example, one
noticing framework for analysis and how did they code their data, article used the MOST Framework (Leatham et al., 2015), which is
(b) timescale for learning experience, meaning how long was the not a framework for analyzing noticing but rather is a framework
learning experience or how long were prospective teachers worked for identifying important moments in lessons. Due to our focus on
with to develop noticing, (c) data types, meaning what was noticing, we center the analysis on the 27 articles that specifically
collected, and (d) timescale for data collection, meaning were data used one of the two most commonly cited frameworks on noticing.
collected at one given point or where they collected over a period of None of the other articles in the review used any framework spe-
time. cific to noticing. As such, those articles were not considered for
Analysis for Coding Framework. To conduct the analysis for the further analysis. As previously referenced, the Learning to Notice
coding framework, two authors each independently read the Framework (van Es, 2011) stems from the work of van Es and Sherin
method section of each paper under study. They open coded to (2002; 2006; 2008) and is a framework for Learning to Notice
identify the methodological framework used in the studies. In some student mathematical thinking. The framework has two main cat-
instances, the authors of the articles under study were very explicit egories: What Teachers Notice and How Teachers Notice. Within
about the framework they had used. In other instances it was less each of these categories there are four dimensions to describe the
transparent. For example, Mitchell and Marin (2015) refer to por- level of noticing: Level 1-Baseline, Level 2-Mixed, Level 3-Focused,
tions of interviews and classroom clips or noticing instances. They and Level 4-Extended. With the Professional Noticing Framework
stated, “Each of these clips was coded in three categories: Agent, (Jacobs et al., 2010) artifacts of practice are considered for the
Topic, or Stance (van Es & Sherin, 2006, p. 127). These categories extent to which one attends, interprets, and decides how to
describe what the participant noticed in the clip and how they respond. For this type of analysis, Jacobs et al. (2010) assigned an
talked about what they noticed” (p. 561). Although Mitchell and overall score for each of these components and considered the
Marin (2015) were very specific in their framework application highest level across the data set as an example of what a participant
(i.e. using the Learning to Notice Framework of van Es and Sherin), could do. Overall scores were classified as (a) robust evidence, (b)
some articles required more inference on the part of the re- limited evidence, or (c) lack of evidence of interpretation of chil-
searchers or required consideration of the definition of noticing dren’s understandings.
used in the research. If the framework was not clear, the analysis
process was coded as such. Five clear coding framework categories
were identified: (a) Learning to Notice Framework (van Es, 2011), 2.4. Analysis of articles with noticing framework
(b) Professional Noticing of Children’s Mathematical Thinking
Framework (Jacobs et al., 2010), (c) Other Specific Framework, (d) Following the aforementioned analysis, the focus was to un-
No clear Framework, but open coded, and (e) Framework not derstand more about the 27 articles in which the authors used
specified. Of the 43 articles, 27 referenced use of the Learning to noticing as a framework, either the Professional Noticing Frame-
Notice Framework (n ¼ 15) or the Professional Noticing Framework work or the Learning to Notice Framework. We analyzed these ar-
(n ¼ 12), or some variant of one of these. For Other Specified ticles for: learning experience timescale, data types, data collection
timescale, and broad findings.
4
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

Analysis for Learning Experience Timescale. With our review understanding the types of data collected as a measure of noticing.
refined to research emanating from the Professional Noticing and Data types were open coded, based on deliverables: written
Learning to Notice Frameworks, we turned to contextual factors of documentation, technological artifact (e.g. an animation), and
the studies. We were interested in understanding the amount of video/audio or transcript. Some researchers collected more than
time those working with the prospective teachers spent with the one of these types of data, which resulted in some combined cat-
participants in the studies to support noticing. We analyzed all egories that include: (a) written documentation and technological
articles for the duration of time spent with the given participants in artifact, (b) written documentation only, (c) written documentation
the article. For example, if the article included a pre- and post- and video/audio or transcript, and (d) video/audio or transcript
measure over the course of a semester, we were interested in only. Each article identified with one of these four categories.
knowing that the process was over the course of a semester. If the Analysis for Data Collection Timescale. In addition to analysis
focus was a one-time workshop, then we noted that the timescale of the learning experience timescale and the type of data collected,
was a single instance. All articles in the review were coded as either we also analyzed the articles for the data collection timescale. We
(a) single instance, (b) greater than single instance less than a se- considered the data collection timescale to be the amount of time
mester, or (c) semester in duration. We recognize that not all in- or instances of time over which data were collected, for studies that
stitutions have the same duration for a semester, but we report focused on the development of noticing. For example, if data were
these collectively with the consideration that the duration is likely collected as a pre- and post-measure, we consider that to be a dual
quite similar. All 27 studies were classified on the basis of one of time point measure. Five categories were identified to analyze data
these three timescales for the learning experience, again meaning collection timescale: (a) N/A, meaning not applicable because the
the amount of time spent with the participants to support noticing. study did not focus on the development of noticing (instead they
Analysis for Data Types. Following analysis to determine the focused on evaluating different mediums or artifact types, etc.), (b)
learning experience timescale, we were interested in single time point, (c) dual time point, (d) multiple time point, and

Fig. 1. Data screening and analysis process from initial search to identification of analysis frameworks.

5
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

(e) multiple time point-presented in aggregate. The aggregate include the results from the 27 studies, broadly defined, as an
versus regular designation signifies how the data were presented in illustrative means to further emphasize the difficulties of drawing
the paper. In other words, authors in the aggregate category treated conclusions about methods to support noticing.
the multiple time points, in reporting terms, as a single outcome
(i.e. noticing in methods course). 3. Results
Analysis of Findings, Broadly Defined. Following the analysis
for the methodological decisions, two researchers read the 27 focal In this section, we summarize the results of the analysis of the
articles in their entirety and classified the articles based on whether 27 focal articles in tables and provide examples from the research
the outcome for participants’ noticing was in one of four categories: articles reviewed. We focus on the quantity of articles within each
a) Improved, Positive, or Higher Level of Noticing, b) Stagnant or methodological category (i.e. timescale for learning experience,
Mixed Level, or Inconsistent, c) Declined, Negative, or Lower Level data types, timescale for data collected) and provide details about
of Noticing, or d) Other, Not able to Categorize. The first category the contents of each category. We are concerned with quantity as it
(Improved, Positive, or Higher Level of Noticing) included studies provides indication of the concentration areas of research on
that showed growth in participant noticing over time and studies noticing. For each section, we report first articles based on the
that reported participants with a higher level of noticing (e.g. in- Professional Noticing of Children’s Mathematical Thinking Frame-
ferences according to the Learning to Notice framework) or were work (herein referenced as Professional Noticing) and then the
coded as robust (e.g. Professional Noticing Framework). The second Learning to Notice Framework. We then aggregate these results and
category (Stagnant or Mixed Level, or Inconsistent) included highlight instances where articles that are similar with respect to
studies that showed varying results, often dependent on different the given category (i.e. timescale for learning experience, data
populations of individuals or studies that reported moderate levels types, timescale for data collected) are clustered.
of noticing (e.g. Limited for the Professional Noticing Framework).
The third category (Declined, Negative, or Lower Level of Noticing) 3.1. Timescale for learning experience
included studies in which participants noticed at lower levels (e.g.
descriptive on the Learning to Notice Framework) or noticing Fig. 2 provides an overview of the quantity of articles for the
declined over time. The final category (Other, Not able to Catego- three descriptors related to timescale for the intervention (i.e.
rize) occurred when the researchers compared participants’ single instances, more than single instances less than semester, and
noticing to some framework (e.g. Mathematical Knowledge for semester).
Teaching) or were not clear in the outcomes with respect to the As evidenced in Fig. 2, of the 12 articles in which authors based
other three categories. Two independent researchers analyzed each their work on the framework of Jacobs et al. (2010), 3 (25%) pro-
study for an overall code and then reconciled differences. To ensure vided a learning experience with a single instance, 1 (8.3%) pro-
validity, these reconciliation conversations focused on collectively vided a learning experience lasting more than a single instance and
rereading aspects of an article and discussing the particular com- less than a semester, and 8 (66.7%) provided a learning experience
ponents to arrive at a consensus. However, we strongly emphasize that was a semester in duration, indicating that most learning ex-
that classifying the articles in this way was challenging because the periences were a semester in length. In comparison, of the 15 ar-
methodology of the 27 studies were highly variable, as will be ticles in which authors based their work on the framework of van Es
described in the results section. There are numerous nuances in (2011) and van Es and Sherin (2008), 4 (26.7%) provided a learning
studies that make coming to one conclusion based on these cate- experience with a single instance, 0 (0%) provided a learning
gories highly difficult. Therefore, we include data on the outcomes experience lasting more than a single instance and less than a se-
of the 27 studies for the purpose of arguing for a clearer focus on mester, and 11 (73.3%) provided a learning experience that was a
the variance in methodologies of studies on noticing and to provide semester in duration. In aggregate, 70.4% of the articles provided a
a broad landscape of the findings of these works. Even though we learning experience that was a semester in duration. This indicates
arrived at a final category for each study, there are arguments that that those researching prospective teacher noticing provided sup-
could likely be made for changing the categorization of studies. We ports that typically spanned one semester in duration. This is not

Fig. 2. Breakdown of timescale for learning experience.

6
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

surprising given that most support described within these articles 2010). As noted in Fig. 3, the most common type of data was
occurred in courses in teacher education programs (e.g. methods written documentation alone (41.7%) and a combination of written
course, content course), which are typically defined by semesters or documentation and video/audio or transcript (41.7%). Video/Audio
quarters. Although, it should also be noted that more than a quarter or transcript alone was less common (16.7%). In aggregate, 83.3% of
of the articles focused on one instance of a learning experience, the research studies included some type of written document as
meaning the time to teach noticing or support noticing was limited evidence of noticing.
to one given time point. As an example of a single instance, Dreher Fig. 4 shows the timescale (left) coordinated with the form of
and Kuntze (2015) gave participants a questionnaire with vignette- data collection (top horizontally) for articles in which the authors
based questions to elicit theme-specific noticing. We conclude that based their work on the Learning to Notice Framework (van Es,
most researchers confined the learning experiences on noticing to 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2008). As noted in the figure, the most
one semester, which is helpful for considering the changes that common type of data was written documentation alone (33.3%%)
occur in that given timeframe. These findings suggest that re- and a combination of written documentation with similar numbers
searchers could examine the development of noticing when the for written document and video/audio or transcript (26.7%) and
learning experience is longer than a semester in duration. Studies video/audio or transcript alone (26.7%). Two of the studies (13.3%)
exploring how a longer intervention period could support noticing used written documentation and a technological artifact. These
would be helpful to better understand ways to support prospective results show no clear preference for particular types of data
teachers and to know if there is a relation between duration of collection. In two instances, the same author collected data in
learning experience and noticing capabilities. different ways. For example, Amador has been author or coauthor
on articles in each of the four categories. Similarly, van Es, Carter,
and Estapa have been author or coauthor on articles in three of the
3.2. Data types
four categories, indicating variation in how authors collect data,
even when all studies are focused on noticing. Overall, written
After differentiating extant noticing research on the timescale of
documentation was the most common type of data collected.
the intervention utilized, we next synthesized research based on
Table 2 shows the combined number of studies by time scale of
artifacts supplied by prospective teachers when asked to notice.
the learning experience (left) and the type of artifact collected
Fig. 3 shows the timescale (left) coordinated with the form of data
(top). Of note, this table does not differentiate by noticing frame-
collection (top horizontally) for articles in which the authors based
work. The table displays both the frequency and the proportion for
their work on the Professional Noticing Framework (Jacobs et al.,

Fig. 3. Type of data collected for researchers using Professional Noticing Framework (Ding & Domínguez, 2016; Schack et al., 2013; Walkoe, 2015; Weiland (Carter) & Amador, 2015;
Weiland, Hudson, & Amador, 2014).

7
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

Fig. 4. Type of data collected for researchers using Learning to Notice Framework (Amador & Weiland, 2015; Amador, Carter, & Hudson, 2016a; Amador, Weston, Estapa, Kosko, & de
Araujo, 2016b; Amador, 2017; Amador, Estapa, de Araujo, Weston, & Kosko, 2017; Amador & Carter, 2018; Estapa & Amador, 2016).

each intersection in relation to the 27 total studies. For example, both of these types of data, meaning written and audio. For
four studies (14.8%) used a learning experience that lasted a single example, Mitchell and Marin (2015) focused on changes in pro-
instance and collected data through written documentation. spective teachers’ noticing as a result of participation in a video
Analysis of the aggregate data (across the 27 studies) indicate club. Data collected included videos of the video clubs and written
that 51.8% of studies on prospective teacher noticing had a learning documentation of an observation protocol, making the data both
experience that lasted a semester and data were collected in either written documentation and a video. These findings indicate that
written documentation or written documentation and video/audio writing was the primary medium for gathering data on prospective
or transcript, meaning exactly what prospective teachers wrote or teacher noticing. This raises questions about other ways to access
said. When combined with video/audio or transcript only, 70.3% of prospective teacher noticing that may be similarly advantageous, or
the timescales were a semester in duration and 77.7% of the studies even provide a greater glimpse into noticing. Based on these find-
included data collected in written form. ings, researchers may want to consider other mechanisms that may
As an example of written documentation, Thomas, Jong, Fisher, not have been as fully explored for capturing data (i.e. technological
and Schack (2017) gave prospective teachers assessments of Pro- mediums that may capture information, interview data, etc.)
fessional Noticing that required open-ended written responses. In
other studies, (e.g. Ding & Dominguez) researchers relied solely on 3.3. Timescale for data collected
video/audio or transcript records. As an illustration, Roth McDuffie
et al. (2014) engaged prospective teachers in a video analysis ac- Void of the consideration for the type of data collected, we were
tivity and used audio and video data from small group and whole interested in comparing the timescale for learning experiences and
group discussions as the focus for analysis. And yet others gathered the timescale for data collected, for studies that were focused on

Table 2
Timescale for learning experience and data type (n ¼ 27).

Written Document and Technological Written Written Document and Video/Audio or Video/Audio or
Artifact Document Transcript Transcript

Single Instance 1 (3.7%) 4 (14.8%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (7.4%)

More than Single; Less than 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Semester
Semester 1 (3.7%) 6 (22.2%) 8 (29.6%) 4 (14.8%)

8
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

the development of noticing. In other words, researchers could points are considered collectively, whether presented in aggregate
provide support for prospective teacher noticing over a certain or not.
duration (e.g. semester) and then measure noticing using a The most common timescale for data collected was a semester,
different timescale (e.g. dual point). Fig. 5 shows the timescale (left) with 70.3% of researchers collecting data on the development of
coordinated with the timescale for data collection (top horizon- noticing across a semester. Most of these researchers collected data
tally) for articles in which the authors based their work on the at two points in the semester (dual time point) or many times in the
Professional Noticing Framework (Jacobs et al., 2010). semester (multiple time point); however, the quantity of multiple
As mentioned, a majority of studies lasted a semester; however, time points varied depending on the study. This finding is not all
there was no clear trend when the data collection occurred within that surprising given that the timescale for learning experiences
that semester. As evidenced in the N/A column (both Figs. 5 and 6), was most commonly a semester in length. Additionally, there were
some studies did not specifically target the development of noticing several studies in which the researchers supported noticing in a
over time, so we did not consider those in relation to the time for single instance and measured noticing at that single time point
data collection. (22.2%). These findings are interesting because they show a lack of
Fig. 6 shows the timescale (left) coordinated with the timescale coordination among studies for collecting data at similar intervals.
for data collection (top horizontally) for articles in which the au- In other words, researchers who teach noticing over the course of a
thors based their work on the Learning to Notice Framework (van semester are not all measuring noticing at the same frequency. This
Es, 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2008). makes it difficult to compare studies because the data collection
For studies that were a duration in a semester for supporting timescales are different.
noticing, many in Fig. 6 collected data at a dual time point, yet Examining these ideas further, the studies that occurred at a
others were at different intervals. Of the focal studies, Table 3 single time point and in which the researchers collected data at one
shows the combined numbers of studies for each category, when time typically focused on differentiating noticing by expertise level
the frameworks are considered collectively and multiple time or by representation medium. In other words, researchers

Fig. 5. Learning experience timescale and data collection timescale (Ding & Domínguez, 2016; Schack et al., 2013; Walkoe, 2015; Weiland (Carter) & Amador, 2015; Weiland et al.,
2014).

9
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

Fig. 6. Learning experience timescale and data collection timescale (Amador & Weiland, 2015; Amador, Carter et al., 2016a; Amador, Weston et al., 2016b; Amador, 2017; Amador
et al., 2017; Amador & Carter, 2018; de Araujo et al., 2015; Estapa & Amador, 2016).

Table 3
Timescale for learning experience (left) and the timescale for data collected (top) for both frameworks.

N/A Single Time Point Dual Time Point Multiple Time Point

Single Instance 1 (3.7%) 6 (22.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

More than Single; Less than Semester 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Semester 2 (7.4%) 2 (7.4%) 7 (25.9%) 8 (29.6%)

10
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

Fig. 7. Outcomes of Studies in which researchers referenced the Professional Noticing framework (Ding & Domínguez, 2016; Schack et al., 2013; Walkoe, 2015; Weiland (Carter) &
Amador, 2015; Weiland et al., 2014).

examined how prospective teachers communicated noticing in highlight the little attention given to how the development actually
writing and through technology at the same time (e.g. de Araujo occurred.
et al., 2015). Researchers who collected data at dual time points
typically employed a focus on comparing pre data (beginning of the
semester) to post data (end of the semester). This suggests that 3.4. Analysis of Findings, broadly defined
measuring noticing was used more as a means of program evalu-
ation for broad trends in prospective teacher noticing (e.g. Star & Analysis of the findings of the results sections for each study
Strickland, 2008). Researchers who gathered data at multiple were categorized as a) Improved, Positive, or Higher Level of
time points more commonly centered on understanding the Noticing, b) Stagnant or Mixed Level, or Inconsistent, c) Declined,
development of noticing over time (e.g. Amador & Weiland, 2018; Negative, or Lower Level of Noticing, or d) Other, Not able to
Osmanoglu, Isiksal, & Koc, 2015). These findings raise questions Categorize. Fig. 7 shows the categorization for the studies based on
about the intentionality of the researchers with respect to the the Professional Noticing Framework.
research design and the frequency at which they collected data As evidenced in Fig. 7, a majority of the studies showed stagnant,
versus the duration of the intervention they used. Findings also mixed level, or inconsistent results. This means that the studies did
not show a definite positive or negative outcome, or the studies
11
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

Fig. 8. Outcomes of Studies in which researchers referenced the Learning to Notice framework (Amador & Weiland, 2015; Amador, Carter et al., 2016a; Amador, Westonet al., 2016b;
Amador, 2017; Amador et al., 2017; Amador & Carter, 2018; de Araujo et al., 2015; Estapa & Amador, 2016).

12
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

included participants from various experience levels who noticed particular frameworks were preferential, recognizing the reliance
differently, (e.g. Jacobs et al., 2010) or studies did not demonstrate on the Professional Noticing Framework (i.e. Jacobs et al., 2010) and
substantive participant growth across time. Two studies showed a Learning to Notice Framework (van Es, 2011; van Es & Sherin, 2008)
decline in noticing or had participants who consistently noticed at is helpful for two reasons. First, researchers studying noticing
lower levels (e.g. Castro Superfine, Li, Bragelman, & Fisher, 2015). should recognize the prevalence of these two frameworks in the
The findings from studies in which researchers relied on the literature and make a deliberate choice about framework selection
Learning to Notice Framework show a greater percent of overall as they design their study. Second, this synthesis has highlighted
studies with Improved, Positive, or Higher Level of Noticing, as the divergence in methods for the included studies, yet the
evidenced in Fig. 8. convergence on theories of noticing stands in stark contrast. As a
Those using the Learning to Notice Framework more commonly result, teacher educators should be aware of the heavy presence of
reported improvements in participant noticing (e.g. van Es, Cashen, these two frameworks in this literature to recognize potential
Barnhart, & Auger, 2017) as compared to those using the Profes- affordances and constraints that come from similar framings in
sional Noticing Framework; however, there are many explanatory research studies.
reasons for the difference and these findings do not suggest that Additionally, the analysis of the results of the 27 focal studies,
one framework is preferential over the other. The main takeaway based on the two main frameworks shows differences in the pos-
from this analysis is the conclusion that the studies on noticing vary itivity of the results, with researchers who used the Learning to
in the findings and that it is difficult to draw conclusions based on Notice Framework showing positive results or higher levels of
existing studies. As shown in Figs. 7 and 8, there are no clear pat- noticing more often than those using the Professional Noticing
terns to say that researchers who relied on a particular framework Framework. The difference in the study outcomes based on the
for a given time period for data collection had the greatest impact different frameworks raises questions about how the frameworks
on teacher’ noticing skills. Figs. 7 and 8 show a lack of coordination are perceived and the methodological choices that are made for the
among the findings from the studies. learning experiences and data collection associated with each
framework, as well as the participant populations associated with
4. Discussion each study. Specific questions are also raised about the actual
frameworks themselves. The Professional Noticing Framework (i.e.
The results of the literature synthesis indicate that, although the Jacobs et al., 2010) is called a Professional noticing framework. We
study of prospective teacher noticing in mathematics is a very conjecture that the experience level of the participants in this study
specific focus, there is a wide divergence in the methods for col- (i.e. prospective teachers who may be more novice) in a given study
lecting and analyzing data (e.g. length of learning experience, etc.). should be considered alongside framework applied to data. For
Four important findings were evident in the data. First, most re- example, should the Professional Noticing Framework be used to
searchers used one of two specific frameworks (i.e. Professional understand noticing of novice educators, such as prospective
Noticing/Learning to Notice) for their analysis process. Second, teachers, or are there other ways to assess noticing of novice edu-
most noticing was captured via written documentation (77.7% of cators? Should the Learning to Notice Framework only be used with
studies). Third, almost a quarter of the studies (22.2%) provided a novice teachers who have yet to learn to notice or is it appropriate
one-time learning experience and captured noticing in a single to use that framework to analyze data of more experienced edu-
instance. Fourth, a majority of researchers (59.2% of the articles) cators? These considerations call into question the choices re-
used repeated measures (either pre-post or multiple time points) to searchers make about the various methodological decisions raised
collect data on noticing. The following elaborates on each of these in this synthesis and the appropriateness of particular frameworks
findings and concludes with recommendations for teacher for particular data sets. Teacher educators may also want to
education. consider the frameworks they use with prospective teachers as
they consider a trajectory of noticing.
4.1. Noticing framework use Further, we emphasize the difficulty in even trying to define
whether the results were a) Improved, Positive, or Higher Level of
Although the methodological processes of the focal studies Noticing, b) Stagnant or Mixed Level, or Inconsistent, c) Declined,
varied widely, the frameworks used for analysis were less varied Negative, or Lower Level of Noticing, or d) Other, Not able to
(i.e. Jacobs et al., 2010; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Recall that of the 43 Categorize, as the conditions under which the studies occurred
studies that fit the initial criteria, 27 of the articles used one of two varied so dramatically. As evidenced in Figs. 3e6, there were many
widely adopted definitions for noticing, and none of the other variations in the methodological decisions of the researchers with
studies included an analytic framework on noticing. Given our respect to timescale for learning experience, data types, and
emphasis in the literature review to mathematics teacher noticing, timescale for data collected. The variation makes it difficult to draw
it follows that the who most common frameworks employed were any real conclusions from analyzing the findings. Our point being
from mathematics education literature Although the main outcome that coordinating findings across research studies is challenging
of this synthesis points to the differences in methodology of the because the methodological decisions of researchers are so varied.
studies, it is important for the teacher education field to recognize Our work shows that most researchers rely on one of two frame-
the preference given to these two frameworks across the noticing works, but the divergence in other aspects of the methodology
literature in mathematics. make fully deciphering results difficult.
The frequent use of the Learning to Notice Framework (van Es,
2011; van Es & Sherin, 2008) and the Professional Noticing 4.2. Written documentation
Framework (Jacobs et al., 2010) give rise to questions about why
these were most commonly used, and only used noticing frame- A second notable outcome is that 77.7% of the studies analyzed
works, particularly given the time-lapse between their publication (of the 27) used some form of written documentation to capture
dates and the current date. Mason (2002; 2011) has been collo- prospective teacher noticing. Although this is a common method
quially referenced as the father of noticing, and many studies for data collection, essentially what is written is a proxy for teacher
mentioned his work, yet few studies positioned his work as central noticing. In other words, writing is a medium through which the
to their focus. Although our focus was not on determining why prospective teachers expressed their noticing, but in the process of
13
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

writing, the actual noticing of prospective teachers could be lost or teacher noticing occurred or changed to how prospective teachers
misrepresented. The ability to write, and the clarity of writing, are developing the skill of noticing.
contributed to how the “noticing” was perceived as the data were
analyzed. This speaks to the apparent difficulty to capture teacher 4.5. Cross study conclusions
noticing in the moments in which it takes place. Some researchers
have gone so far as having teachers capture their own video (e.g. A key goal of this study was to find a way to analyze researchers’
Sherin & Dyer, 2017) in the moment of instruction to indicate methodological choices of existing literature on noticing. In
noticing and other researchers have used interviews or recall particular, the intent was to find commonalities among the diver-
stimulation. These various methods all assume their own chal- gence of articles on noticing and to describe the differences.
lenges; the important take away is to encourage researchers to Although this review has highlighted the difficulty in comparing
consider how they assess teacher noticing, meaning how they studies and there is no simple recommendation for duration of
actually have teachers communicate what they notice, as this could study, data collection method, or timescale for the learning expe-
have implications for research results. rience, this review provides a clear categorization of the existing
studies on prospective teacher noticing, specific to mathematics.
4.3. Single experience and single capture With the abundance of studies on noticing and the dearth of
research that synthesizes any aspect through a systemic review of
A third important finding is that almost one-quarter (22.2%) of the literature, this article is a contribution to both the mathematics
the studies reported analysis in which prospective teachers education field, as well as the teacher education field more broadly,
engaged in a single opportunity, meaning researchers collected given that the mathematics is the field with the greatest quantity of
data about noticing in one instance and provided a learning expe- studies on noticing (see Schack et al., 2017; Sherin et al., 2011). The
rience in one instance; sometimes these were simultaneous. Re- close examination of the articles resulted in definable categories
sults from these types of studies provide data on how a particular (i.e. timescale for learning experience, timescale for data collection)
prospective teacher noticed at a given point in time. As an example, that were not previously defined in research. The knowledge
Sun and van Es (2015) analyzed videos from a performance gained from analysis specific to these categories provides re-
assessment in which prospective teachers submitted video evi- searchers with a lens to consider as they consume research and
dence of their noticing. In this process, the experience (taking the plan for professional learning experiences. Professionals, such as
video) and the data collection (one video submitted) were the teacher educators in content or methods courses in mathematics or
single instances. Depending on the intent of the researcher, single a different discipline, or who are looking to develop or measure
instance data collection and single instance learning experiences noticing, can determine where their planned studies would lie
could be helpful, as the data could serve as an assessment of within our analysis and have the opportunity to read or examine
noticing at a given timepoint. However, we encourage researchers studies of others with similar parameters. This may inform those
and teacher educators to be explicit about their desired outcomes working with prospective teachers to develop noticing and may be
from a learning experience or data collection process and consider a starting ground for considering future learning experiences. The
the benefits or drawbacks of the process. From their work, Sun and findings of this synthesis provide a common language for discus-
van Es (2015) note that their conclusions have implications for sing the differences among studies, which can also support
defining pedagogy for teacher preparation to develop competency research design.
among novice educators. Therefore, we note the possible positive Additionally, this review has highlighted areas for possible
outcomes of this practice, but also encourage researchers to be study, or areas that have been given seemingly little attention in the
cognizant of their intentions when collecting these type of data. research literature. Notably, the focal studies in this review were
constrained to a semester or less (note that other studies with
4.4. Dual or multiple time points for data collection practicing teachers often span longer than a semester). This limited
timeframe indicates a dearth of research on the development of
Another key takeaway is that a majority of the articles studied prospective teacher noticing between courses or across a sequence
included dual or multiple time points or data collection. In fact, of courses. In other words, research on the development of noticing
29.6% of the studies reported data collection at dual time points, as prospective teachers transition from a content course to a
commonly a pre-post measure, and 29.6% of the studies reported methods course and beyond, in a longitudinal study of the same
data collection at multiple time points, meaning repeated mea- population, are almost entirely absent, if they exist at all (we did not
sures. Some researchers who reported multiple time points re- find evidence of this in our review, specific to noticing). We
ported findings in aggregate and others did not. When considering recognize that Jacobs et al. (2010) examined development of
the development of noticing, these measures could be helpful for noticing of groups of teachers with differing experience levels (e.g.,
analyzing changes in given participants over a duration of time. If prospective teachers, practicing teachers participating in profes-
the goal is to support the development of noticing, then measuring sional development), but not with the same group of teachers over
noticing over time would provide data to indicate whether or not time. Consequently, the field does not know if prospective teachers’
advances in noticing are being made. As an example, Kilic (2018) expertise at noticing improves or atrophies over their coursework
and Kilic and Tunc Pekkan (2017) both reported data collected throughout their teacher preparation program, or during the course
from multiple time points as an aggregate. In the present study, of alternative preparation programs, or the like. Researchers could
59.2% of the studies reported on noticing over time, suggesting that examine the shifts in prospective teacher noticing over longer du-
many researchers are interested in tracking noticing at various time rations of time.
points. This is important because these types of studies provide
indication about the trajectory of noticing for novice educators, 4.6. Application beyond mathematics
when reported at intervals, and provides a holistic understanding
when reported as an aggregate. Teacher educators may want to Although noticing seemingly originated within the discipline of
consider when they collect data and how frequent they collect to mathematics (Mason, 2002) and the literature on mathematics
data to be able to discern changes in prospective teacher noticing in teacher noticing is robust (Schack et al., 2017; Sherin et al., 2011;
support of a shift in researcher questions from asking if prospective Stahnke et al., 2016), the construct has gained prominence in other
14
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

disciplines, such as science and literacy education (e.g. Gibson & Amador, J., & Weiland, I. (2015). What preservice teachers and knowledgeable
others professionally notice during lesson study. The Teacher Educator, 50(2),
Ross, 2016; Luna & Sherin, 2017). Even though our focus was
109e126.
limited to the field of mathematics education because of the large Amador, J., Weston, T., Estapa, A., Kosko, K., & de Araujo, Z. (2016b). Animations as a
and established research base that goes back at least two decades transformational approximation of practice for preservice teachers to
(e.g. Mason, 2002; Sherin et al., 2011), the findings of this study may communicate professional noticing. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
24(2), 127e151.
provide insight for researchers and teacher educators in other Anghileri, J. (2006). Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning.
disciplines who may be considering intervention designs to sup- Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 33e52.
port noticing in their students’ coursework. The findings in this Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonders of exemplary performance. In
J. N. Mangieri, & C. Collins Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and
literature review expand the collective understanding about students (pp. 141e186). Ft. Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
teacher noticing to create pathways for future research on noticing Booth, A. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic re-
across disciplines, studies that are generative, multidisciplinary and views: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 74(5), 1e23.
Callejo, M. L., & Zapatera, A. (2017). Prospective primary teachers’ noticing of stu-
build on prior work in logical ways. As such, this study on noticing dents’ understanding of pattern generalization. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
in mathematics provides a foundation for conducting similar re- Education, 20(4), 309e333.
views in other disciplines where the study of teacher noticing has Castro Superfine, A., Li, W., Bragelman, J., & Fisher, A. (2015). Examining the use of
video to support preservice elementary teachers’ noticing of children’s
emerged more recently. thinking. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(2), 137e157.
We contend that teacher educators and researchers focused on Castro Superfine, A., Fisher, A., Bragelman, J., & Amador, J. (2017). Shifting per-
noticing should consider more concretely the various categories we spectives on preservice teachers’ noticing of children’s mathematical thinking.
In E. Schack, M. Fisher, & J. Wilhelm (Eds.), Building Perspectives of Teacher
have identified and how these may relate to the findings of their
Noticing (pp. 409e426). New York: Springer.
studies, as we consider these categories and the realization that it is Ding, L., & Domínguez, H. (2016). Opportunities to notice: Chinese prospective
difficult to draw conclusions about noticing. In our analysis process, teachers noticing students’ ideas in a distance formula lesson. Journal of
we coined terms for learning experience timescale (i.e. single Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(4), 325e347.
Dreher, A., & Kuntze, S. (2015a). Teachers’ professional knowledge and noticing: The
instance, more than single; less than a semester; semester). We case of multiple representations in the mathematics classroom. Educational
coined terms for data collection timescale (i.e. single time point, Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 89e114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-
dual time point, multiple time point, multiple time point-presented 9577-8
de Araujo, Z., Amador, J., Estapa, A., Weston, T., Aming-Attai, R., & Kosko, K. W.
as aggregate). We categorized data documentation types (i.e. (2015). Animating preservice teachers’ noticing. Mathematics Teacher Education
written documentation and technological artifact, written docu- and Development, 17(2), 25e44.
mentation, written documentation and video/audio or transcript, Estapa, A., & Amador, J. (2016). Wearable cameras as a tool to capture preservice
teachers’ marked and recorded noticing. Journal of Technology and Teacher Ed-
video/audio or transcript). And, we also attempted to create cate- ucation, 24(3), 281e307.
gories to classify the results from the studies (e.g. a) Improved, Frederiksen, J. R. (1992). Learning to “see”: Scoring video portfolios or “beyond the
Positive, or Higher Level of Noticing, b) Stagnant or Mixed Level, or hunter-gatherer in performance assessment. San Francisco: ” Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Inconsistent, c) Declined, Negative, or Lower Level of Noticing, or d) Gibson, S., & Ross, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional noticing. Theory Into Practice, 55,
Other, Not able to Categorize). These categories provide future re- 108e188.
searchers language to use to consider other extant studies, whether Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606e633.
Huang, R., & Li, Y. (2012). Pursuing excellence in mathematics classroom instruction
related to noticing or not.
through exemplary lesson development in China: A case study. ZDMdThe In-
When creating these categories, we recognized that researchers ternational Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 297e309.
have used context (i.e. the course) to describe the constraints of the Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s
design and data collection, but studies that collect data across mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2),
169e202.
multiple time points do not always label their designs as repeated Jacobs, V. R., & Spangler, D. A. (2017). Research on core practices in K-12 mathe-
measures. Likewise, not all researchers were forthcoming with all matics teaching. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics edu-
aspects of their methodology, which complicates replication or cation (pp. 766e792). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kilic, H. (2018). Pre-service Mathematics teachers’ noticing skills and scaffolding
understanding for others. We would encourage researchers practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2),
(including ourselves) to be more transparent with methodological 377e400.
decisions in our research and with the rationales behind the de- Kilic, H., & Tunc Pekkan, Z. (2017). University-school collaboration as a tool for
promoting pre-service mathematics teachers’ professional skills. International
cisions made. For example, if we plan a learning experience that is Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 3(2), 383e394. https://
six weeks in duration, researchers should provide rationale for the doi.org/10.21890/ijres.327897
timespan and to label the process according to one of the afore- Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptu-
alizing mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on stu-
mentioned categories. Or as another example, if data is collected in dent thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 88e124.
written form, researchers could be more descriptive about how the Luna, M. J., & Sherin, M. G. (2017). Using a video club design to promote teacher
data were collected and why a written process was selected. We attention to students’ ideas in science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66,
282e294.
recognize that researchers likely include information in their
Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. Routledge.
methodological descriptions they see pertinent and we commend Mason, J. (2011). Noticing: Roots and branches. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, &
them for this; however, including more detail may better support R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing though teachers’ eyes
others who may want to implement a similar process. (pp. 35e50). New York: Routledge.
Meikle, E. (2014). Preservice teachers’ competencies to select and sequence stu-
dents’ solution strategies for productive whole-class discussions. Mathematics
Teacher Educator, 3(1), 27e57.
References Mitchell, R., & Marin, K. (2015). Examining the use of a structured analysis frame-
work to support prospective teacher noticing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Amador, J. M. (2017). Preservice teachers’ video simulations and subsequent Education, 18(6), 551e575.
noticing: A practice-based method to prepare mathematics teachers. Research Moyer-Packenham, P., & Milewicz, E. (2002). Learning to question: Categories of
in Mathematics Education, 19, 217e235. questioning used by preservice teachers during diagnostic mathematics in-
Amador, J., & Carter, I. (2018). Audible conversational affordances and constraints of terviews. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(4), 293e315.
verbalizing professional noticing during preservice teacher lesson study. Journal National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2019). Retrieved from: https://www.
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21, 5e34. nctm.org/journals/.
Amador, J. M., Carter, I., & Hudson, R. A. (2016a). Analyzing preservice mathematics Osmanoglu, A., Isiksal, M., & Koc, Y. (2015). Getting ready for the profession: Pro-
teachers’ professional noticing. Action in Teacher Education, 38(4), 371e383. spective teachers’ noticing related to teacher actions. Australian Journal of
Amador, J., Estapa, A., de Araujo, Z., Weston, T., & Kosko, K. (2017). Eliciting and Teacher Education, 40(2), 29e51.
analyzing preservice teachers’ mathematical noticing. Mathematics Teacher Phelps-Gregory, C. M., & Spitzer, S. M. (2018). Developing prospective teachers’
Educator, 5, 158e177. ability to diagnose evidence of student thinking: Replicating a classroom

15
J.M. Amador, J. Bragelman and A.C. Superfine Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021) 103256

intervention. In T. Leuders, K. Philipp, & J. Leuders (Eds.), Diagnostic competence Teacher Education, 11, 107e125.
of mathematics teachers. Mathematics teacher education (Vol. 11). Cham: Sun, J., & van Es, E. A. (2015). An exploratory study of the influence that analyzing
Springer. teaching has on preservice teachers’ classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Ed-
Roth McDuffie, A., Foote, M. Q., Bolson, C., Turner, E. E., Aguirre, J. M., Bartell, T. G., ucation, 66(3), 201e214.
et al. (2014). Using video analysis to support prospective Ke8 teachers’ noticing Thomas, J., Jong, C., Fisher, M. H., & Schack, E. O. (2017). Noticing and knowledge:
of students’ multiple mathematical knowledge bases. Journal of Mathematics Exploring theoretical connections between professional noticing and mathe-
Teacher Education, 17(3), 245e270. matical knowledge for teaching. Mathematics Educator, 26(2), 3e25.
Schack, E. O., Fisher, M. H., Thomas, J. N., Eisenhardt, S., Tassell, J., & Yoder, M. (2013). van Es, E. A. (2011). A framework for learning to notice student thinking. In
Prospective elementary school teachers’ Professional noticing of children’s early M. G. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing
numeracy. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16, 379e397. through teachers’ eyes. 134-151. New York: Routledge.
Schack, E. O., Fisher, M. H., & Wilhelm, J. A. (Eds.). (2017). Teacher noticing: Bridging van Es, E. A., Cashen, M., Barnhart, T., & Auger, A. (2017). Learning to notice
and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks. Springer. mathematics instruction: Using video to develop preservice teachers’ vision of
Sherin, M. G., & Dyer, E. B. (2017). Mathematics teachers’ self-captured video and ambitious pedagogy. Cognition and Instruction, 35(3), 165e187.
opportunities for learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20, van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’
477e495. interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Sherin, M., Jacobs, V., & Philipp, R. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Education, 10(4), 571e597.
Seeing through teachers’ eyes. Routledge. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). How different video club designs support
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. teachers in "Learning to Notice. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22,
Educational Researcher, 15, 4e14. 125e135.
Son, J. (2013). How preservice teachers interpret and respond to student errors: van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “Learning to Notice” in
Ratio and proportion in similar rectangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244e276.
84, 49e70. Walkoe, J. (2015). Exploring teacher noticing of student algebraic thinking in a video
Spitzer, S. M., Phelps, C. M., Beyers, J. E. R., Johnson, D. Y., & Sieminski, E. S. (2011). club. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(6), 523e550.
Developing pre-service elementary teachers’ abilities to identify evidence of Weiland (Carter), I. S., & Amador, J. M. (2015). Lexical and indexical conversational
student mathematical achievement. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, components that mediate professional noticing during lesson study. Eurasia
14(1), 67e87. Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(6), 1339e1361.
Stahnke, R., Schueler, S., & Roesken-Winter, B. (2016). Teachers’ perception, inter- Weiland, I., Hudson, R., & Amador, J. (2014). Preservice formative assessment in-
pretation, and decision-making: A systematic review of empirical mathematics terviews: The development of competent questioning. International Journal of
education research. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48, 1e27. Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 329e352.
Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve Williams, S. R., & Leatham, K. R. (2017). Journal quality in mathematics education.
preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(4), 369e396.

16