I left pursuing my PhD to become a high school math teacher, so I'm familiar with academia. Thus, I find the review of the book offered to be quite misleading.
"This is a very timely book which should become essential reading for psychologists and people working in the areas of primary education and secondary mathematics. This collection of papers goes a long way to make research on the development of mathematical knowledge accessible to teachers while in no way compromising its scholarship."
True, this book is an excellent collection of research in mathematics education. It does not compromise its scholarship. On the other hand, it uses academic vocabulary and conventions that will not be familiar to the average math teacher. I was only familiar with some of the conventions because of some courses I took in behavioral psychology!! So I do not think it is really as accessible as the reviewer or the editors think. The detail on the studies is excessive, and the conclusions and discussion are the parts that will be more interesting to a secondary teacher. Those sections are, unfortunately, the most brief.
"Teachers and psychologists interested in mathematical development will do well to invest time and effort in reading and re-reading this collection in order to extend their understanding of the processes involved in both learning and teaching. /STRONG - EM Review in British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17:4, 1999, by Rhona Stainthorp, University of Reading. /EM "
Note this review was written in a developmental psychology journal. We are not even required to take a course in developmental psychology to get a teaching credential. A lot of the motivation behind the research will be lost on a typical math teacher. Many of the research conclusions will be "well, yeah. I observe that in my students all the time. WHAT am I supposed to do about it??"
I also thought the "International Perspective" of the title to be rather misleading. The research is mainly from Europe and the United States. Since the editors are in the UK, this makes sense. The research with any reference to practices in Asia was about "Happy Birthday" and the abacus. I find it a little odd that Asia doesn't have more to offer than that. And the research doesn't even touch upon comparative analyses between or across countries in a meaningful way. Why are there disparaties in mathematical abilities in different countries, especially for a "superpower" like the United States?
I think this text is more appropriate for those pursuing a master's or PhD in curriculum/instruction for mathematics. So if you're an academic that wants a good collection of current research, this may be the text for you. Skip it if you want more practical stuff to apply in your secondary math classroom.